England just blasted India out of the world cup yesterday. But I could find some vulnerabilities in their performance. Sam Curran proved to be very expensive in the depth overs, and Hardik Pandya was able to maintain a strike rate of around 200. Same with Chris Jordan. He got crucial wickets, but leaked a lot of runs. Chris Woakes got the crucial wicket of KL Rahul, but he is not as threatening as Mark Wood. In the last 10 overs, Indian batsmen scored more than 100 runs. England needs to find a way to take care of this.
I mean seriously does the Indian team needed that many changes in their team?
If we just forget about this match which India placed against England and lost the semi final, where they were standing before? They were the best T20 teams as they have won their four matches out of five. So how come after losing one match you need to change most of the players and captain too?
This is not the right way to improve team performance. Whoever will be the new captain, it will create a lot of pressure on him and the team as they know if they lose a match, they would be forced to leave the team.
I personally do not like this attitude of the sub contents boards toward their team. This is not only the case with India, Pakistan also faces the same scenario.
If a team performs well, we give them too much respect (which they deserve too) but when they lost in an important tournament, we start to talk about changing the players and captain which is not right in my opinion.
Pakistan's team got into the finals, but if they were eliminated at the group's stages, by now we might have been talking that Baber Azam is not the right captain and he should not open or maybe he should retire from T20 cricket. We should not change our opinion about our teams on the basis of performance in a single tournament. Yeah, if there are continuous bad performances, then surely changing the team, captain, and/or coaches may help