Chennai (Tamil Nadu) [India], February 6 (ANI): India might have dismissed five wickets on day two of the first Test against England but spinner Shahbaz Nadeem feels it was Ishant Sharma’s twin blow that gave the hosts a slight upper hand in the game.
England ended the second day after scoring a mammoth 555 runs for the loss of eight wickets. The visitors were cruising towards a bigger score before Ishant dismissed Jos Buttler and Jofra Archer on successive balls to give India a glimmer of hope in the first Test.
Nadeem, who himself picked two wickets on Saturday, reckons the two scalps by Ishant were very crucial as they lifted the morale of the Virat Kohli-led Indian side. With Dom Bess and Jack Leach on the crease, Nadeem feels it will be easier for the hosts to now bundle out England on day three.
“Ishant’s two wickets were very crucial as he dismissed Buttler and Archer. He took wickets on successive deliveries and this kind of performance obviously uplifts the morale of the side. So I feel those two wickets were important for us as if we did not get those two wickets there would have been a batsman on the crease rather than tailenders. Now, two England bowlers are on the crease, so we can say we have got an upper hand,” said Nadeem while replying to a query from ANI.
Nadeem picked two important wickets for India. He first dismissed all-rounder Ben Stokes and then trapped England skipper Joe Root in front of the stumps. The left-arm spinner said the plan was to bowl in good areas and then wait for the batsmen to play any loose shot.
“The plan on this wicket should be to bowl on good areas. If you go for the wickets in this pitch, you may get hammered for runs. Our plan was to bowl in good areas and if batsmen make any mistake you might get a wicket,” said Nadeem.
Root’s double ton and Stokes’ 82 have guided England to post a mammoth score on day two of the first Test. In the final session, India bagged four wickets including the much-awaited dismissal of Root (218). (ANI)
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors’ and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house. Unless otherwise noted, the author is writing in his/her personal capacity. They are not intended and should not be thought to represent official ideas, attitudes, or policies of any agency or institution.