Trisha Ghosal in Australia
For the first time in a decade, India has surrendered the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, a series that historically defined India’s dominance in Test cricket. While much attention has been directed at the faltering Indian top-order, it’s imperative to look beyond the obvious and dissect an issue that consistently haunted the visitors throughout the series: our inability to dismiss Australia’s lower-order efficiently.
The numbers paint a damning picture of India’s bowlers and their failure to close out innings. Australia’s last five wickets contributed a staggering 991 runs in eight innings at an average of 123.87 per innings. In contrast, India’s lower-order managed 942 runs in 9 innings at an average of 104.67.
The crucial difference isn’t just in the averages but in the context of those runs. Australia’s bowlers—players picked primarily for their bowling—made meaningful contributions that changed the course of matches, while India’s lower-order was bolstered by an extra batter in Washington Sundar, who didn’t even bowl much.
Innings-Wise Analysis: The Australian lower-order’s dominance
1st Test, Perth
- India dominated with a 295-run win, but the warning signs were already there.
- Australia’s last five wickets added 66 and 159 runs in their two innings, showcasing the resistance that would become a theme.
2nd Test, Adelaide
- Australia’s 10-wicket win was built on their tail’s resilience.
- While India’s last five added 93 and 70, Australia’s lower-order scored 129 in the first innings—a decisive factor.
3rd Test, Brisbane (Drawn)
- The only draw of the series, and again, the Aussie tail wagged.
- Australia’s lower-order contributed 119 and 56, while India’s tail managed a respectable 186 in the first innings.
4th Test, Melbourne
- Australia’s 184-run victory can be directly attributed to their tail’s brilliance.
- Australia added 228 and 149 runs in their two innings, compared to India’s 210 and a dismal 28.
5th Test, Sydney
- A 6-wicket loss sealed the series defeat for India.
- Even here, Australia’s last five wickets chipped in with 85 runs, while India’s lower-order managed just 65 and 33 runs.
For the Latest Sports News: Click Here
The Bowling Problem: Where Did India Falter?
Over-Reliance on Bumrah
Jasprit Bumrah was India’s standout bowler in terms of dismissing the lower-order, picking up 10 of Australia’s last five wickets. Mohammed Siraj chipped in with another 10 wickets, but beyond them, India’s bowling attack looked toothless.
Ineffectiveness of Others
- Nitish Kumar Reddy, Ravindra Jadeja, Harshit Rana, and Akash Deep managed just 3 wickets each, while Prasidh Krishna and Washington Sundar added only 2 each.
- Bumrah and Siraj’s efforts were stretched too thin, exposing the lack of depth in India’s attack.
Lack of Penetration and Intimidation
Australia’s lower-order batters—Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon, and Scott Boland—played freely against a bowling unit that lacked intimidation. Too often, they were allowed to settle in, score freely, and take the game away from India.
Support for Bumrah
Bumrah looked overburdened, forced to do the heavy lifting throughout the series. Siraj, while impactful in patches, lacked consistency. The rest of the attack was bland, failing to trouble Australia’s tail-enders, who seized the opportunity.
The Tactical Misstep: Playing Washington Sundar
Washington Sundar, picked ostensibly as an all-rounder, contributed more with the bat than the ball. In fact, his lack of overs bowled raises questions about his inclusion. If he was in the side purely to bolster the batting, why not pick a specialist batter instead?
Contrast this with Australia, whose lower-order contributions came from bowlers who fulfilled their primary role with the ball. Players like Starc and Lyon embodied the balance India lacked.
Lessons to Learn
India’s loss wasn’t just about the bowlers; the batters failed too. However, this series highlighted a structural problem in India’s bowling strategy:
- Failure to dismiss set batters: Australia’s lower-order players often batted with the freedom their top order lacked, exploiting loose bowling.
- Lack of a second enforcer: Bumrah can’t win matches alone. Without consistent support, his efforts were neutralised.
- Ineffective use of resources: The inclusion of players like Sundar diluted the attack, making it one-dimensional.
The 2024-25 Border-Gavaskar Trophy will be remembered as a missed opportunity for India, specially with Australia’s top-order having some problems. Australia’s tail played the decisive role, and India’s inability to finish off innings exposed significant flaws in the bowling unit. If India is to reclaim the trophy in future, they must address the glaring issues in their bowling attack, support Bumrah effectively, and bring a sharper edge to their tactics.
As much as the batters’ failures will be scrutinised, this loss belongs equally to the bowlers who couldn’t do their jobs when it mattered most.
Thanks to Snehasis Mukherjee for helping with the research of the above numbers.
Also Read: Quick Recap: How Australia won back the Border-Gavaskar Trophy