In the last 3-4 years, India’s approach to the test format has shifted from bowling dominance to batting security. India just failed to participate in the final of the 2025 ICC World Test Championship, despite being the likely contenders to the title in the whole cycle.
Although there were periods during the team tested a more of a team of batters playing XI, the major factors behind missing out on the final were not necessarily all about the defensive system or the preference in an all-round forward over a specialist bowler, but rather whether the team lost crucial series like away games and sometimes poor performance.
The management has tried to create a balance between bowlers who can do well with the bat and those who have the ability to strike 20 wickets and has to some extent achieved it but their failure to regularly claim wickets in difficult conditions particularly outside their home has largely contributed to their WTC campaign performance.
The likes of Root, Smith, Markram, and Head roll their arms when needed. They are part-timers, act as surprise elements to break the partnerships, give an extra option to the captain, and provide flexibility to the team. India is lacking this flexibility.
Shift in the mentality
In the Kohli-Shastri era, we’ve seen how they revolutionized India’s approach and way of thinking in the test format. They made India a bowling powerhouse and made us believe that we can win anywhere in the world if we have 5 proper bowling options. Kohli was a firm believer in a philosophy of “20 wickets in a test guarantee the win.” He transformed the bowling line-up and was very stubborn about playing 5 pure bowlers in the XI. You can question his quick changes in the team selection, but you cannot argue with his fearless mindset that gives us so many test wins outside Asia.
In recent years, this mentality has slowly faded. Recent selections in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and the ongoing Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy prove the management’s defensive approach. If management knows that Bumrah will not play all the matches of the series, they should’ve gone with an experienced bowler like Shami, who did excellently well on the last tour. Instead, they went with a spin- and all-rounder-heavy squad.
Constant lower-order collapses
It is quite obvious that India has struggled with the lower order not contributing with the bat in crucial phases of the match. We have been witnessing these collapses for the last 3 years, no matter whether it was home conditions or SENA conditions. You expect a little bit of runs from the lower order, but it can be neglected if that order did well in their respective field, which is bowling. If bowlers are taking 20 wickets but not scoring a good amount of runs, then it is acceptable.
However, none of these things have happened in recent years. Unless the likes of Ashwin, Shami, and Umesh’s occasional fireworks, no. 8-11 continuously crumbled, resulting in giving away the momentum. Is focusing on batting depth the solution for this, which may lead to losing the matches, or is strengthening the bowling to win the matches?
Are too many all-rounders wrong?
In contemporary Test cricket, a team needs an all-rounder, but Indians prefer bowlers with a capacity to bat a little, hoping for 2 wickets and 25–30 runs. This tends to hinder wicket-taking potential.
What India’s Test strategy lacks is the creation of batters who can bowl well, such as Joe Root or Travis Head. These top-order batsmen might not be frontline bowlers, but their roles in particular situations, like breaking partnerships and supporting primary bowlers, are critical.
The bigger question is—why aren’t young batters being trained to bowl 5–6 overs a day? Why isn’t the domestic circuit emphasizing dual-skill players? India could create batters who bring bowling depth, enabling five full-time bowlers to bowl more freely.
Consequences
Reliance on batting bowlers means short-term stability but long-term structural issues. In Test cricket, particularly away from the subcontinent, taking 20 wickets is imperative. Weakening bowling quality in the disguise of batting depth nullifies a team’s primary pathway to victory.
India’s recent foreign defeats illustrate this—when a bowler has a bad day or is injured, the side is short of an asset. Lacking a part-timer in the top order, the other bowlers end up with unsustainable workloads, resulting in successful spells becoming much harder to come by and possible injuries in long series. It also limits the tactical freedom of the captain. A part-timer can be used as a successful surprise factor, particularly in pressure situations.
Lacking additional bowling options from the top order makes the Indian attack prone to flat wickets, as witnessed in drawn tests, where they find it difficult to keep the pressure on. England and Australia are favored by the fact that they have numerous bowling options, and so flexibility is retained even when some are not effective. India must look beyond its emphasis on “bowlers who bat” and invest in multi-dimensional batsmen who can bowl well.
Soureesh Datta 
Baishali Karmakar