Axar Patel, England's selection policy and a 'factory setting' that paved the way for India's Test dominance

Do you remember the first Test between India and England in Chennai? England dominated that game; Joe Root scored a double ton, Ben Stokes and Dom Sibley made 80s. James Anderson reversed the ball beautifully in the second innings. It was a dream match for the visitors.

A few players in the England set-up might be wondering if that really happened. Because if it did, then how did a team that made nearly 600 in the first innings of the tour score 200 only once in the next seven innings and lose 3-1?

A few things transpired. First, India activated their 'factory setting' – dry pitches where the ball turns from day one, session one. Such was the shock of those surfaces in Chennai – for the second Test – and Ahmedabad, they triggered questions about the fundamentals of the game; What is 'fair'? Are pitches supposed to help spinners from the start? Should Tests last at least four days?

There was consternation after the Ahmedabad pink-ball Test where both teams were bundled out for less than 150 in the first innings, even resulting in calls for India's Test Championship points to be deducted for providing an underprepared pitch.

But the fact is India scored good runs – 329, 286, 49-0 and 365 – in four out of five innings. So it could not have been all bad. Whether there was balance between bat and ball is subject to debate, but how can you punish a team for playing to their advantage?

When teams play on fairly similar surfaces for four Tests, or three and a half if you take out the first innings in Chennai, the only differentiating factor is the performance of the players. You can get lucky once, maybe twice, but not every time over a month. So if we agree on that, two factors emerge as decisive in the final outcome.

The first goes by the name of Axar Patel. Surely even Virat Kohli couldn't have imagined stumbling upon another gun spinner who bats lower down the order and bowls fast and accurate left-arm darts. In six innings, Patel picked up 27 wickets at an average of under 11. There were four five-wicket hauls in there as well.

The pace he bowled at and the height from where the ball was released could not have been more ideal for the surfaces on offer. Even India's top order, which did not cover itself in glory against England's 'lesser' spinners Jack Leach, Joe Root and Dom Bess and had to be rescued by lower order runs from Rishabh Pant, Ravichandran Ashwin, Washington Sundar and Patel himself, would have struggled against the left-arm grenades.

In fact, Patel was arguably even more effective than Ashwin's 400-Test wickets-strong off-spin.

Ashwin was a class apart, but there is little doubt he would have felt the pressure if he had a diffident Kuldeep Yadav or Shahbaz Nadeem at the other end. Both were nowhere near as effective in the limited chances they were offered in the Test series. Also, if Ashwin had been asked to bowl a bulk of the overs, his body could have felt the strain by the third Test; the veteran spinner does not have the best record of maintaining his fitness and intensity in a long series.

The second big factor was England's selection. Or rotation, or whatever it is they called their plan.

It was evident that this year's focus was going to be on the T20 World Cup in India. All personnel decisions were to be made keeping white-ball captain Eoin Morgan's plans in mind. Which is why multi-format players like Moeen Ali, Jos Buttler and Jonny Bairstow were rotated while Sam Curran and Mark Wood did not get to play at all.

The decision to play three seamers on a spinning surface in the pink-ball Test simply because it was a day-night affair or the move to go in with just three frontline bowlers on a more responsive pitch in the fourth Test showed England were running out of ideas or, possibly, interest. India does that to the best of teams.

Moeen was sent away, as part of a predetermined rotation policy, after the second Test where he was the best England player with the ball and bat. Bess was called back for the final Test after being dropped for failing to land the ball regularly in the first match. It was a self-inflicted hardship there was no need for, T20 World Cup or no T20 World Cup.

So on one hand you had the most devastating spinner on responsive wickets. And on the other, a team that made poor selection calls while focusing on a white-ball tournament in the winter.

What else did you expect?