IND vs ENG 2022 | Shocked to see how India had lost at Edgbaston, asserts Ajit Agarkar

SportsCafe Desk
no photo

After England’s thumping seven-wicket win over India at Edgbaston, Ajit Agarkar did not like the way Jasprit Bumrah and Co. let the game away despite setting a huge target of 378. Agarkar, with all due respect to Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow, believes India could have done a better bowling display.

Riding on twin centuries by Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow, England chased down a record-breaking target of 378 on Tuesday with seven wickets in hand to beat India in the rescheduled fifth Test at Edgbaston. Fans across the world saw a magnificent comeback from the Ben Stokes-led side as they won it despite trailing by 132 runs to India in the first innings.

To get the job done, England took 76.4 overs, with their scoring rate in the final innings almost five runs per over. Root scored an unbeaten 142, while Bairstow scored 114 not out before openers Alex Lees (56) and Zak Crawley (46) added 107 runs for the opening wicket to set the tone of the run chase. Former Indian fast bowler Ajit Agarkar believes India's potent bowling attack could have done much better to register an outright win.

Parimatch

Explore Parimatch review and find out what the best India cricket betting bookmaker is capable of!

Find Out

"It's not a disgrace when there are two guys (Root and Bairstow) who have confidence and are quality players... (but) it's the manner in which India has lost this game," said Ajit Agarkar in the post-match show on Sony Sports Network.

"They certainly had to make them (England) work a lot harder... To get it as easily as they (England) did, it has to be a shock for the Indian team."

Notably, England's 378-run chase is also the highest successful chase by any team against India in Test cricket. Also, with the historic win, Stokes and his boys levelled the five-match series against India 2-2.

laught0
astonishment0
sadness0
heart0
like0
dislike0

Comments

Sign up or log in to your account to leave comments and reactions

0 Comments