Yahoo News 
Rohit Sharma or Cheteshwar Pujara? Varun Aaron or Bhuvi Kumar? India’s Second Test dilemmas
India’s 63-run defeat following two-and-a-half days of complete domination against Sri Lanka was another gut-wrenching reminder that there is still a long way to go before Indian cricket can even hope to solve its overseas puzzle.
All the talk of “aggression”, “intent” and “attitude” (keywords in skipper Virat Kohli’s vision) fell flat in the face of Dinesh Chandimal’s onslaught on Day Three and Rangana Herath’s wizardry on Day Four. In times of tribulation, the visitors showed little signs of valour while their opponents miraculously turned around a lost cause.
THE FIVE-BOWLER THEORY
Coming into the series, Kohli was adamant about playing five bowlers in the team in order to pick up 20 wickets. It was an idea derived from the ghosts of India’s bowling past. In only 49 (67 percent) of 73 innings since Kohli made his Test debut had the Indian bowlers bowled out their opposition - conceding 400-plus on 13 occasions and 500-plus on seven. The batsmen had been chasing the game far too often. A change was needed and Kohli’s ideas were by and large welcomed with open arms.
However, the five-bowler theory ignored the ghosts of India’s present. It ignored the instability in the batting line-up, half of which wasn’t in form and unsure of its place in the first XI. It ignored that India’s wicketkeeper, Wriddhiman Saha, had an average of 17 and could not really be considered as the sixth batsman. It also ignored that two of its spinners, Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra, were essentially in the squad due to a lack of better options rather than on merit.
While all of this did combine to eventually blow up in Kohli’s face, the situation was made decisively worse by the skipper’s own decisions on the first morning of the Test match. Rohit Sharma was picked ahead of Cheteshwar Pujara to bat at number three, while Varun Aaron kept Bhuvneshwar Kumar out of the line-up. These were choices made in line with Kohli’s desire for aggression but they proved to be two moves too many.
SHARMA OR PUJARA?
Rohit’s inclusion in the first XI remains puzzling to say the least. His four innings on the current tour, including the Tour match, now read: 7, 8, 9 and 4. In all four, his defence has been breached (bowled or LBW) with embarrassing ease. In both innings of the first Test, he was called upon after the loss of an early wicket. Instead of stabilising the innings, he left India – who were already playing a batsman less – in deeper strife.
The skipper considers Rohit an “impact player” who has the potential to help India win more Tests by “keeping the scoring rate going”. Even Sanjay Bangar, India’s batting coach, cites the “flair factor” behind his selection at number three. The 28-year-old has been given a rather long rope in comparison to Pujara and there is very little to justify doing so.
His only innings of note in Test cricket were his first two: 177 and unbeaten 111 at home against a feeble West Indian attack in 2013. The rest of his career has yielded an average of 21 in 19 innings and is filled with failures in South Africa, New Zealand and England along with an unspectacular return Down Under.
In Rohit’s case, it is his One-Day International and Twenty20 exploits that are counting in his favour – which is disconcerting for specialists like Pujara. Granted Pujara isn’t in great form either – an average of 24 in his last 20 innings – but he has a comfortably superior technique and boasts double hundreds against Australia and England (in a series India lost) along with a majestic ton in South Africa.
Which of the two, Pujara or Rohit, would you rather see at number three in overseas Tests? If Kohli is planning for the long term and not solely for a string of upcoming home series – where Rohit is bound to come good – Pujara and not Rohit should be his go-to man.
- INTERVIEW: Anwar Ali on plotting a permanent Pakistan place
- FEATURE: How Bangladesh are building to take on cricket's elite
- Viv Richards - Clarke should not be remembered for Ashes loss
- #360stats: A history of the Test rivalry between Sri Lanka & India
AARON OR KUMAR?
Over in the bowling department, the raw pace of Aaron was preferred to the guile and control of Kumar. It was another of Kohli’s choices that backfired emphatically. It was quite a surprising selection on two accounts. First, Bhuvi appeared to have rediscovered his mojo on the tour to Zimbabwe. And second, between Ishant Sharma and Aaron, there was no variety in the pace attack.
Even when India were on top in the first innings, with Ravichandran Ashwin (6/46) papering over the cracks in India’s bowling, Aaron conceded more than a third of Sri Lanka’s total of 183 at over six runs per over. In the second innings, too, he bowled only seven overs but conceded 39 runs at 5.57.
Aggression isn’t only about pace. It’s also about disciplined bowling that helps contain opposition and create chances through the attacking fields. Aaron was inconsistent and wayward in his bowling, not someone you would want to bowl in tandem with. He took the pressure off the Sri Lankan batsmen through loose deliveries and his pace only assisted the batsmen in their stroke-making.
TIME FOR CHANGE
Changes are certain for the second Test in Colombo. Shikhar Dhawan has left the tour due to injury and Murali Vijay is still touch-and-go. Stuart Binny has arrived, suggesting that the gig might be up for Harbhajan - who cut an uninspiring figure throughout the first Test. The Indian team is in desperate need of an all-rounder to lend a better balance to the starting XI. In such a case, Binny is the only candidate who fits the bill and so his presence makes sense.
Skipper Kohli, though, must right his wrongs at least in terms of team selection if not the six-batsmen-plus-five-bowlers setup. He might be a gambler by nature but Kohli must learn to play the percentages if he wishes to succeed in the long run.
