Stop blaming only the batters: India’s Test crisis exposes deeper scheduling failures and cricket’s new direction

Cricket is reactive. Literally and figuratively. Whenever India lose a home Test, a meltdown ensues, as has been the case since Sunday. Everyone has an opinion and now, the platform to voice it, meaning that the dissection of performances, of what should have been done, of what was not done, is never-ending.

Cricket, on the pitch, is reactive too. Batters can have all the plans in the world, but if the bowlers do not bowl where they think they will bowl, all of that goes for a toss because batting is only an event in theory until the ball has been delivered.

Batters try to react best to the hand they have been dealt. Like they attempted to in Kolkata. To varying degrees of success. But when it does come unstuck, that gives rise to a different and pertinent Indian debate – on what is preventing them from reacting better in conditions that should, ideally, not feel alien.

The boring conclusion is that there is no right answer. There is not a wrong one either. It is, simply, a combination of several factors.

Sunil Gavaskar, one of India’s greatest ever Test batters, has put that down to Indian batters not playing enough domestic cricket on tracks that spin from day one, which is often the norm in the Ranji Trophy as teams hunt outright victories. His tirade was probably not as scathing as some of his previous ones, but it was still a stern assessment.

Is the lack of domestic cricket the real problem?

In a utopian world, that should help. Because batters, by simple cause and effect, will feel more at home when they play a greater chunk of games in conditions mirroring what may be found in a Test. But tricking the cricketing calendar into creating such periods where the sole focus can only be domestic red-ball cricket is a different problem entirely.

Most of India’s Test squad were involved in a white-ball-only tour to Australia not long ago. The last T20I took place on November 8, meaning there was not even a week between the culmination of that series and the start of the series against South Africa.

Axar Patel, Jasprit Bumrah, Kuldeep Yadav, Nitish Kumar Reddy, Washington Sundar and Shubman Gill (who happens to be India’s Test captain), were all initially named in the squad. Kuldeep was withdrawn later, with Nitish also not featuring due to a quadriceps strain. But each of Axar, Bumrah, Gill and Washington played the fifth T20I, which was ultimately abandoned due to inclement weather.

It is not as if India could have sacrificed sending their first-string side altogether because the T20 World Cup, in which India will be defending champions, is slated to get underway early next year. Conditions in Australia may have been different, but the value of competing against a direct rival, across five high-octane encounters, cannot be oversold enough.

There were others, though, who did indulge in a slice of domestic cricket. Sai Sudharsan played two India A matches against South Africa A. Dhruv Jurel was a part of one of those contests and mustered twin centuries in the same game. Devdutt Padikkal also played those, in addition to a Ranji Trophy match and two India A fixtures against Australia A. He even scored 150 versus the visiting Australians.

Of the aforementioned three, though, only one (Jurel) was picked for the first Test in Kolkata. Yashasvi Jaiswal, who warmed up for the South Africa series with 67 and 156 against Rajasthan, only managed 12 across two innings at the Eden Gardens, which indicates that this possible solution is not as black-and-white as solely picking players who are playing domestic cricket. That would then also come at the expense of all-format players, who have been earmarked as being skillful enough to juggle the differing demands.

Cramped schedule leave batters with little choice

There is the small matter of scheduling, too. India has a jam-packed international calendar, leading to jam-packed itineraries for cricketers who play all formats. The powers above would not want to forego international games for domestic cricket. The players might not want that either.

There is also no guarantee that those scoring truckloads of runs in domestic cricket will be able to translate that into Test cricket. Abhimanyu Easwaran, a heavy domestic run-scorer has flattered to deceive when representing India A. Priyank Panchal, from a few years ago, did not impress enough to warrant an international gig, and Sarfaraz Khan, despite a decent run in Tests, has been overlooked due to his perceived weaknesses against international-quality bowling.

Cricket, anyway, is not just red-ball cricket anymore. In India, that could be the case because of the sheer volume. But this day and age, despite the purists’ arguments, revolves around white-ball cricket and specifically, T20 cricket.

One of the major reasons India has so many youngsters still flooding cricket fields (apart from the obvious motivation of representing the nation) is that these kids can see their name up in lights and a financially-viable future in the sport. That can come through the Ranji Trophy pathway too, but the IPL and the state-run franchise league route is pretty lucrative and tough to turn down. Which, as Kevin Pietersen indicated in a tweet recently, plays a role in what parts of the game are prioritised by the upcoming generation.

Everyone, in an ideal world, would want to play Test cricket for India. But in a year, maybe 20 (sometimes even lesser) get that chance. Whereas in the IPL, there are 120 such spots (Impact Player included) to fight for. Not to mention the chopping and changing franchises usually partake, and the opportunities that open up subsequently. It is perhaps even more skewed in countries not as financially blessed. Where boards rely on T20 cricket and franchise leagues for their functioning and sustainability.

All of that, in the end, leaves the modern-day batter in a tough spot. On one side, they can see the riches of the white-ball game and the instant incentive it offers. But in the rear-view mirror, they can also see the longer-term grind of the format still considered the pinnacle, albeit in the knowledge that they may have to sacrifice the moolah they might have otherwise raked in. But if they intend to do both, they may run themselves into the ground.

That does not mean they should be absolved of responsibility or that they can take their places for granted. Or that they can get away completely despite playing a major role in South Africa defending the second-lowest fourth-innings total ever in Asia. But batters should also be given some leeway. Batting in Kolkata was not easy. It was darn perilous. Any batter of any era would have struggled.

India, as a batting unit, will have better days. They ought to. But they might have worse ones too. And those will not magically disappear from the horizon just by putting in cricketers who play more domestic matches.

It might make them better-equipped, but in cricket, nothing comes with a guarantee. Not today. Not historically. It is all about reacting to the hand you are dealt. And that, inevitably, means batters should also be cut some slack. Even if the circumstances, on the outside and on social media, feel far more reactive. And even if reactiveness is, in a sense, the name of the game.