I would say it's conservative more than logical.Their thinking is we’ve got 2 of the best spinners in the world and one of the best quicks. Are we really benefitting from the 5th extra bowling option as much as we would shoring up the fragile batting?
Not saying I agree with it but it’s logical.
I agree based on how they seemingly neutralised Warne and McGrath in the 2001 series. And Murali a few times. Can't think of any others off the cuff. They did turn McGrath into an all rounder for one game in another series though..As a loose, off the cuff opinion, I feel like we've dealt pretty well with the opposition's main strike force over the years...like we form a game plan around denying the guy who's most likely to run through us. I'm sure that's 100% wrong statisically, though.
What's this about, I don't seem to remember at allThey did turn McGrath into an all rounder for one game in another series though..
Bro they just got 46 all outI would say it's conservative more than logical.
Is the Indian batting line up really that fragile?
If you go through the team :
●Best opening partnership in the world especially in these conditions
●Gill is averaging 50+ at No.3 this year
●The selectors have decided Kohli is undroppable so that's on them
●Sarfraz is incredible in these conditions
●Pant is probably the best keeper batsmen India have ever had
●Jadeja is an ATG Indian all rounder
●Ashwin is probably top 5 greatest No.8's in history
That's enough batting cover in my opinion, they just don't trust Kuldeep Yadav when his record says they should otherwise , it's the same line of thinking that made Ashwin warm the bench at the WTC final last year.
And that was not Kuldeep's fault , they would have dropped Sarfraz aswell if he didn't get that 100 and kept Rahul on.Bro they just got 46 all out
Lmao