A gamble on batting depth and all-rounders backfired, leaving India's bowling attack in dire straits down under
India’s Border-Gavaskar Trophy hegemony ended abruptly with a 3-1 series loss in Australia. The trend of four straight series victories against Australia was eventually ended, and while the Australians clearly played some good cricket, India’s own team selection proved to be their downfall. At the core of the problem was the absence of a critical fourth bowler, which left their bowling assault stretched thin. The implications were far-reaching, and the statistics show how much this error cost them.
AUSTRALIA BEATS INDIA 3-1 🏏 Australia's decade-long drought for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy ends.
— Sunrise (@sunriseon7) January 5, 2025
WATCH SUNRISE FOR MORE | @7plus ☀️ pic.twitter.com/Ep7WH8mQhr
Since the first Test in Perth, India’s pace assault has been problematic. The bowling load was supposed to be carried by Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj, but the lack of a fourth specialist bowler added to the strain. Bumrah and Siraj bowled 74.4% of India’s overs during the series, with Bumrah collecting 32 wickets, including a record six in the first innings in Perth. However, the workload harmed his physical state.
Despite his efforts, Bumrah sustained a mid-series injury during the Sydney Test, leaving India with only two frontline pacers in a perilous situation. Bumrah was fatigued by the conclusion of the series, which India had lost 3-1, and India’s bowling attack lacked the depth required to face the Australians.
India’s lack of a fourth bowler was a massive concern despite having Prasidh Krishna on the cards. Harshit Rana, Washington Sundar, and Nitish Kumar Reddy contributed slightly, bowling only 13.2% of the total overs and frequently giving the top pacers a break. Their lack of breakthroughs enabled Australian batters to readily counterattack.
Without a specialist bowler, India leaned largely on Bumrah and Siraj. Mohammed Shami’s injury left them without a dependable third bowler. As a result, Bumrah and Siraj were overworked, and India’s attack lacked the necessary diversity to threaten Australia’s batting lineup.
The Indian team selections showed a concerning pattern. In the first Test at Perth, team management selected three specialist bowlers, Bumrah, Siraj, and Harshit Rana, and two all-rounders, Washington Sundar and Nitish Kumar Reddy. Still, the team failed to achieve a balanced bowling assault. While this appeared to be a reasonable attempt to replicate Australia’s formula of three pacers and two spinners, India’s bowlers lacked the talent of Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood, and Lyon.
In Melbourne and Sydney, India grappled with the imbalance. Relying on spinners Ravichandran Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja made sense in principle, but the Australian conditions were not conducive to spin. The Australian attack, led by Cummins, Scott Boland and Starc, had more depth and experience, successfully applying pressure on India’s batters, especially while defending low totals.
Bumrah and Siraj, India’s pacers, bowled 74.4% of the series overs, the highest rate of any side in Australia. In contrast, Australia’s bowlers distributed their workload more fairly, with four primary bowlers accounting for 55% of the total, with the remainder coming from all-rounders and part-timers.
India’s policy of not constantly deploying four bowlers resulted in an underperforming third option during crucial periods. They struggled to give fresh legs and variation when needed, whilst Australia successfully rotated Starc, Cummins, Boland, and Lyon to sustain pressure and break partnerships.
Ball of the Day 🤯 by Debutant Harshit Rana to dismiss India's 🇮🇳 Biggest Headache Travis Head 👏🏻#INDvsAUS #INDvAUSpic.twitter.com/2vWlysRsw3
— Richard Kettleborough (@RichKettle07) November 22, 2024
India’s careful team selections were evident in the series’ final games. Despite having nothing to lose, India maintained their conservative plan, prioritising an additional batter or all-rounder over a fourth specialist bowler, leaving the squad exposed. With the key bowlers weary, this decision seemed odd. While Risbhabh Pant and Ravindra Jadeja showed potential, the absence of an additional bowler limited their opportunities.
Had India selected a fourth pacer, Bumrah and Siraj might have rested at vital times, increasing their chances of grabbing the 20 wickets required for victory. According to statistics, only 9.7% of Test wins occur without all 20 wickets. India’s inability to adapt to Test cricket’s standards resulted in sanctions for insufficient bowling depth.
