India winning without Bumrah a coincidence, says Sachin Tendulkar

Batting great Sachin Tendulkar feels that India winning two Tests against England in Jasprit Bumrah's absence was a mere "coincidence" and the talismanic pace spearhead's quality remains "exceptional and unbelievable".

Bumrah played three of the just-concluded five-Test series in which a relatively inexperienced India eked out a creditable 2-2 draw. The two games that India won did not feature Bumrah due to a pre-decided workload management plan.

Tendulkar said India emerging victorious at Birmingham and The Oval in Bumrah's absence was a matter of chance. He went on to highlight Bumrah's performances in the three Tests he played, fetching 14 wickets in all.

"Bumrah started off really well, got five wickets in the (first innings of the) first Test. He did not play the second Test, but (played in) the third and the fourth. Again, in (one of) those two Tests, he got (a) five wickets (haul)," Tendulkar said in his video analysis of the series on 'Reddit'.

"Of three Test that he played, he picked up five wickets twice. I know that people are discussing a number of things, that we won those Tests in which he did not play. To me, that is just a coincidence.

"The quality of Bumrah is exceptional. What he has been able to do is just unbelievable so far. He has been a consistent performer without any doubt (and) I would put him right at the top with anyone else," he added.

In Bumrah's absence Mohammed Siraj brought his A game to the table and snared 23 wickets, playing in all five matches and bowling a total of 185.3 overs. 

However, Bumrah remains miles ahead in absolute numbers with 219 wickets in 48 Tests as compared to 123 in 41 matches by Siraj.

Bumrah's planned absence, in the must-win fifth and final Test, did raise some questions about the handling of his workload but the team management made it clear that the premier pacer could not have been risked.

Tendulkar lavished praise on all-rounder Washington Sundar, who made crucial contributions throughout to help the team's cause.

"Whenever he has played, he has contributed. Even if you look at the second Test match, in the fourth innings he bowled a crucial ball to Ben Stokes just before lunch on Day Five. He got him out. To me, that was one of the turning points," Tendulkar said.

"In the last Test, when it was time to hit out, he smacked 53 runs. He accelerated brilliantly.

"Where it was needed to occupy the crease, he was able to do that in the fourth Test and where it was about pressing the accelerator hard, he was able to do that in the fifth Test as well. Well done, Washi...I really enjoyed it," he added.

The Mumbai maestro also offered his take on the tense exchange that followed India's refusal to accept the draw offered by England captain Ben Stokes during the Manchester Test.

Tendulkar felt Ravindra Jadeja and Washington had every right to get to their hundreds and India's decision to continue was totally in "right spirit" despite a draw being the only possible result.

"People talk about the fourth Test match, whether those hundreds from Washington and Jadeja were in the right spirit? Why shouldn't it be? They were playing for a draw," Tendulkar said. 

  "Before that, England was having a go at them, (and despite) all that if a batter is still batting, if he sees through it and towards the end of the day's play, if he's (still) batting... both of them, yes, they got (their) hundreds, but according to me, the series was alive.

"Why should they go in (dressing room) and give that rest to England fielders and the bowlers? If they want to bowl Harry Brook or whatever, that is Ben Stokes' choice, that is not India's problem," he added.

Tendulkar also rejected Stokes' explanation that he sought an early finish to ensure some rest for his bowlers.

"...why should England bowlers be fresh in the fifth Test match?" Tendulkar asked.

"Why should the (England) fielders be fresh? Do you have an answer? There is no answer.

"I'm absolutely with the Indian team. Be it (Gautam) Gambhir or Shubman (Gill) or Jadeja and Washington, they decided, (and I am) 100 per cent with them.