India deserved to win the series.
India were part of a strange series in England, where they did most things right and still somehow managed to draw it on the final day. They batted well, bowled better than the opponent, and still found themselves almost losing the rubber. They were ahead on most metrics, won more sessions, but the opponent still didn’t let them run away.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that India were the better side throughout the series, despite being visitors and having a young set of players. Their batters showed more application, bowlers were more immaculate, and they put England under more pressure. Number-wise, India were superior and deserved to win the series.
It all started with the batting, which was India’s strongest suit on this tour. They just batted, batted, and batted so much that England were sick of their sight on flat surfaces. Overall, they faced a whopping 6,361 balls, the most they have ever encountered in a Test series, compared to England’s 4,898 deliveries, which means India faced 23% more deliveries.
India (39.77) averaged higher than England (37.57) and hit more fifties (16 vs 13) and centuries (12 vs nine). They had as many as five batters with 400+ runs, three of them crossing 500, while England had only four such batters, with only one accumulating 500+. A young Indian batting unit outbatted England, who had some of the finest batters for home conditions.
India’s run rate (3.62) was not as high as England’s (4.17), but since they batted more overs, India often managed to score more than England. One key reason behind India’s deep batting was their ability to weave partnerships, even after untimely wickets. Indian batters had a partnership average of 42.32, slightly more than England’s 40.21.
But this doesn’t paint a clear picture. If we compare each wicket, we find that Indian batters performed better than their English counterparts at most positions. Among the top eight wickets, Indian batters have averaged higher in five different batting positions, suggesting that they kept scoring even after the previous one was dismissed.
India had the best luxury possible in overseas Tests; they could play as many as two quality spinners who were equally capable of batting. Their batting expertise proved a difference, as Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar stepped up at various points with the bat. Indian spinners (55.50) averaged better than England spinners (72.46) in the series.
But that was not just it. Jadeja ended the series as India’s third-best batter, scoring more than 500 runs at an average of 86 in 10 innings, including five fifties and a century. Meanwhile, Washington scored more than 250 at an average of 47.33 in eight innings, comprising one fifty and a century.
This was a major difference from English specialist spinners, who collectively scored 42 runs. Be it Manchester or The Oval, the Indian spinners contributed immensely with the willow and also snared wickets in patches. Then, they didn’t compete with the ball either.
The spinners didn’t have enough workload, but whenever the team required tight spells after some beating, they ensured providing them. There were also a few magic balls in between, like the one to Ben Stokes at Edgbaston and Harry Brook at Manchester. The ploy to have a spinner with more batting value proved handy.
ALSO READ:
Collectively, Indian pacers averaged 34.95 this series, better than England’s 36.53. They took more five-wicket hauls (five) and also had a 10-wicket haul. Indian bowlers had a better average in most phases, including with a slightly older ball.
In the first 15 overs, India took a wicket at 41.50 runs apiece compared to England’s 48. But when the shine disappeared, that’s when their value increased more. Between over 31 and 79, India took 34 wickets at an average of 46.76, while England got 28 at 61.46.
Comparing the top three wicket-takers from both sides gives an interesting idea. India’s three best pacers – Jasprit Bumrah, Mohammed Siraj, and Prasidh Krishna – averaged (31.9) better than England’s best – Ben Stokes, Josh Tongue, and Chris Woakes (33.1). Another thing is that these Indian speedsters conceded only 3.97 runs per over, while their counterparts gave 3.47.
This suggests that England’s batters couldn’t really score as quickly as they would have liked and lost wickets more often against the best Indian bowlers. On the other hand, Indian batters maintained a decent scoring rate while also averaging higher against England’s best. Then, India’s other pacers also fared better than England’s.
The quality in England’s pace department was higher than India’s, a team that had a relatively inexperienced attack. England had the likes of Jofra Archer, Gus Atkinson, and Brydon Carse, compared to the opponents, who had Akash Deep, Shardul Thakur, Nitish Kumar Reddy, and Anshul Kamboj. But that didn’t mean they were too behind.
Barring the top three wicket-takers of both teams, England’s pacers had only a slightly better average (40.4) than India’s (43.1). Three of four Indian quicks were on their maiden tour to England and still didn’t fall too far behind.
This reveals two points: how well Indian batters handled the pace threat and their supporting bowlers stepping up at various stages.
For more updates, follow CricXtasy on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Telegram, and YouTube.
