Ravindra Jadeja’s innings during the final day at Lord’s did divide opinions. Chasing 193 runs, India were reduced to 112/8 with the left-hander as the last recognized batter. He had to get the remainder of the runs with the support of Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj. Both Bumrah and Siraj managed to stick with Jadeja for a while, defending bravely; however, the difference of opinion would be due to what kind of innings Jadeja should have played. He scored 181-ball 61 but a few experts were of the opinion that he should have batted quicker, and former Indian coach Greg Chappell too felt the same.
“The truth is, Jadeja was the only recognised batter left. If India were to chase down the target, he had to take calculated risks. His job wasn’t to leave balls and collect singles – it was to win the match. That clarity should have come from the dressing room, from the captain. He needed to be told directly: “You are the man who has to get this done. The tail’s job is to hang in there with you, but you must go for the win,” Greg Chappell wrote in his column for ESPN Cricinfo.
“The Lord’s Test also provided a telling moment with the way Jadeja was managed late in the match. Left with the tail, Jadeja did what many specialist batters do in that situation: he shielded the tail, farmed the strike, and played conservatively. On the surface, it was a disciplined innings. But was it the right one?” he added.
Indian cricketer, Cheteshwar Pujara, supported Jadeja. “He couldn’t have scored faster on that track. I felt that it was because the ball was soft, and the pitch was on the slower side. I guess, Jadeja would have thought that the tailenders were batting well and the team was getting close to the total. And once they were a little closer he would have taken his chances. I thought he was batting well. It was very difficult to score runs on that pitch,” says Pujara.
“The only thing he could have done better is to look to score down the ground. Like there was a gap between mid-off and cover,” Pujara said Jadeja could have done differently.
