New Delhi: The Indian team started their World Test Championship (WTC) cycle on a sombre note as the side lost the first Test of a five-match series against England by 5 wickets Tuesday.
Despite five Indian batters scoring centuries—a historic first in Test cricket—India failed to close out the match, becoming the first team to lose a Test after such an individual batting milestone.
The defeat highlighted several issues: the lower order collapse, fielding lapses, but most critically, the bowlers couldn’t deliver when it mattered most.
As a result, England took a 1-0 lead in the series.
“England’s style of play is more attacking. And, India needs to come up with a fresh game plan and be consistent,” cricket coach R. Muralidhar, who has coached several players like K.L. Rahul and Mayank Agarwal, told ThePrint. Currently, he serves as the head coach (white ball) for the Assam Cricket Association and also works as a batting coach for Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) women’s team in the Women’s Premier League.
According to Muralidhar, Test matches have been more of a waiting and defensive game.
“Bowlers are used to that type of game. But now, batters are embracing—little bit for sure—but T20-style batting. So, the bowling plan also has to evolve,” he said.
Bowling unit fails to deliver
With the ball, India disappointed.
The selected bowling attack—Jasprit Bumrah, Mohammed Siraj, Shardul Thakur, Prasidh Krishna, and Ravindra Jadeja—lacked balance and penetration, especially on day 5.
The team’s overreliance on Bumrah cost them the match. While he returned with figures of 5/83—featuring reverse swing, hostile pace, and pinpoint accuracy—in the first innings, he couldn’t replicate the same impact in the second one.
Once England’s top order, particularly Zak Crawley and Ben Duckett, began tackling Bumrah’s hostility with the ball, the rest of the attack appeared toothless.
Siraj showed promise, often beating the bat and building pressure, but he couldn’t convert his efforts into wickets. Additionally, there was lack of support from fielders—Jaiswal dropped Duckett on Siraj’s ball.
A tactical decision of Gill that did raise many eyebrows was that Siraj wasn’t brought back into the attack from overs 42 to 80—a stretch that included two rain breaks and a critical phase of the match—especially since he was arguably India’s best bowler on the final day.
That said, coach Prashant Shetty, who mentors Prithvi Shaw, was hoping to see at least 500 runs on the scoreboard for the bowlers to defend.
“One cannot unsee that the lower order collapsed. It was essential to have more runs in order to dominate the match,” he told ThePrint, adding, “the pitch wasn’t great. It was not easy to take wickets.”
Also Read: England vs India, 1st Test, day 1: How Gill’s 100 & Pant’s 50 set India off to a running start
Selection headaches
Shardul Thakur’s selection, largely for his batting capabilities, remains questionable.
His scores in both innings were 1 and 4. While in the second innings he did take two wickets in a single over, his bowling lacked threat. He couldn’t apply sustained pressure or restrict the flow of runs.
“Had there been a little bit of grass on the pitch, Thakur could have turned out to be more useful. Because his style of bowling needs help. He moves the ball in the air and off the wicket, so he has to rely on the condition more,” explained Muralidhar.
Caught between the lingering influence of India’s long-favoured five-bowler strategy and the current regime’s emphasis on batting depth, Shardul Thakur was expected to serve as the bridge—offering a fifth bowling option and contributing useful runs at the eighth spot. And, he fell short on both fronts.
It’s not that India lacked alternatives, but each came with its own trade-offs that would have altered the team’s balance. And, maybe the Gautam Gambhir-Shubman Gill-led side wasn’t ready.
“But what were the options?” Muralidhar asked. “Had they played Kuldeep (Yadav), the batting would have been depleted. According to me, the wicket didn’t make a difference as far as the spinners are concerned.”
Kuldeep Yadav would have shifted the composition to a 3-2 seam-spin attack, whereas, selecting a pure pacer like Akash Deep or Arshdeep Singh would have definitely given a deeper bowling strength but it would have compromised on the batting strength.
Nitish Kumar Reddy could have added more depth with the bat but offered less with the ball. But, looking at Thakur’s performance with the ball as well, Reddy is capable of delivering a six-over spell during a 100-over innings—particularly during the middle overs when the quicks need rest.
“Reddy hasn’t played much. He lacks experience and Test cricket is all about it,” said Shetty.
According to him, the team management has faith in Thakur’s batting as he did well in the tour game and even scored a hundred.
Shetty contends that because there is no Shami, the skipper is totally dependent on Siraj and Prasidh, and urged to cut the “transitioning” team some slack.
“It’s a young bowling attack. If not Thakur, who else? Arshdeep is also new. We don’t have a balanced unit and the team is in a transition phase,” he said. “We are being too early to judge. We have to accept that we are trying to find new combinations.”
Batting depth at cost of bowling
Under Gambhir’s reign, the team selection has leaned towards shoring up the batting lineup—but it is coming at the cost of bowling power.
Thakur wasn’t even part of the squad for the Australia series in December. It took a standout Ranji Trophy season—where he claimed 35 wickets—to force his way back into contention. Yet despite his domestic resurgence, his current utility in the Test XI remains unclear.
What the selectors may have overlooked is that Thakur frequently took the new ball for Mumbai in domestic cricket.
Of his wickets in the Ranji Trophy 2024-25, 20 came within the first 20 overs of an innings, and another eight were taken between overs 80 and 100—typically when the second new ball is in play.
As many as 17 of those wickets fell within the first 10 overs, including nine in the very first over alone.
This ability to exploit early movement with the new ball was a significant factor in his domestic success—a strength he was never likely to enjoy in the Indian Test setup, where the new ball responsibilities are firmly in the very capable hands of Bumrah and Siraj.
Additionally, Captain Shubman Gill’s call to operate with Thakur and Prasidh from both ends in a key session backfired, as both leaked runs and allowed England to settle.
Prasidh, in particular, despite picking two wickets in the second innings, struggled to find rhythm, and his inexperience at the Test level showed.
Jadeja’s ‘away’ woes continue
Ravindra Jadeja’s inclusion also faces renewed scrutiny. While he remains an automatic pick in home conditions, his away record tells a different story.
In his last 16 Tests outside India, he has claimed just 17 wickets—going wicketless in 10 of those matches.
At Leeds, he was slow to adjust his line to exploit the rough, allowing Duckett to reverse-sweep comfortably.
His lone wicket—Ben Stokes—came after conceding over 100 runs, further underlining his ineffectiveness in this Test.
On the final day, when India needed to bowl tight, relentless spells, the skipper looked short of ideas. The lack of a cohesive bowling plan and a sense of urgency was palpable.
Once Bumrah was tackled by the English batsmen, there was no backup strategy. There were no short-ball traps, no aggressive field settings, no sustained pressure—just a gradual surrender of momentum.
It was a game India could—and arguably should—have won.
Moving ahead, one thing is clear: unless India can evolve tactically and shed their overdependence on Bumrah, they risk falling short in such high-stakes matches.
According to Shetty, one change the squad can bring in, moving ahead, is bringing in the wrist spinner Kuldeep Yadav.
“Of course, if pitch is the same, you can drop a fast bowler,” he said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: How dropped catches, lower order collapse undid India’s campaign against England in 1st test