For all the statements made by the Board of Control for Cricket in India about awarding the Ranji Trophy and building the red ball ecosystem, events in Guwahati told a very different story. India’s batting collapse was not just a bad session. It shows a deeper confusion about selection philosophy, domestic credibility and the balance between youth and experience.
On a surface described by Kuldeep Yadav as a “road”, India were bowled out for 201, which was more due to their own misjudgment than South Africa’s bowling. Marc Jansen’s animosity exposed a batting line-up that played against the match situation, giving South Africa control of the Test and thus the series. The stumps saw the visitors push their lead past 300 and India were staring at a second home in the Gambhir era.
IND vs SA 2nd Test Day 3 main points| Scorecard
But the collapse was only a symptom. The bigger issue lies in how Indian cricket currently envisions its future.
HOME DISCONNECTION
Domestic cricket is often referred to as the backbone of Indian Test cricket, but selection trends suggest otherwise. The board insists that Ranji’s success matters, but those who dominate the format remain trapped on the sidelines while players with first-class profiles with the potential to jump the queue.
A look at the numbers shows the difference:
- Sai Sudharsan: 38 FC matches, average 39.41
- Dhruv Jurel: 31 matches, average 55.71
- Karun Nair: 125 matches, average 50.41
- Sarfaraz Khan: 60 matches, average 63.15
Sudharsan’s repeated dismissals from similar traps show that it is still in development. Jurel has the numbers, but not the consistency yet. Meanwhile, two of India’s most prolific red-ball batsmen, Nair and Sarfaraz, continue to wait despite producing first-class records that used to be automatic invitations to the Test arena.
If domestic cricket is no longer the main criterion for selection, then what is?
SKILL COLLAPSE
Washington Sundar and Kuldeep Yadav have shown what is required: patience, clarity and time in the middle. Their 62-run in nearly 35 overs was a masterclass in situational cricket. She showed exactly what the highest order did not offer.
Instead, three wickets fell in 13 balls. Sudharsan played the deposition with a copy. Five minutes before tea, Jurel took a swing at a short ball with a bait. Rishabh Pant attacked Jansen in the moment he ignored the demands of the match. It was less a technical breakdown and more a collapse of cricketing intelligence.
These are the moments that raise a sharper question. Are India’s young batsmen properly prepared for the mental and tactical demands of Test cricket?
THE VALUE OF EXPERIENCE
Youth development is important, but Test cricket is not a format for long-term experimentation. It requires resilience, discipline and maturity. India’s selection philosophy, heavily biased towards building the future, seems to have forgotten this.
Would seasoned domestic performers like Nair or Sarfaraz fall into the same traps? Their careers suggest otherwise. Their thousands of first-class runs represent time spent grinding, adjusting, surviving and developing – exactly what India lacked in Guwahati.
The test team must be a mix, not an age group project. Experience is not a luxury. It is a must in Test cricket.
LOSE WITH A PURPOSE
Sacrificing the exam period to “improve the future” is not the way forward. India is not a party to reconstruction. It is a cricket powerhouse that prides itself on excellence in the longest format. The idea that losing now will somehow create better tomorrows is flawed thinking. A country with India’s resources, culture and depth must strive to win every time they step on the field.
Perhaps in the obsession with pushing youngsters into the eleven, maturity requirements in the tests were overlooked. Talent is important. Temperament is critical.
Right now, India seems to be confusing the two.
– The end
Issued by:
Amar Panicker
Published on:
November 25, 2025
Tune in
