Reports have already begun to do the rounds, quoting BCCI officials as saying that no knee-jerk reactions are warranted. Specifically, officials have said that a World Cup is not far away and that Gautam Gambhir’s contract as coach runs until 2027.
Gambhir may be secure in his role, despite the results, and have the backing of the powers that be, but this should not stop those in charge from learning lessons that the Test series has made obvious. As coach, Gambhir fronts up when India lose — this is part of his role — and he will have to face tough questions when the public demands answers.
India’s next Test assignment is seven months away, and that is a long time by any yardstick. Yet, some learnings will remain valid whenever India wear whites again.
For starters, it’s great to have all-rounders, or perhaps one all-rounder, in the mix in the longest form of the game, but you cannot shoehorn someone successfully into that role.
The most obvious case is that of Nitish Kumar Reddy. The selectors and management see enough in him, and a century in the Boxing Day Test in Australia ensured that his batting chops earned him a long rope. But if he is to play as an all-rounder, he has to bowl a lot more than 10 overs on a good surface: India sent down nearly 230 overs in all in Guwahati.While selection of the playing XI might be strongly influenced by the coach — especially when you have a stand-in captain, such as in the last Test — if the captain does not have enough faith in Nitish to use him more with the ball, does he really fulfil the role of an all-rounder?At No. 3, India have a much bigger problem. This is a pivotal position in the batting order, occupied so successfully by Rahul Dravid and Cheteshwar Pujara for so long that perhaps not enough succession planning happened.
In the first Test, B. Sai Sudarshan was left out, only for Washington Sundar to fill that role. But, with not much having changed, Washington was shunted back down the order to restore Sai to the slot in the second Test. Exactly what Washington makes of this movement up and down the order isn’t clear.
But it appears that the Indian think tank is also not sure exactly where he fits into the scheme of things. In domestic cricket, for the longest time, Washington has been a top-order batsman who also contributed with the ball. But in the IPL and later for India in the T20Is, he has played as a bowler who can do a job with the bat.
At the international level, players are expected to perform out of their comfort zones. But with inexperienced players, constant chopping and changing, or a lack of role clarity makes it that much harder for them to establish themselves and begin contributing meaningfully.
Sai averages 27 after 11 innings and has not found a way to make a significant contribution across varying conditions and situations. Before him, Karun Nair played four Test matches in England, but the selectors said more was expected of him and drew a line under his international ambitions.
Sarfaraz Khan, despite making runs in Test cricket and having a stellar home record, is out of favour with the selectors.
He has worked on his fitness, shed weight and gone back to the domestic grind. Ruturaj Gaikwad and Rajat Patidar are two more right-hand bats who have put in the hard yards in the Ranji Trophy and for India A, but are not currently high enough in the pecking order, as far as the selectors are concerned.
That Simon Harmer comfortably out-bowled his Indian counterparts should also be cause for introspection.
Harmer’s returns of 17 wickets at 8.94 are freakish, and he achieved this through old-fashioned spin bowling: accuracy, subtle variation and playing on the patience of batsmen and setting them up. In the absence of R. Ashwin, there was very little of this on display from India’s slow bowlers, who have grown used to bowling on rank turners at home.
Knee-jerk reactions may not help, but India need a long, hard look in the mirror.