Forget Cheteshwar Pujara, why did India leave out Murali Vijay against West Indies?

Picking three openers could not have harmed India; if anything, it would have done a world of good to Murali Vijay for 3rd Test against West Indies.

Murali Vijay would, in all probability, not have poked at that ball from Alzarri Joseph © AFP

Fans and critics, both armchair and otherwise, were in for a triple-shock when Virat Kohli announced the Indian team changes at the toss before the third Test against West Indies at the Darren Sammy International Stadium, Gros Islet, St Lucia. The Indian team management decided to leave out Amit Mishra, Umesh Yadav, and Cheteshwar Pujara to rope in Ravindra Jadeja, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, and Rohit Sharma. While Jadeja and Bhuvneshwar are yet to stride out on to the field, Rohit has failed to live up to expectations, assuming there were any. FULL CRICKET SCORECARD: India vs West Indies 2016, 3rd Test at St Lucia

Leaving out Mishra for Jadeja probably made sense. While Mishra managed to turn the ball when the pitch had eased out on the last day in the second Test at Sabina Park, he did not really trouble the West Indians on Day Five, for the batsmen always found time to play him as the surface slowed down. Jadeja, much quicker through the air and armed with the ability of zipping the ball through, seemed a more sensible option.

[read-also]481654[/read-also]

Similarly, given how the West Indian new-ball bowlers have performed, India probably made the right choice by opting for Bhuvneshwar Kumar, who has the ability to do the same, albeit at a slower pace.

So far, so good.

Dropping Pujara made sense as well. Though he has made 16 and 46 in the series, he batted at a strike rate of 27, which was perhaps unacceptable given the facts that he was never under pressure and India needed quick runs (especially in the rain-affected second Test).

[read-also]481449[/read-also]

Great teams in the past have always scored quickly. True, they have had batsmen who had held one end up if chips were down, but Sid Barnes, Desmond Haynes, Larry Gomes, and Justin Langer were not exactly slow batsmen. Pujara’s ordinary overseas numbers outside the subcontinent has not really been a great advertisement for him, either.

No, even if Kohli and Anil Kumble made an error when they picked Rohit ahead of Pujara, it was not an obvious one. In a press release after the day’s play, Indian batting coach Sanjay Bangar told the media that Murali Vijay was, indeed, match-fit.

Which brings us to the question: why did India not pick Vijay ahead of Rohit or Dhawan?

Let us crunch into some number-crunching first.

Tests outside subcontinent since 2014 before the St Lucia Test

Player	I	NO	R	Ave	BF	SR	100s	BF / dismissal
KL Rahul	5	0	288	57.6	618	46.6	2	123.6
Virat Kohli	24	1	1,284	55.83	2,097	61.2	6	91.2
Ajinkya Rahane	23	3	990	49.5	1,740	56.9	4	87
Murali Vijay	23	0	939	40.83	2,094	44.8	2	91
Shikhar Dhawan	18	0	615	34.17	1,033	59.5	1	57.4
Ravichandran Ashwin	12	2	335	33.5	640	52.3	1	64
MS Dhoni	17	1	534	33.38	981	54.4		61.3
Rohit Sharma	12	1	329	29.91	755	43.6		68.6
Bhuvneshwar Kumar	12	2	297	29.7	622	47.7		62.2
Ravindra Jadeja	11	1	259	25.9	378	68.5		37.8
Cheteshwar Pujara	22	0	545	24.77	1,390	39.2		63.2

Before we embark upon the Vijay vs Rohit argument, let us have a look at Pujara’s numbers. It was a matter of choosing between India’s worst two performers outside the subcontinent. Pujara’s two performances on flat tracks contributed little to his cause, and retaining him ahead of Rohit made little sense.

Even if one argues that a batsman needed to grind it out in the first session on the St Lucia pitch, it made little sense to pick Pujara ahead of Rohit, who has actually lasted longer than Pujara at the crease per dismissal.

[read-also]481502[/read-also]

In short, Pujara was not being an Alastair Cook. Not only was he not scoring runs, he was also not lasting at the wicket.

