Beyond the numbers, Sri Lanka offered India a new grammar against spin

For much of the past two years, India’s batting against spin has looked strangely uncertain in the conditions where it was once most at home. Batters raised on turning pitches began playing as though every delivery contained a trap, feet rooted, options narrowed, pressure allowed to build.

The warning signs were impossible to miss. New Zealand’s 3-0 sweep in 2024 exposed a batting order that had lost its old fluency against spin. South Africa’s 2-0 win a year later deepened the concern, as India’s batting average sank to 15.23 and Simon Harmer took 17 wickets at under nine runs apiece. India were no longer making the bowler think twice. Too often, they were allowing the bowler to dictate the terms.

SL vs IND 2nd Test Day 5: Highlights

There was a time when Indian Test batting treated spin as a basic skill, not a special case. Use the feet. Play late. Work the ball into gaps. Stay long enough to make the bowler think twice.

That discipline had not disappeared entirely, but it had become harder to find when India needed it most. New Zealand’s spinners took 81 of the 112 wickets that fell in the 2024 series, with Ajaz Patel claiming 15 and Mitchell Santner 13 in a single Test. India were bowled out for 263 and 121 in Mumbai, with their senior batters offering no answer.

Does India now have the batting core to counter spin threats? (Photo: PTI)

The deeper concern was never just about individuals. India seemed to have lost something collective — a shared method that once made them so difficult to beat on turning tracks.

Replacing players is one thing. Rebuilding a batting culture is another.

SRI LANKA TESTS GIVE HOPE

The Sri Lanka series did not answer every question. The attack was not as severe, the pitches were not as hostile and the conditions were less punishing than those that produced India’s home collapses.

But the series offered something India had been missing: a sense of order.

At the centre of that was Devdutt Padikkal, who gave the No. 3 position a clarity it has lacked for some time.

Padikkal finished with 328 runs in three innings at an average of 109.33, including 167 in Galle and 117 in Colombo. Dhruv Jurel added 173, Rishabh Pant 168 and KL Rahul 135. Even with quieter returns from Yashasvi Jaiswal and Shubman Gill, India posted 462 in the first Test and 503 for 9 in the second.

Devdutt Paddikal and Dhruv Jurel were India’s better batters in the Sri Lanka series. (Photo: PTI)

Those numbers mattered, but not simply because they were big. Padikkal was not carrying the batting order on his own. India had several meaningful contributors, and they did so in different ways. The second Test offered the clearest evidence. India were 300 for five when Jurel and Pant began rebuilding the innings. Pant’s 63 changed the tempo, Jurel’s unbeaten 115 provided the stability, and the lower order contributed enough to stretch Sri Lanka’s workload. Jurel and Pant added 112 for the seventh wicket, and Jurel then shepherded the tail as India moved beyond 500 before declaring at 503 for 9.

That was more significant than the raw total. India were no longer dependent on one batter to carry an innings through difficult passages. They had different players capable of absorbing pressure, changing tempo and extending an innings. The real story from Sri Lanka isn’t that one young batter scored two hundreds. It is that India’s batting as a whole began to look more comfortable constructing innings against spin.

PADIKKAL CAME PREPARED

What made Padikkal stand out was not only the runs but the preparation behind them. His first hundred in Galle wasn’t simply about timing and natural strokeplay. India had specifically prepared him for the conditions they expected to face. Batting coach Sitanshu Kotak revealed that Padikkal had worked extensively on his back-foot game at the BCCI Centre of Excellence, alongside practising the step-out and sweep, all built around the expectation that India’s batters would be dealing with heavy amounts of spin in Sri Lanka.

“He was working on his back-foot game. We try that when we expect a turn from a pitch. We also tried to work on step-out, sweep besides the back-foot game,” Kotak said.

That preparation showed once Padikkal got to the middle. Rather than let Sri Lanka’s spinners dictate the length, he went deep into his crease and played the ball late. When bowlers offered him width or pace off, he moved forward and attacked. The sweep gave him another option against the left-arm spin of Prabath Jayasuriya, while his willingness to work off the back foot meant Sri Lanka couldn’t simply bowl defensively and wait for a mistake.

Devdutt Paddikal scored twin centuries in the Sri Lanka series. (Photo: PTI)

Against spin, that is often the whole contest: deny the bowler rhythm, and the advantage begins to shift.

Sanjay Manjrekar picked out the same quality. Padikkal’s straight-bat shots off the back foot, and his willingness to score on a slow pitch, suggested a batter who had already made his decision before the ball was bowled.

That matters more than the hundreds themselves.

Good players of spin don’t just attack. They frustrate the bowler. Defend, score behind square, step out, sweep — the spinner should be the one adjusting his line and length, not the batter.

Sri Lanka’s main spinner, Prabath Jayasuriya, never really found that control in Colombo. He bowled a long spell, but India repeatedly found ways to disrupt his rhythm and prevent him from dictating the pace of the innings. Instead of allowing the lead spinner to build sustained pressure, they kept rotating the strike, attacking the right lengths and using the crease. By the time Jayasuriya made inroads, India had already built the depth to keep going.

Padikkal’s second hundred in Colombo may have been the more mature innings. It was less free-flowing than the first, but perhaps more valuable because it showed he could absorb pressure rather than try to blast through it.

For a No. 3, that may count for more than the eye-catching shots.

Padikkal himself said there had been “a lot of chat” in the dressing room about how India wanted to play spin. That matters. The best batting units do not arrive and improvise every ball in real time. They arrive with a method, after working on it in the nets, and with enough trust in that method to stay with it.

That showed in his footwork. He was not necessarily moving more than everyone else. He was simply more certain.

