Questions for India to ponder after the humiliating 10-wicket semifinal loss to England

The Indian team selection though out the tournament seemed to follow the "don't change when winning" philosophy largely. The only shuffling one saw was between Dinesh Karthik and Rishabh Pant for the wicketkeeper slot.

However, the other more dynamic school of thought — horses for courses — wasn't adhered to. Yuvendra Chahal wasn't given a game in the tournament and though it made sense at the start as the ball wasn't turning, not giving him a game in the last two matches should be debated.

There are two other reasons why Chahal sitting out should be questioned. One, England aren't great players of leg-spin and two, the most economical bowler of the match was England's Adil Rashid, who is an exponent of the same art.

Throughout the tournament, India left the bulk of the scoring for the last 4-5 overs of the match. This almost cost them against Pakistan in the first game but the miraculous escape engineered by Virat Kohli probably took away the attention from this. This strategy can work for some great finishers of the game while chasing a target but while setting one, needs a second thought.

The design however might be because India's top-three batters all love to take their time at the start. KL Rahul and Rohit Sharma are definitely explosive batters but they both like to take a few (and a few more) deliveries to get going. One saw Rohit trying to fight this throughout the tournament as he swung hard and went for a power game instead of the touch he is known for but it didn't really help his cause.

Also Read | Virat Kohli scripts history, the first batter to score 4,000 T20I runs

So, the question is whether India followed the modern thought process of "positive intent" and "not taking the foot off the accelerator", something which the Boys In Blue profess many a time themselves. In other words, unless there is a devil in the pitch upfront, i.e. if the ball isn't swinging much, modern teams get going quickly. India on the other hand have been slow-ish in their power plays and this approach begs reconsideration.

India boasts of the capability to field two separate squads at any

given point in time. The bench strength being enjoyed currently must be a reason for envy for many other teams. However, a couple of selections in the Indian squad will be questioned as they didn't fit the Australian conditions well in hindsight.

India decided to go with Deepak Hooda as an additional batting allrounder but it was quickly seen that he wasn't very comfortable with either of his trades in the bouncy conditions. If India wasn't bothered about his part-time spin bowling, was he good enough to merit selection ahead of proper batters like Shubhman Gill, Sanju Samson, Ruturaj Gaikwad, Prithvi Shaw, Devdutt Padikkal, Nitish Rana, Rahul Tripathi, Yashaswi Jaiswal and Ishaan Kishan?

Consider this — KL Rahul has been struggling at the top. Wouldn't one of the above-mentioned be a good foil? Or if the team needed to bolster its middle order with some real power hitter, again, wouldn't one of the above give more confidence?

As the tournament has progressed, the playing conditions have changed. Pitches have been reused and the weather has cleared up. Thus spin bowlers and medium pacers who rely on slower deliveries and did not find much success in the early part of the tournament are coming into their own now.

However, India's game plan with Shami-Arshdeep-Bhuvi as its fast bowling trio hasn't been fiddled with. In complete hindsight, wouldn't a Harshal Patel, who relies on a change of pace as his main weapon, have been a better pick in the semifinal?

Just some food for thought.