India were up 2-1 in the series after the third Test, but England still had a chance at winning their first series in India in 12 years when the two sides arrived in Ranchi for the fourth Test in the five-match series. India, already without Virat Kohli, KL Rahul, and Mohammed Shami, not to speak of Rishabh Pant, rested Jasprit Bumrah from the game, a move that Stuart Broad also questioned.

Bumrah, who is prone to injuries and made a comeback from a year-long injury layoff last August, is arguably the best seamer in the world. Managing his workload remains a priority for India. Since the end of the World Cup, where he played all 11 games, Bumrah has taken part in five more internationals – two Tests in South Africa and three against England at home.

In the absence of stalwarts, Bumrah also became the man to turn to in crisis for India during the first three Tests against England. His spell after lunch in the first Test in Hyderabad turned the game towards India, while his nine-wicket match-haul in Visakhapatnam paved the way for India’s comeback in the series.

He has picked up 17 wickets in the series, bowling 80.5 overs. However, at Rajkot, he bowled only 23 overs after a 10-day gap, including eight in the second innings. After the Ranchi Test, another long gap of nine days awaited the two sides, and Gavaskar questioned why Bumrah was rested from the game even though India won the clash in the end.

Despite the victory, there were moments of bother for the Rohit Sharma-led side during the Test, including allowing England to recover from 112-5 to 353 in the first innings, which could have been match-winning if not for a mature 90 by Dhruv Jurel.

Jasprit Bumrah has taken 16 wickets at 13.64 in the series so far.

A boost for England.#INDvENG pic.twitter.com/BsKzmoaXug

— Wisden (@WisdenCricket) February 20, 2024

In his column in Mid-Day, Gavaskar wrote: “Despite bowling just 15 overs in the first innings and then eight overs in the second innings of the third Test at Rajkot, Bumrah was rested for Ranchi presumably on the trainer’s recommendation. Don’t forget there was a nine-day break between the second Test and third Test match and then bowling 23 overs in the entire game is not tiring at all, so why was Bumrah rested?

“After the fourth Test there was going to be another eight-day break before the final Test match; enough time for supremely fit athletes to recover and be ready to play for the country. The fourth Test also was a crucial game as, if England had won that, the final Test would have been the decider. So, whether it was the NCA or Bumrah who took the call, it wasn’t in the Indian team’s immediate interest.”

Gavaskar also hit out against the exclusion of Shreyas Iyer from the central contracts list. After being dropped from the squad for the last three Tests of the series against England, Iyer complained of back pain and skipped Mumbai’s Ranji Trophy quarter-final against Baroda despite being cleared of any fitness issues by the National Cricket Academy (NCA).

Going against BCCI’s directive of skipping domestic games resulted in him being omitted from the central contracts, a move which didn’t sit well with Gavaskar. “At the time of writing this column, Iyer was in the Mumbai team to play the semi-finals of the Ranji Trophy,” Gavaskar wrote.

“Iyer had also played in the Ranji Trophy game as asked by the Indian team management just before this Test series started, so it’s not as if he has refused to play the Ranji Trophy at all.

“He did miss the quarter-finals, but that was also the time he had informed the team management of his inability to play the third Test match due to some pain in his back if he batted for some length of time.

“However, the trainers at the NCA certified that his markers were clean and they found him fit to play. That seemed to have gone against Iyer. Threshold of pain is an individual thing and no trainer can judge that.”