India’s capacity to take 20 wickets faces stern test as Edgbaston will show how committed they are to the cause.
It’s time for India to show how badly they want 20 wickets.
India’s lengthy tail is causing them concern. They keep repeating that obtaining 20 wickets is their top objective and that they are prepared to play four tailenders to get 20 wickets as cheaply as possible, but if you see it for yourself, you won’t believe it.
By now, it should be obvious that Shardul Thakur’s batting prowess was the main reason he played in the first Test match at Headingley. Despite using him for only 16 overs out of 182.4, India has frequently referred to him as a “bowling all-rounder.”
However, it is not about appearances. To try to win Test matches, one must develop and live by a philosophy. In 2021, Thakur served as a fourth fast bowler on spicy fields; India would have utilised him more on the flatter tracks in 2025 if they had been more confident in his ability to bowl.
With the exception of the Perth Test on a spicy pitch, India has found it difficult to collect 20 wickets and remain competitive in a Test match since the 2024–25 Australia tour began. Not being a member of the team in Australia, Thakur has also not really shown himself to be the answer.
When the ball gets soft and India is waiting for the second new ball, captain Shubman Gill stated that he thought a second spinner could help limit the run flow. Ben Stokes, who swung the ball more than anybody else in the first Test, is their opponents’ fourth fast.
India claims that the surface, which is dry beneath patchy grass, will help spin. However, if they choose Washington, they essentially forfeit the ability of wristspinner Kuldeep Yadav to take wickets. Although under different circumstances, Yadav was the Player of the Match in their previous Test match against England prior to this tour.
If everything else is equal, you want bowlers who can score runs. However, despite the extra runs that Washington can score, he and Kuldeep are not exactly on an equal footing with the ball. Or perhaps you’re looking for an all-rounder with seam bowling who can threaten to take wickets. India doesn’t have either. Their resolve to take 20 wickets as cheaply as possible will be put to the test at this point. If they put their money where their mouth is, you can see it here.
However, it all seems to be ineffective. India is only one step away from playing for a draw and taking the win as a bonus if the chance arises if Headingley’s bowling potency is reduced.
It is also possible to reverse all of the pressure-related reasons. Runs saved by bowling opponents out can win games; more runs on the board can only raise the likelihood of a draw. All of the bowlers get longer rests in between spells when there is one very dangerous bowler. The four fast bowlers for England bowled 21%, 21%, 18%, and 17% of their overs, respectively. 24%, 23%, 19%, and 9% of their overs were bowled by India’s quick bowlers. Bowlers are more productive for longer when their workload is more evenly distributed.
Although prioritising batting depth may seem like a drastic adjustment, and the club management may have good reasons for doing so, now may be the right time to take that risk. Furthermore, India hasn’t ruled it out yet.