What India’s ODI defeat in Australia says about the Gambhir-Gill era

Indian cricket fans in the last two decades have grown up seeing their team dominate white-ball cricket, both at home and abroad. Under the leadership of MS Dhoni, Virat Kohli, and Rohit Sharma, India hardly ever lost a limited-overs series with a match to spare. But something has changed. Shubman Gill’s team suffered their second straight defeat to Australia on Thursday, losing the three-match ODI series 2-0 with one game left.

India’s two-wicket loss in Adelaide followed a seven-wicket defeat in the rain-affected opener in Perth. Both games were competitive, but India couldn’t finish the job with the ball. They now risk a 3-0 sweep if they lose the final ODI in Sydney on Saturday - something that hasn’t happened in the format since their 2022 series defeat in South Africa under KL Rahul.

More from First Cricket

Mohsin Naqvi relocates Asia Cup trophy from ACC headquarters to a different location: Report Composed Kohli silences Adelaide fears, but he knows every innings now carries extra weight

This isn’t just another overseas loss. It’s India’s second major setback in Australia this year. Back in January, they surrendered the Border-Gavaskar Trophy for the first time since 2016 and lost a chance to play in the World Test Championship (WTC) final for the third time in a row. This back-to-back failure has hurt a country that demands consistency from its team in the game it loves the most.

Australia expose India’s team selection

The defeat has raised uncomfortable questions about India’s team selection, leadership, and direction under head coach Gautam Gambhir and new captain Gill. The questions being asked now are not about individual performances but about the team strategy. One of the biggest criticisms of this series has been India’s team selection.

The Indian management has chosen to rely on so-called all-rounders - Nitish Reddy, Harshit Rana, and Washington Sundar - instead of picking full-time bowlers. The logic might have been to strengthen the batting depth, but it has clearly backfired. India ended up fielding a lopsided team with too many batters and very few specialist bowlers, and the lack of wicket-taking options proved costly in both games.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

'Won't require surgery...': Real reason behind Jasprit Bumrah's absence from 5th Test revealed in new report

PCB bans players from WCL over India-Pakistan match controversy

Axar Patel once again chipped in with a valuable 44 and also broke the partnership between Matthew Short and Matt Renshaw with his left-arm spin. Sundar picked up two wickets but could only manage 12 runs with the bat. Reddy struggled, scoring just 8 and going wicketless in his three overs. Harshit Rana claimed two wickets but remained expensive, though he did add a few useful runs towards the end of India’s innings.

Australia, on the other hand, played with clear plans. They knew how to rotate bowlers, when to attack, and how to maintain pressure. Adam Zampa’s match-winning four-wicket spell in the second ODI was a perfect example of that clarity. Zampa showed that the surface had something in it for the spinners, just as Sundar and Axar had during Australia’s chase.

The Kuldeep Yadav question

That brings us to the biggest question: Why was Kuldeep Yadav left out again? Kuldeep has been India’s best white-ball spinner for the past two years. He was instrumental in India’s victories in the ICC Champions Trophy and the Asia Cup earlier this year, winning matches almost single-handedly. Yes, those tournaments were played in Asian conditions, but Kuldeep’s control and variation make him effective anywhere.

Gill and Gambhir’s decision to exclude him and instead back a slew of all-rounders seems to have cost India heavily. When India needed wickets in the middle overs in Adelaide, the captain had no real attacking spin option. Zampa’s success on the same pitch proved what India missed. Former India cricketer Varun Aaron also questioned the decision to exclude Kuldeep.

“Kuldeep Yadav should have come in from game one. You will have to sacrifice a batsman. Obviously, you can’t play two fast bowlers in Australia. That’s that. That would be a no-go. But Kuldeep is somebody who will get you wickets. He will make up for those runs which you didn’t score. And also, the moment you have one batter short, I feel batsmen in general would take more responsibility on themselves and try to dig in deeper because they know they don’t have that cushion at the back,” Aaron said after the match.

“It’s not that India have never played with seven batters before. They have in the past, and I think Kuldeep would be a great addition because he would get you wickets in the middle. And today again, India were depending on the batsmen to make mistakes, rather than to get wickets in the middle. But they didn’t really get the batsman out, if that makes sense. They’re two very different things,” he added.

It’s not fair to be too harsh on youngsters like Nitish Reddy, who has only played two ODIs, or Harshit Rana, who is still learning international cricket’s demands. They have talent, but they are not yet the finished products. India’s mistake is not their selection itself, but the lack of balance around them - something that a player like Hardik Pandya provides.

India must take a call before Sydney

Without a solid bowling core, the team will more often than not struggle to close out games, just as we saw in Perth and Adelaide. The absence of Jasprit Bumrah made that gap even more evident. Had he been available, India would have had three proper fast bowlers, with Reddy or Harshit as a supporting option. In that scenario, they could have easily accommodated Kuldeep Yadav to strengthen their attack.

If Team India wants to move forward, it needs to decide what their priorities are. Do they want batting depth or wicket-taking power? As the Sydney ODI approaches, even though it’s only a dead rubber, India must take a call on what kind of team they want to field - extend their batting lineup or play at least three-four specialist bowlers who could close out games.