No I disagree on that wicket and condition you play 4 seam bowling options as 3 wont be enough as they will tire and start leaking some runs you play 4 options so the pressure never gets released. Some teams can afford to play 3 if they have stokes or stokes like player. However if not you play 4 seamers once you know spinners are not gonna come into it. NZ played 5 they could have played a proper batsman instead of degrandhome but they didnt. Thats where Kane was brave and Virat was not.
India actually got a bit lucky with how Ashwin bowled to left handers and actually tied the batsmen up otherwise the blunder would have been even more exposed with just 3 seam options.
I dont know how an internation captain can decide to go in with just 3 seam bowling options on that wicket and conditions.
You're just not getting it. Leave it buddy. 3 quicks will tire out on a flat track and not on a green track when things will keep happening and you are bound to bowl the opposition out in less overs. On a flat track, you need your seam bowling AR to give your main quicks a rest because you will have to bowl more overs to get the opposition out.
There is a very simple rule in cricket.
When the conditions are heavily tilted in favour of bowlers, you need to bolster your batting because there are more chances of a batting collapse on a green top or a rank turner and so you have to cover for that happening. When the conditions are heavily in favour of the batter, you need an extra bowler to help out because the penetration of your bowlers decrease on a flat track. This is the basic rationale behind getting your team balance right for the conditions.
NZ picked 5 seamers because 2 out of those 5 are solid batsmen (CDG and Jamieson) while all 5 are better batsmen than any of our quicks (yes even Boult is better than our quicks with the bat). And they felt the wicket wouldn't break up much to warrant the selection a spinner, who wasn't good enough in the first place and he'll anyway be played with ease by India.
In the absence of a seam bowling AR, what Kohli picked was the right team given the resources we had. Ideally you would want a seam bowling all rounder who can bat like Pandya or Stokes or Jamieson or CDG to replace one of the spinners. But since we didn't have one, we had two options left - pick an extra batsman or an extra bowler. Jadeja ticked both boxes, he's a better bat than Vihari currently and he's also the extra bowler. If Jadeja hadn't improved his batting ability, his selection would've been a very questionable one, but he fully warranted selection.
I keep saying that Jadeja was not selected for his spin bowling but for his batting and you keep saying India didn't need two spinners on that track. Yes, everyone knows it was not a 2 spinner track, but picking an extra pacer was simply not possible because none could bat and would leave a very long tail and secondly Jadeja was the best batsman out of the options available in the squad (Mayank and KL are openers who don't bowl at all, Vihari can roll his arms over but Jadeja is the better bat).
I'll still play both Ashwin and Jadeja together for the England series unless Jadeja starts contributing nothing with the bat. Even for a proper greentop (which the final wasn't), I would still pick Jadeja, drop Ashwin and pick Thakur as the 4th pacer. I criticise Kohli a lot for his team selection but he got it right for the final. I wanted Siraj instead of Shami before the final but Shami fully proved his selection right in the final.
