The dust has settled on the recent India-England Test series, allowing for a more measured reflection on the events that unfolded. It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement, and like many, I was thoroughly impressed by the performance of a young Indian side across a gruelling five-Test series on foreign soil.
My admiration for the young Indian batting lineup remains undiminished. The performances of players like Yashasvi Jaiswal, Shubman Gill, KL Rahul, Rishabh Pant, Ravindra Jadeja, and even Washington Sundar were truly captivating.
In an era dominated by Twenty20 cricket, their display of traditional Test match batting was nothing short of remarkable. It wasn’t just about the results; it was how those results were achieved. They exhibited incredible resilience, defending stubbornly for extended periods, consistently leaving deliveries outside off-stump. This is a stark contrast to the aggressive, boundary-hunting approach we typically see from these players in the shorter format.
They demonstrated exceptional mental fortitude, maintaining their focus and determination throughout the entire series, even when fatigue might have set in. Jaiswal, in particular, stands out as an example of this unwavering resolve. The fact that all this took place in front of large, enthusiastic crowds only added to the spectacle. It was a fantastic series played in a country with a genuine passion for Test cricket.
The series was significant for Indian fans, witnessing a team without several established stars, many of whom were experiencing their first tour of England. The closely contested nature of nearly every match was a welcome boost for the Test format. As a spectacle, it was a captivating two months of cricket.
However, it’s crucial to delve deeper and address some of the underlying issues. While the series was undoubtedly a great spectacle and a positive outcome for Indian cricket, it’s important to examine the overall quality of play.
In truth, the bowling attacks from both sides were, frankly, rather weak. The one bowler with the potential for greatness seemed to approach the series with a rather unusual mindset, which meant displays of exceptional bowling were few and far between across the extensive duration of the Test matches.
The flat pitches further exacerbated the bowlers’ struggles. One couldn’t help but feel sympathy for them, particularly those with evident limitations, who persevered and made valuable contributions. Siraj, throughout the series, and Ben Stokes, in the matches he played, bowled with immense heart and determination.
The omission of a high-class spinner like Kuldeep Yadav was one of the more baffling decisions of the series. When facing an opposition with a vulnerable bowling attack and a peculiar batting strategy, such selection errors can prove costly. A similar approach against stronger teams like Australia would likely be punished severely, as seen in the recent Border-Gavaskar Trophy. If these tactical mistakes are not addressed by the selectors and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), India risks suffering another heavy defeat against a top-tier side.
While acknowledging India’s achievements, it’s also necessary to recognise England’s shortcomings. This raises the question of whether India’s impressive performance was, in part, due to England’s poor form.
While players like Jaiswal, Gill, Rahul, and even Washington Sundar are likely to perform well against quality opposition, concerns remain about India’s seam bowling and the team’s tactics, particularly regarding team selection and bowling changes. Had these controllable factors been managed more effectively, India might have secured a 3-1 victory. However, this shouldn’t overshadow India’s overall performance, especially in terms of execution, where the young team excelled.
It’s worth noting that the two Tests India won were the two matches in which Jasprit Bumrah did not play. This should embolden the Indian selectors to make some tough decisions regarding established players. The series served as a valuable lesson, highlighting the truth that no player, regardless of their stature, is indispensable.
The two Test victories India achieved without Virat Kohli, Cheteshwar Pujara, Rohit Sharma, Mohammed Shami, and Bumrah underscored this point. It reinforced the eternal truth of sport and life: no one, however great, is truly irreplaceable.
This is the approach India must adopt with Bumrah. If he is unable to play more than two consecutive matches, or even just one at times, he should not be considered an automatic first-choice selection. Players who are fully fit, eager, and determined to play should be prioritised over even the most talented player who isn’t consistently available. This will further motivate those enthusiastic players.
This isn’t an idealistic stance; it’s the right one for the long-term health and success of the team. In this series, Akash Deep and Siraj replicated Bumrah’s impact in the two victories. While this may not become a regular occurrence, it should give the selectors the confidence to make difficult decisions regarding high-profile players, just as they do with Kuldeep Yadav.
As for Bumrah, if he truly wants to contribute to Indian Test cricket, longevity and durability are paramount. The true measure of a great athlete is their ability to perform even when not at 100% fitness. Indian cricket shouldn’t have to accommodate Bumrah; Bumrah must adapt himself. This means either making tough choices about his workload or working even harder on his fitness, raising his standards to the levels achieved by other great fast bowlers before him.