That is a technical advantage, but it is also a mental one. And the mental side is often harder to coach.

A MORE SETTLED BATTING UNIT

The obvious risk after an innings like Padikkal’s is turning the whole series into a story about one player. The scorecard says otherwise. Padikkal led India’s run charts with 328, but Jurel’s 173, Pant’s 168 and Rahul’s 135 gave India four genuine contributors across two Tests. Jaiswal’s 77 and Gill’s 74 would normally be seen as underwhelming returns for two of India’s most important young batters, yet the batting never came close to collapsing around them.

The biggest consequence of Sri Lanka is that India may finally have a No. 3 worth settling on for a while.

Since Cheteshwar Pujara moved on from the role, India have searched repeatedly. Sai Sudharsan, Shubman Gill, Karun Nair, Washington Sundar, KL Rahul and now Padikkal have all been tried there.

Constant change makes it difficult for any batter to build rhythm, particularly in Test cricket, where a position is supposed to come with a defined responsibility.

Nobody should expect Padikkal to recreate Pujara’s career overnight. India need something more basic first: stability.

On that front, Padikkal has done enough to earn another long look. In Galle, Rahul’s 82 helped lay the platform for Padikkal’s 167, with Jurel adding 51 as India reached 462 and won by 165 runs. In Colombo, Padikkal made 117 and Jurel finished unbeaten on 115 as India declared at 503 for 9, with Pant chipping in with 63.

That spread matters for a side in transition. A batting order stops being fragile once it can absorb a quiet series from one or two of its leading players, and India did not need Jaiswal or Gill to carry the scoring because the rest of the order compensated. The contributions also came in different shapes. KL Rahul gave India a platform as the opener. Padikkal supplied the bulk of the runs at three. Jurel showed he could bat deep in middle order while Pant kept the tempo moving after Padikkal.

That represents a positive change from the uncertainty India had shown in recent home defeats. Against spin, having a method matters as much as having the shots. The batter needs to know how he wants to use the crease, when to attack and when to absorb pressure, while still being able to adjust if the bowler changes plans.

Pujara’s own view is the sensible one: keep Padikkal there for now, but judge him in tougher conditions too. Sri Lanka can buy time. New Zealand and Australia will provide the real verdict.

Sudharsan should not be treated as the casualty of Padikkal’s rise. He was India’s preferred No. 3 before injury ruled him out of the Sri Lanka series, and there is no reason to turn this into a zero-sum contest.

India are better served by keeping both in the frame.

Kotak has also suggested that Padikkal and Sudharsan can operate across positions, giving India flexibility in a top order that is still taking shape. If Padikkal holds the No. 3 slot, Sudharsan can continue developing without being written off. If conditions or form change, India already have another option.

DHRUV JUREL BRINGS STABILITY

Dhruv Jurel’s return to form is the other important outcome from Sri Lanka. His unbeaten 115 in Colombo was his second Test hundred and his first away from home. More importantly, it came at a point when India could easily have settled for a sizeable total and moved on. Instead, Jurel helped turn 300 for five into 503 for nine. His 112-run partnership with Pant provided the acceleration, but his work after Pant’s dismissal was just as important. Jurel stayed unbeaten through the lower order, absorbing pressure and ensuring India did not lose the momentum they had built.

Jurel answered his critics with patience and stability during the Sri Lanka tour. (Photo: PTI)

He sat on 95 through a rain interruption, waited on 99, then completed the job without fuss. It was an innings built less on urgency than on the certainty that he had time and another partner at the other end.

That gives India something different from Pant.

Pant changes tempo. Jurel absorbs pressure.

Pant attacks the bowlers. Jurel brings stability.

Together, they give India balance.

That matters against spin because a strong batting order does not need every batter to play the same way. It needs enough players who can absorb pressure that the attacking players are free to choose their moments.

The same principle applies to India’s top order. Rahul does not need to bat like Pant. Padikkal does not need to bat like Jaiswal. What matters is having enough answers when the conditions begin asking difficult questions.

THE REAL TEST IS YET TO COME

None of this should be mistaken for proof that India have solved their spin problem.

Sri Lanka’s attack was competent, but it was not the quality of bowling that exposed India at home. The pitches were slow, but nowhere near as savage as the surfaces that produced the collapses against New Zealand and South Africa.

A more sceptical reading is fair: India may simply have looked better because the questions were easier.

The series does not settle the bigger issue. What it does show is a clearer approach.

Padikkal’s preparation, Rahul’s experience, Jurel’s patience and Pant’s aggression suggest India now have more than one way to handle spin. They can absorb pressure, rotate the strike, attack the bowler’s length and accelerate when the opportunity comes.

That is real progress, even if it is not a final answer.

The harder test will come when the bowling is better and the conditions are less forgiving. Can Padikkal keep using the back foot when the ball turns sharply? Can India score without over-attacking? Can their batters resist the instinct to retreat when the surface begins to dictate terms?

Those are the questions Sri Lanka could not answer.

That is why Pujara’s warning matters. Sri Lanka can buy Padikkal time, but it cannot hand him a verdict.

Still, there is reason for optimism.

India’s runs were shared. Their roles looked clearer. Padikkal looked like a No. 3 with a plan. Jurel looked capable of extending an innings when others might have forced the pace. Pant remained the aggressor India need him to be.

India have not rediscovered their old mastery of spin just yet. But in Sri Lanka, they may have rediscovered something almost as important: a way of making spin feel less like a problem and more like a challenge they know how to solve

– Ends

Published By:

Debodinna Chakraborty

Published On:

Aug 29, 2026 09:41 IST