3 primary reasons why India lost the series to England

England completed the series win over India, comfortably winning the 4th Test by 60 runs to take an unassailable 3-1 lead in the 5 Test series, with one match still to go.

Sam Curran's defiant runs in the face of an England collapse in the 1st innings played a pivotal role in England's win as he pushed what would have been a 150 all out to a par score, and then Moeen Ali ran through the Indian batting line up in both of India's innings to finish with 9 wickets from the match, and seal the win for England.

For India, it was an all too familiar story on overseas tours, and the no. 1 side in the world have no choice but to reflect back on yet another story of what could have been.

It was not all doom and gloom for India on this tour and the Indian seam bowling delivered in all the Tests, and at times even out bowled their English counterparts for large portions of the series.

However, the series is 3-1 to England and let's look at why things went wrong, yet again for India on an overseas tour.

Indian batsmen become indispensable too easily

India need new openers

The Indian batsmen are assured of their places in the XI based on past good performances for far too long. Till recently Murali Vijay was a regular in the playing XI based on some good scores he had in 2014/2015.

KL Rahul continues to be given chances in the Indian Test team largely based on the one Test 100 he scored in Australia in 2015.

Rahul has a lot of good qualities as a batsman, and he could very well go on to have a stellar white ball career for India, but as far as red ball cricket goes, he has done little with the bat to continue to be a regular in the playing XI.

In the 13 innings he has played in SA and England, he has an avg. of 15.15. How could anyone possibly explain his continuous selection to play test cricket for India?

Then there is the case of Ajinkya Rahane, who is treated as an indispensable pillar of the Indian Test team. No one will deny that he scored a fine 50 in testing conditions in the final innings but since 01 Jan 2017, Rahane's avg. with the bat is a very pedestrian 31.14 in 29 innings.

It begs the question how someone with such distinctly ordinary stats over such a large sample pool of 29 innings, is so assured of a place in India's Test team, let alone how he is considered an indispensable member of the team.

Since the start of 2018, his avg is 26.09 in 11 innings. His continued selection is tough to explain. He is another batsman in this team who seems to have made a career out of that one 100 he scored on a difficult pitch in 2014 at Lord's.

Rahane's place in the XI is beyond question even though he averages mere 31.14 since 01 Jan 2017

These batsmen are keeping out some very fine talents like Vihari, Prithvi Shaw and Karun Nair, who had to make way after scoring a 300 on Test debut, and hasn't been able to get back in the playing XI, despite the fact that the batsmen in the XI are delivering some very very ordinary numbers.

Shikhar Dhawan has been given enough opportunities and Indian cricket fans will have to accept that Dhawan is a stellar opener in Asia (avg of 61 in Tests in Asia), but just doesn't have the technique to deliver overseas.

Even Cheteshwar Pujara had very poor stats in overseas Tests, but he did score a superlative 100 in the 1st inns, so we will leave Pujara out of this discussion for now.

Indian Test team spot cannot be secured so easily and batsmen must continue to perform at a high level to retain their spots. They cannot score one good 100 and then kick back and relax, assured of the fact that, that one good knock will secure their spot in the XI for eons to come, as seems to be happening currently.

Indian Test team is not a clique and cannot be treated like one. Either perform in every series or you make way for someone else, should be the norm.

The upcoming Test series against West Indies in India presents a perfect opportunity to introduce new faces like Prithvi Shaw, Vihari to Test cricket and reintroduce Karun Nair to the XI as well.

From there this new look team should be taken to the tour to Australia instead of sticking with the likes of KL Rahul, Rahane and Shikhar Dhawan, who have been inconsistent, if one is polite, and not good enough if one is brutally honest.

Poor Strategical Decision Making

Playing Pandya seems to disturb the balance of the playing XI rather than enhance it

Ever since Kohli became captain, he seemed married to the idea of playing 5 bowlers in every Test. There is no question that the seam attack has blossomed under Kohli's captaincy, but the balance of the playing XI has taken a hit.

The Indian batting line up has become very shallow. If any team gets past Rahane, that is picks up 5 wickets, they are effectively into the Indian tail. The so-called all-rounders - be it the allrounders who bowl - Pandya, or the keeping all-rounders- be it Parthiv Patel or Dinesh Karthik or Rishabh Pant, have not delivered.

The question must be asked whether India need to play 5 bowlers, even on very bowler friendly pitches. Are 4 high-quality bowlers not enough for such wickets?

On seaming wickets like England, losing wickets to the new ball is the norm, and if 2 early wickets fall, then that leaves India playing with effectively just 3 batsmen.

As it is the batsmen tend to struggle overseas and that India only effectively play 3 batsmen to begin with, really compounds the batting issues.

Must Hardik Pandya be such a regular feature in every Test? The Indian team seem unsure of exactly how to use him.

Perhaps India could look to play Pandya on really green tops and drop one of Ishant or Shami. With a lot of help from the pitch, Pandya could deliver the wickets, and India could play an extra batsman in place of the one bowler they left out, while also leaving open the possibility for Pandya to deliver some runs on a difficult wicket lower down the order.

