Former India off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin has strongly criticised the Indian team management's decision to leave Kuldeep Yadav out of the playing XI for the fourth T20 International against the West Indies, describing the move as lacking common sense and arguing that the left-arm wrist-spinner could have made a decisive difference in Wednesday's defeat in Hyderabad.
India suffered a 24-run loss after the West Indies piled up 247 for three at the Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, with the hosts managing 223 in reply. The result levelled the five-match series at 2-2 and set up a decisive fifth T20I in Bengaluru on Saturday. With India's bowling attack struggling to contain the aggressive Caribbean batting line-up, Ashwin questioned the logic of excluding a specialist wicket-taking spinner whose variations had previously troubled the opposition.
Speaking on his YouTube channel, Ash Ki Baat, Ashwin said the decision was particularly surprising given the conditions in Hyderabad and Kuldeep's ability to deceive West Indies batters with his googlies and wrist-spin variations. He argued that even a modest improvement in India's bowling performance could have substantially altered the outcome of the contest.
"It is very surprising because, on a ground where you expect to get some bounce, I know it has not always been a happy hunting ground for spinners. But the West Indies batters are struggling to pick his (Kuldeep) googly and leg-spin. So, if you are leaving Kuldeep out against them, it lacks a bit of common sense," Ashwin said.
He added that Kuldeep's presence could have reduced the West Indies total by 15 to 20 runs, a margin that might have proved crucial in a match India eventually lost by 24 runs.
𝗞𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽'𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱
Kuldeep featured in the opening two matches of the series, played in Lucknow and Ranchi, before being left out for the subsequent encounters in Indore and Hyderabad. He returned figures of two for 33 in the first T20I but endured a difficult outing in Ranchi, where he conceded 53 runs in four overs as the West Indies successfully chased a target of 250.
His expensive spell in Ranchi appeared to have influenced the team combination for the following matches. However, Ashwin argued that singling out Kuldeep for India's bowling failures was unjustified, particularly when the entire attack had struggled to contain the opposition on batting-friendly surfaces.
The former off-spinner said he could understand the decision to omit Kuldeep in Indore because of the relatively small boundaries, which can make life difficult for wrist-spinners. But he questioned why the same approach was followed in Hyderabad, where the conditions could have offered the spinner greater assistance.
"I was surprised. Kuldeep was not picked in Indore, and I would still endorse that decision because I can understand that the ground is small. But you are almost making an issue out of it by suggesting that India's loss in Ranchi was because of Kuldeep. That, in itself, is wrong," Ashwin said.
His remarks highlighted a wider concern over India's selection strategy, particularly the balance between specialist wicket-taking bowlers and players offering additional batting depth. While team combinations often depend on ground dimensions and match conditions, Ashwin's criticism suggested that the management had overlooked the tactical value of Kuldeep's variations against an opposition vulnerable to wrist-spin.
𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮'𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘆
The fourth T20I exposed India's difficulties in controlling the scoring rate against the West Indies' powerful batting line-up. The visitors amassed 247 for three, leaving the Indian batters facing a demanding chase from the outset. Although the hosts reached 223, their inability to restrict the opposition ultimately proved costly.
The result also renewed questions about India's approach in the middle overs, when specialist spinners are often expected to provide breakthroughs and prevent attacking batters from maintaining momentum. Kuldeep's principal strength lies in his ability to take wickets through variations in flight, pace and turn rather than relying exclusively on defensive bowling.
Ashwin's argument was that such an attacking option could have been valuable even if Kuldeep conceded runs. Against a side capable of scoring rapidly, taking wickets can sometimes prove more effective than attempting merely to restrict boundaries.
Kuldeep's recent performances against the West Indies further strengthened the case for his inclusion. He was India's leading wicket-taker in the three-match ODI series earlier this month, claiming seven wickets and demonstrating his ability to trouble the Caribbean batters.
His omission from two successive T20Is has consequently raised questions about whether one expensive performance should outweigh a bowler's broader record and match-winning potential.
𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗿𝘂
With the series tied at 2-2, India's team management faces an important selection decision ahead of Saturday's fifth and final T20I at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. The venue is traditionally associated with high-scoring contests, making the balance between attacking bowling options and batting depth particularly important.
The management will have to assess whether restoring Kuldeep strengthens India's chances of taking wickets during the middle overs or whether the existing combination offers greater flexibility. The decision will also be influenced by the pitch, boundary dimensions and the bowling resources available to the captain.
Ashwin's criticism has brought renewed attention to the handling of specialist spinners in India's T20 setup. His central argument is that a bowler capable of dismissing established batters should not be discarded simply because of an expensive outing, particularly when the opposition has demonstrated difficulty reading his variations.
The defeat in Hyderabad has left India with little room for error. As the two teams prepare for the series decider, Kuldeep's possible return is likely to remain one of the principal talking points surrounding India's team selection.