'English cricketers whine and whinge. Why are you even surprised?' WV Raman sees right through Ben Stokes' ignorance

Hindustan Times spoke to former India batter WV Raman regarding the Manchester Test between India and England and what can visitors do for the next match.

The Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy is heating up. India and England are going toe-to-toe in the five-match series, with not a lot separating the two teams. Ben Stokes' England were ahead for the majority of the fourth Test in Manchester, but no one could have predicted that a young Indian line-up would fight tooth and nail to eke out a draw and head into the final game at the Oval with a chance of levelling the series. Washington Sundar, KL Rahul, Shubman Gill and Ravindra Jadeja emerged as heroes in the second innings as India kept England at bay to walk away with a memorable draw at Old Trafford.

Here's what WV Raman had to say about Ben Stokes' tactics in the Manchester Test. (HT_PRINT)

Gill, Jadeja and Sundar registered centuries while Rahul missed his by 10 runs. The 25-year-old Sundar stepped up as Rishabh Pant was out injured. The youngster batted at No.5 and staged an impressive, unbeaten 203-run stand for the fifth wicket with Jadeja.

Towards the end, drama unfolded when England captain Ben Stokes did not like the fact that Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar didn't accept his request to call the game off and shake hands. The two Indian batters decided to complete their respective centuries before walking off the field.

With everything to play for in the series decider, which begins on Thursday, ahead of the fifth and final Test, Hindustan Times spoke to former India batter WV Raman, who played 11 Tests and 27 ODIs for India. The 60-year-old had his say on the entire farce which played out in the final few minutes of the Manchester game, proving the England captain's theories about 'resting his bowlers' wrong, and shed light on what the team can look to do to get the better of England at the Oval.

Excerpts:

Just saw your tweet on X where you spoke about Washington Sundar batting higher up the order. Is there a case for playing him at No.3?

In all the crucial knocks that he has played abroad and at home, he has shown that he has given you enough confidence that he can handle the heat, and he also has the technique and the temperament.

Can Kuldeep Yadav be included in the playing XI for the Oval Test? Has the time come for him to play against England, considering he is a wicket-taker?

The point is about Kuldeep Yadav playing primarily because if you are playing four fast bowlers and one of them is going to be repeatedly under-bowled, then at least you will probably have a wicket-taking bowler because Kuldeep Yadav has got a terrific record of averaging about 4 wickets per Test match. And also, the pitches have been drier than wetter in England this summer. So it is definitely worthwhile to try, but perhaps the team management thinks you have got two spinning options, why add one more spinner?

So that's a kind of delicate balance there to strike. But there again, the point is that captains would generally bank on a wrist spinner delivering the goods in a must-win game.

Do you see Jasprit Bumrah playing the Oval Test, or is it too much to ask of him, considering the decision to make him play three Tests was taken well in advance?

See, people must understand one thing: when a fast bowler comes back after a gap, and also if the gap has been created by injury, it will take some time even for the bowler to know how much workload he can take. In a Test match or in a space of four weeks, in a space of six weeks, whatever the time duration may be, that is likely to play. It will take some time even for the bowler to understand or to realise how much workload he can take.

So, I think in the case of Bumrah, it will all depend on what his body can stand. We don't want him to break down for a longer period again because he tends to do too much work.

What did you make of Anshul Kamboj's debut? Will it be unfair if the management decides to drop him in the next Test?

See, the thing is, it's very unfortunate. It has been a fantastic wicket. Now, let's face it, India has got a huge total in the fourth innings, which means the pitch is obviously really good for batting. And Anshul Kamboj obviously has perhaps, you know, been unfortunate in that. He's been sort of given a break on an absolute flat track. And I think, see, let's face it, no cricketer is good only for one game.

If he's given a temporary break now and then brought back later, that's fine. But it's a case of the team management doing what they think would be best in terms of securing a result. India does have a good chance of levelling the series now, and levelling the series would be fantastic.

Lastly, I have to ask about the drama that unfolded in the final few minutes in Manchester. What did you make of Ben Stokes and England's tactics of going after Jadeja and Sundar?

We've always seen English cricketers whine and whinge. There's nothing new. So why are you even surprised? It defies logic, all those statements that came out. They bowled Harry Brook and Root because they want to rest the main bowlers. He's already rested, Brydon Carse. Out of 144 odd overs that England had bowled, he bowled only 17. And if you're talking about Jadeja getting a 100 against Brook, he can only play Brook if he's negotiated all your main bowlers.

He's not getting a 100 against Brook; he's got a 100 against England. Because he's played out all the other bowlers. And that too, without any problems whatsoever. I think it's just a case of whining and whinging. That we normally get to see when they don't get their way. The English are the same.