GUWAHATI: Senior players were forced into retirement. A new captain was ushered in. Families could no longer be part of a full tour. The board doubled down on established players featuring in domestic red-ball cricket. An influential member of the coaching staff was let go.
It's fair to say the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) tried to identify various reasons for the sudden downturn in the red-ball fortunes of the side post them losing six Tests across eight games against New Zealand at home and in Australia. They wanted to be proactive in ringing in the changes to bring about positive change.
But they have not managed to bring about positive change. If anything, this team seems to be stuck in a rut, a negative spiral. The one constant in all of these setbacks — last year's limp 0-3 against New Zealand, the 1-3 in Australia, a fighting 2-2 in England and, now, a 0-2 at home to South Africa — is the head coach of the national team. The only truly positive result during this run was the home series win against West Indies.
A couple of things. All sports teams — whatever their history, heritage, prestige and previous records — are allowed to lose games. No team has a birthright to win. But it's fair to say that the manner of their defeats in Kolkata and Guwahati raised several eyebrows. The questionable shot selections. A lack of application. Muddled team selections. Ignoring specialists. Not picking a right-handed batter in reserve knowing your first XI as well as your reserve middle-order batter are southpaws. When you stop controlling things within your control, you also lose control of the uncontrollables.
It's why there has to be an honest conversation about Gautam Gambhir. When does the BCCI look at Gambhir's credentials as a red-ball coach? Granted, his white-ball set-up has given them two big titles in 2025 (the Champions Trophy and the Asia Cup) but ever since he has come in, the team's red-ball programme has taken a hit. If it's not working out — and there's no shame in admitting it — the time is ripe for Gambhir and his employers to have a conversation.
Would they? After presiding over India's worst defeat in their near 95-year history of Test cricket (in terms of runs), the former opener did stop short of saying he was still the best man for the job. But he did say it was up to the BCCI to decide that. "It's up to the BCCI to do decide it," he said in the post series press conference when asked if he thought he was still the best man for the job. "I said it during my first press conference when I took over as head coach. Indian cricket is important, I'm not important. And I sit here and say exactly the same thing."
However, he was quick to remind the media that 'I'm the same guy who got results in England with a young team'. "I'm sure you guys will forget very soon because a lot of people keep talking about New Zealand. I'm the same guy under who India won the Champions Trophy and Asia Cup as well. Yes, this is a team lacking in experience."
Both those statements are true. Under Gambhir's stewardship, India won both big white-ball competitions in the time frame. For that, he has earned a fair amount of goodwill. But if he has earned goodwill for that, he has to attract a similar sort of censure for a Test record that's unbecoming of a team being described as 'Big Three'. It's not Big anything at the moment.
Sure, there are big mitigating reasons for why Gambhir has presided over a historic loss during a year of historic defeats and bad losses. It's a team in transition having lost three of its most influential players within a 10 month period. Any team would struggle without Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and R Ashwin. In Kolkata, they essentially played with 10 men for the majority of the Test as soon as Shubman Gill was out with an injury.
But where was the succession planning to ensure the red ball set-up wouldn't suffer the abrupt loss of 190 Tests, over 13000 runs and 42 100s (not to mention 106 matches and 537 wickets)? Gambhir said this is exactly what a transition would look like. "Look, first of all, the series against New Zealand, we had a very different side," he said. "This is a very different side. The experience that that batting line-up had (compared) to what this team has is chalk and cheese. So comparing everything to New Zealand is probably a wrong narrative.
"I don't give excuses. I've never done that in the past. I will never do it in the future as well. But four or five batters in this top eight have literally played less than 15 Test matches (each), and they will grow. They're learning on the job. They're learning on the field.
"Test cricket is never easy when you're playing against a top-quality side. So you've got to give them time as well. So for me, I think that is something they'll keep learning. That is important. Because I know that I hate using this word transition. This is exactly what transition is."
Like in economics, peaks and troughs are part of elite teams. End of a cycle may be a common phenomenon but what may not be as common is the lack of planning and not having a clear ideology. What does a Gambhir-coached Test team want to be? One year and two months into the gig, there's still confusion about strategy and team selection.
This team has come on record to say they want to prioritise taking 20 wickets yet they have prioritised selecting spinners and bowlers who wouldn't make the side without their batting. This team has asked its Test players to play domestic red-ball cricket but continue to pick players who haven't spent enough time there. Washington Sundar, for example, has almost bowled as many overs for India as he has for Tamil Nadu.
Till last year, Dhruv Jurel was a back-up keeper to the back-up keeper. He has certainly sparkled as a batter but the ones who featured as specialists in the top-order both in Tests as well as in domestic cricket have not been considered. The team has come on record to say Nitish Reddy's selection in India is more to do with the long-term benefits. He has bowled a total of 14 overs in three Tests, including 10 in Guwahati only after the visitors had run away with the match. There are no long-term benefits in playing anybody when they are not seemingly ready in the short-term.