Curiously, if one considers the balls faced per dismissal column, KL Rahul leads the way, though one can argue that he has not had sufficient outings at the crease. If one takes him away, Kohli and Vijay are the joint leaders (if one ignores the difference of 0.2 balls) followed by Ajinkya Rahane.

Kohli added: “Rohit Sharma can change sessions in a Test match. Taking nothing away from Pujara; he has been solid. Everybody needs to get chances.”

But Rohit has hardly done that in recent past outside the subcontinent. To be very specific, he had done that exactly once, at Eden Park in February 14. That was two-and-a-half years ago. India were 10 for 3 when Rohit had walked out, and he slammed a 120-ball 72 when nobody else crossed 30. India were bowled out for 202.

[read-also]481592[/read-also]

Barring that, Rohit has played exactly two decent (not excellent) innings in this period, both in the Sydney Test of 2014-15. His 59 and 32 were crucial, but he hardly “changed sessions in a Test match”.

That does not hold for Pujara as well, who, despite being a moderately aggressive batsman in the domestic circuit, gets bogged down when he plays at the highest level. Worse, he has not done anything of note in recent past.

But this is not about Pujara. This is about Vijay. Why was Vijay left out? This is the same Vijay who had grafted it out at Trent Bridge with 146 and 52. He scored 24 and 95 at Lord’s, which were crucial in India going 1-0 up.

Vijay had failed in the last 3 Tests of the series, scoring 75 at 12.50. As a result India never got the starts under testing conditions. It was not a coincidence that they lost all 3.

At Adelaide he got 53 and 99, and added 68 to that at MCG and 80 at SCG, for good measure. But in between all that, at The Gabba, he played what Kohli labelled as changing “sessions in a Test match”.

Vijay had taken on Mitchell Johnson, Josh Hazlewood, and Mitchell Starc that day. At tea, he was on 73 from 157 balls. He fell halfway through the third session, adding another 71 in 46 balls. Do the arithmetic. Even in the second innings he had blazed away to a 39-ball 27 before Starc had caught him in two minds.

Why exactly was Vijay left out in favour of Dhawan (the only one barring Jadeja to have lasted 10 overs an innings) and Rohit (who averaged 30 as opposed to Vijay’s 41)? Do note that Vijay’s strike rate has been higher than Rohit’s as well, so there was no indication that Rohit was the obvious choice.

Bangar’s statement to ESPNCricinfo tells us a thing or two: “It was the management’s decision to stick with Shikhar Dhawan. KL had a phenomenal last game and the team management felt Shikhar had done enough to keep his place in the team … That was the reason behind Vijay not making it to the playing XI.”

India were basically looking for a like-to-like replacement, and went by the logic that if an opener has to play, it has to be as a replacement for an opener. This is in stark contrast to the approach over a decade back, when they had promoted Virender Sehwag as opener to fit him in the side. Australia have had similar success with Langer, and to some extent, Simon Katich; and so on.

	As opener			At No. 3
	I	R	Ave	I	R	Ave
David Boon	63	2,614	45.07	111	4,412	45.48
Gary Kirsten	149	5,726	41.8	14	922	70.92

It has worked the other way as well. When Mark Taylor had arrived David Boon had dropped to No. 3 to accommodate him at the top. Gary Kirsten had done the same when Graeme Smith showed up (as captain, no less).

While Kirsten’s tenure may look small, it includes an England tour, where he scored 462 runs from 7 innings at No. 3 at a whopping 66. This included a run of 108, 130, 60, and 90.

[read-also]205801[/read-also]

And we all know how Michael Hussey, despite being an opener for Western Australia in Sheffield Shield, adjusted in the middle-order in the Test side throughout his career.

No, India probably missed out on a trick while selecting a team. Picking three openers could not have harmed the team; if anything, it would have done a world of good to Vijay, who, despite his failure at North Sound, has been sound (if you mind the pun) when and where it has mattered.

He would, in all probability, not have poked at that ball from Alzarri Joseph. Or bat with a strike rate of 28 without any perceptible reason.