India’s twin Test series victories in Australia were greatly affected by their robust bowling attack. However, the recent 3-1 defeat to Australia in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy underscored the disparity between Jasprit Bumrah and the other bowlers. Bumrah was outstanding, claiming 32 wickets in 151. 2 overs at an average of 13. 06 and a strike rate of 28. 4. In comparison, the other Indian pacers—Mohammed Siraj, Akash Deep, Prasidh Krishna, Harshit Rana, and Nitish Kumar Reddy—secured 40 wickets in 351 overs, averaging 34. 82 with a strike rate of 52. 6.
The heavy dependence on Bumrah and the lack of experience among other pacers have raised issues concerning India’s fast-bowling depth. Former India spinner and chief selector Sunil Joshi conveyed optimism regarding the future of India’s pace attack but pointed out the lack of a left-arm seamer as a missed chance in the series.
“No, because we already have Troy Cooley; he’s been in NCA and is overseeing the fast-bowling group. So, I don’t believe there should be any concern. But certainly, we did miss a left-arm seamer in that lineup,” Joshi expressed in an exclusive conversation with IANS.
“If a left-arm seamer had been present, then there would have been a slight alteration in angles because most of the Australian, English, or New Zealand batters are not particularly comfortable facing the left-arm seamer due to the ball moving away at a different angle.
“We just required variety, but fortunately or unfortunately, both bowlers Yash Dayal and Khaleel Ahmed were available, yet they couldn’t participate, and that’s unfortunate,” he added.
Joshi reminisced about the injury-plagued 2020/21 series in Australia, where net bowlers rose to the occasion, performed admirably, and contributed to victories. He underscored the need for preparation, learning from opponents’ strategies, and maintaining discipline for achieving reliable results.
“It’s all about showcasing character by each individual player who is on the tour to excel. For that, did we prepare thoroughly? I believe yes. Did we take responsibility? Yes. So, now from this tour, from the initial Test match to the second and third matches, did we gain knowledge from the opposition?
“I view it that way because if we learned something from the opposition, then yes, we could have performed better and more consistently. If you haven’t learned, you need to seek to explore that and be disciplined enough to channel that effort into perspective and practice, then achieve a result from it,” he elaborated.
Joshi also highlighted the significance of tactical execution, pointing out how Australia’s Nathan Lyon exhibited patience and consistency, qualities that were lacking in India’s bowling aside from Bumrah.
“Tactically, when things don’t go well, we will face scrutiny. If things go well, we claim that it’s a good tactic employed. We must examine what the opposing team did—such as which tactical maneuvers they executed effectively? For instance, one can analyze their fast bowlers or even Nathan Lyon—he didn’t do much, he simply maintained his patience and consistency. Did we mirror that? No, aside from Bumrah,” he noted.
Joshi also shared his thoughts on the unexpected announcement of Ravichandran Ashwin‘s international retirement following the third Test at Gabba, a match he did not participate in.
“I was genuinely taken aback by that because I am unaware of what occurred or developed during or between the second and third Test matches. However, it’s again Ashwin, who has been very direct about his choices. So, I’m not implying that it was a poor decision.
“I mean, it’s important to respect that, as he has become a modern legend of the sport, and that is undeniable. But again, what led him to make that choice? Therefore, we will need to find out because it was astonishing, and the board, selection committee, and team management ought to provide an explanation for that,” Joshi concluded.