Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
I love mathematics. I love the elegance of probability theory — even more so when it helps explain the seemingly impossible. So let me pose a simple question: What is the probability of India losing two consecutive home series? The answer, mathematically speaking, would be infinitesimal.
Now, take it a step further: What is the probability of India getting whitewashed in two consecutive home series? That probability would be an infinitesimal of an infinitesimal — so vanishingly small that, for all practical purposes, it should be zero.
And yet, that is exactly what has happened.
In a sport where numbers and patterns often offer clarity, this event stands out as a distant anomaly, something that defies both statistical expectation and cricketing common sense.
India, a team nearly unbeatable at home for over a decade, has experienced a collapse so rare that probability theory itself seems stunned.
To look at it from a sheer numbers perspective: between 2013 to 2023, India lost only three Test matches at home — a testament to how dominant they’ve been on home turf for years.
Yet, in the space of the last 13 months (October 2024 to November 2025), they’ve lost five out of five — that is, every single home Test they’ve played in this period.
When Australia won 15 Test matches in a row and were on the brink of a historic 16th consecutive victory, they had defeated all the nations. That was when Steve Waugh famously called the tour to India the “Final Frontier.”
Because India at home was so formidable that even the greatest Test side of the time approached it with caution, respect, and maybe a bit of fear.
And that is exactly what makes the current situation so surreal.
The Structural Anomaly
There is, of course, a structural anomaly in all of this one that has gone unquestioned for far too long.
Has anyone seriously asked why India plays five-Test series only with England and Australia? Why, even after New Zealand and South Africa won the World Test Championship, are they still restricted to two-match or three-match tours in India?
It is not just illogical but borderline ridiculous. This is a total lack of imagination stemming from both the BCCI and the ICC.
Two-Test series were traditionally reserved for new entrants to Test cricket, or for mismatches so predictable that a longer contest would serve no purpose. They were never meant for teams ranked at the top of the world, nor for countries with long cricketing history and proven competitiveness.
On the other hand, five-Test series offer something fundamentally different: room for comebacks, space for reinforcements and tactical shifts, and a true test of endurance Most importantly, they smooth out the randomness that often distorts the outcomes of shorter contests. We’ve already seen this. India’s recent five-Test home series against England and Australia were defined by momentum swings, fightbacks, and strategic evolution and the stronger team had to prove itself over time, not just ride a burst of form.
Short series exaggerate collapses. Long series reveal the contests.
Some pundits may say that India lost two tests and hence a comeback would have been very unlikely. It is not true. India would have approached the second test very differently in a five test series. After being put on the back foot, they could have looked to salvage a draw in a five test series. Test cricket plays out in the minds more that bat or the ball.
Cricket should not be run on commercial interest alone. It should be a healthy mix of cricketing contexts and commercial interests.
Pitches and Toss
The debate around India’s underprepared pitches is not new. What was once a strategic advantage, turning tracks from Day 1 that rewarded superior spin skills has increasingly slipped into the territory of unpredictability. An underprepared pitch doesn’t showcase home strength; it neutralises it. When surfaces break down too early, become two-paced, or offer excessive turn without consistency, they introduce chaos rather than competition. Such pitches don’t reward quality spin or disciplined batting; they reward the toss.
There is no home advantage to the toss. India lost both tosses and toss is very vital to the matches in the Sub continent
The pitch in Kolkata was poor which means the strengths of two teams tend to even out. We attributed the loss to the surface, to Gill’s absence, to South Africa’s new found love with spin, and of course some luck. Some pundits went further, suggesting that South Africa’s recent tour of Pakistan had equipped them with a deeper understanding of subcontinental spin conditions. On such pitches, the weaker team often gets closer than expected. That’s exactly what we assumed had happened.
India was expected to respond strongly in the second Test. And on the first day, everything followed the script: disciplined bowling, early breakthroughs, scoreboard pressure all signs of a classic Indian home comeback.
But on the second day, the second half of the New Zealand batting flipped the match on its head. Despite India’s talent, this was an inexperienced side, and once the momentum shifted, they were blown away on the second day itself. They never looked like recovering.
Earlier, we said the weaker team gets lucky on a bad pitch. We were right, It was India that had managed to drag the first Test close. The second Test revealed the true hierarchy. India lost by 408 runs, their heaviest defeat ever in terms of runs.
Transitionary phase
India is also navigating an avoidable transitionary phase when a generation of seasoned match-winners has receded. The next wave of cricketers, though talented, is still learning the demands of Test cricket. This shift has been further complicated by the fact that several key retirements were effectively forced rather than phased, leaving little room for succession planning or a gradual transfer of experience. Instead of easing new players into defined roles, a talent rich but experience thin squad suddenly asked to shoulder responsibilities that once belonged to giants.
The current collapse is not a statistical accident. India’s aura at home masked structural complacencies – from scheduling imbalances to flawed pitch preparation to the assumption that raw talent can replace experience.
Probability did not fail; cricketing logic did. If India truly wants to reclaim its “Final Frontier” legacy, it must fix the system that allowed this anomaly to happen in the first place. Dominance is never permanent but decline doesn’t have to be either.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.