On wickets that don't offer a lot of help to the bowlers, Pandya doesn't really seem to fit in any role. He doesn't have enough to pick up a lot of wickets, neither does he seem to have enough to score a lot of runs on such wickets. In such cases perhaps it would be best to leave out Pandya and play an extra batsman in his place and play the best Indian seam bowlers.

Either alternative would provide more balance to the team, but the current approach of Kohli and the team management to doggedly play Pandya in every Test, seems to be hurting the balance of the team, and leaving the Indian batting too shallow.

Additionally, the approach of the team management seems to be reactive rather than pro-active in so far as playing combinations goes. India missed a trick by not playing the 2nd spinner in the 1st Test of the England vs India series, and having committed that mistake, they played the 2nd spinner at Lord's where the conditions were not at all helpful to spinners.

Posted this during the 2nd test. Sure enough Kohli never got back to a 2nd spinner, even though on the 4th test dry WKT, surely Jadeja shd hv been picked over Pandya.Ind's problems hv as much to do w/ strategy as quality.#ENGvINDhttps://t.co/83THKOtwQh

— LayEggBeforeWicket (@LayEgg_B4_Wkt) September 2, 2018

I had posted this tweet during the 2nd Test at Lord's and sure enough, in the 4th Test when the pitch was dry and India should have played 2 spinners the team management stuck with only 1 spinner, because when they tried the 2 spinners approach earlier, it had not paid off.

This kind of a confused, chasing the tail, approach to team selection also hurts India's chances overseas. It is very easy to be wise in hindsight, but on a dry wicket like the one used in the 4th Test, surely Jadeja should have played ahead of Pandya.

He brings at least as much to the table with the bat, as Pandya, and would have been a handful with the ball, especially in England's second innings. At the very least it would not be incorrect to say that he would have found the pitch in the 4th Test far more in tune with his skill sets as a bowler than Hardik Pandya did.

Such strategical gaffes have as much to do with India's failure to win this series as the lack of quality in the batting line up.

Another aspect to look at is why attacking batsmen like Pandya and Pant seem to be curbing their natural game and relying overwhelmingly on the weaker of the two aspects of batting - defense.

For instance, Hardik Pandya got out in the 2nd innings trying to defend a short pitched delivery. In white ball cricket he would have been trying to pull that same delivery over mid wicket for a six. At the very least he would have played an attacking shot to that delivery.

Instead, just because, it is red ball cricket, he was trying to defend that delivery, which is not his strength. Hardik Pandya the batsman is not known for his great defense. As a batsman you cannot just toss out the aspect that is your strength, attack, and then hope that the aspect that you are weak at, defense, will help you play long innings against a high class bowling line up.

Take a look at how Curran played, he backed himself to play his natural attacking game, and didn't curb his instincts at all. Of course depending on the merit of the ball he did defend deliveries, but his natural instinct to attack was ever present.

The same couldn't be said of Pandya for much of the series and even Pant played a highly uncharacteristic 0 of 29 balls in the first innings. Pant was his own self later in the 2nd innings, but Pandya for much of the series has tried to bat like someone else.

If Pandya has to get out for low scores, I would prefer he get out playing his natural game, like Pant in the 2nd innings, than get out looking to defend every ball and pretending to possess the defensive abilities of a Rahul Dravid.

By playing such a game, he greatly limits his effectiveness as a batsman. However, the issue is why hasn't the team management been guiding the players on these basic aspects.

Moeen Ali outdid Ashwin with the ball on the dry pitch

Moeen Ali was the star for England

The series was sealed with England's win in the 4th Test, but, the match was very close for much of the contest, which both teams having their noses in front at various points during the Test.

The pivotal difference was made by Moeen Ali who bagged 9 wickets in the Test, whereas Ashwin went missing with the ball, esp. in the 3rd innings, when the pitch had dried out and there was plenty of turn on offer.

Ashwin failed to settle on the correct speed to bowl and also failed to consistently hit the rough outside the right handers' off-stump. Moeen Ali on the other hand, bowled slower, tossed the ball, hit the rough and got the ball to bounce and spin sharply.

It is very likely that Ashwin was not fully fit, but if that was the case, then why was he played to begin with. Wouldn't it have been better to play Jadeja, who is also a proven spinner on pitches that offer assistance to his art. This again hints at some dodgy strategical decision making in the dressing room.

However the blame in this regard must also be shared by Indian batsmen who failed to play Moeen Ali properly, which is not a first, by any means. On previous occasions also Indian batsmen have been found wanting against spinners and it is now said that this generation of Indian batsmen doesn't play spin anyway near as well as the previous generations did.

The BCCI must look into why that is. Does it have something to do with the fact that Indian batsmen, once they break into the Indian team, stop playing Ranji trophy games, and thus no longer get to face spin as much.

Whatever be the case, the bottom line is that Moeen Ali titled the balance of the Test and thus the series England's way, while Ashwin failed to deliver.