India's Test team - a whole too full of holes

Things surely can't get any worse. The only way from here, surely, is up.

These are thoughts India's fans must have consoled themselves with at various points over the last year and a bit of home Tests. Each time, they've only discovered that things can certainly get worse, and that directions other than up are always in play.

From Bengaluru to Pune to Mumbai. And from there, after the brief lull of Ahmedabad and Delhi, to Kolkata and Guwahati. A journey that took India all over the map while mostly going south.

Zero-three against New Zealand. Zero-two against South Africa.

You have to go back as far as 0-3 against West Indies in 1983-84 followed by 1-2 against England in 1984-85 for the last time India suffered two Test-series defeats at home within such a short span of time. And before that, all the way back to the late 50s.

This, for India and their fans, is not normal. It feels especially abnormal because these results have come so close on the heels of an era of unimaginable dominance.

It's hard to process. The air around Indian cricket crackles with anger. It must have felt this way when Kapil Dev launched Pat Pocock high over the Feroz Shah Kotla and into long-off's hands, having hit the previous ball for six, during a final-day collapse that gave England a route to a series-turning victory in a match that seemed to have been heading towards a draw. India dropped Kapil for the next Test.

A move like that seems unthinkable today, but history, in other ways, always seems to repeat itself. For Kapil, substitute Rishabh Pant and his day-three charge at Marco Jansen in Guwahati, in the middle of a similarly match-turning collapse.

Great players do daft things sometimes. But what lapse of reason led India, in home conditions, from near-invincibility to abject fallibility at such dizzying speed? Do their results paint an accurate picture of their quality? Are they really this bad? Is this a blip, or does it point to a deeper malaise in the country's red-ball ecosystem?

Quality in sport, first of all, is a relative thing. Apart from everything else 0-3 and 0-2 tell us, they tell us that New Zealand and South Africa were exceptional touring teams, purpose-built for Indian conditions with wisdom derived from, among other things, India's many years of home success. These were teams built to compete, and to pounce on any bits of luck that went their way.

And luck kept going their way, not least the luck of the toss. And if New Zealand caught India at one point of a transition, with ageing players beginning to show signs of decline, South Africa caught them at another, with inexperienced players still finding their feet.

With those caveats out of the way, it still feels surreal that India didn't win or draw even one of these five Tests. Pant, Ravindra Jadeja and Yashasvi Jaiswal played all five of them. Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj played four each, and KL Rahul and Kuldeep Yadav (and Gill, sort of) three each. These are experienced, established Test cricketers.

Sometimes, though, small gaps and weaknesses in personnel and strategy can add up and coalesce into disproportionately bad results.

Consider India's selection of multiple allrounders through this South Africa series. As individual players, all of them merited selection. Washington Sundar returned to Test cricket last year as a vastly improved bowler, and performed excellently with ball and bat in England. Axar Patel hadn't played Test cricket for a year, but his bowling has always seemed tailormade for Indian pitches, and he is capable of batting in a wide range of lower-order situations.

Dhruv Jurel had been in such a rich vein of form, for India A and during the Tests against West Indies, that he gave India no option but to pick him even after regular keeper Pant's return from injury. Even Nitish Kumar Reddy, the most debatable of these selections in home Tests, had shown enough evidence of belonging at Test level, particularly with the bat, even if he wasn't anything like the finished article yet.

And given that India were in transition, none of them was coming in ahead of established specialists. It wasn't even clear which specialist batters and bowlers they were keeping out.

But because of this, India came into this series with areas of vulnerability that they probably should have foreseen. One was exposed in their very first turn with the bat, when Shubman Gill went out of the series having faced just three balls.

It hurt India badly that they played with ten men for all of that Test, and it continued to hurt them in the second Test, when they ended up without a plausible replacement who was both a specialist batter and batted right-handed. In selecting Reddy in their squad, India had left themselves open to this circumstance.

Two, in picking Washington and Axar as their fingerspinners behind Jadeja, they had wilfully picked a trio of players with roughly similar strengths. All allrounders, all quick, accurate fingerspinners best suited to pitches offering sharp, early turn.

There was every chance they could have won India the Kolkata Test on a pitch that suited their strengths. Guwahati, however, exposed their limitations severely.

And in Gill's absence, India's middle order in Guwahati ended up looking unsuited to the conditions. We often speak of bowlers' suitability to conditions, but sometimes it's true of batters too. A line-up like India's in Guwahati, with plenty of depth and notional flexibility, could be extremely handy in low-scoring conditions like Kolkata's. The circumstances of India's first innings in Guwahati, however, called for batters with the experience of scoring big hundreds, frequently, over multiple first-class seasons.

India couldn't call up the Cheteshwar Pujara and Kohli of 2016-17 to bat at Nos. 3 and 4, but their squad didn't contain anyone in that mould, forget with that level of quality or experience. Jurel could become that player in the future, but he's definitely better served batting at No. 5 or 6 at present, while Sai Sudharsan and Padikkal, for all their potential, have first-class averages in the high 30s and early 40s respectively.

And so, for all the proven quality of India's senior players, the potential of their younger players, and the individual merits of their allrounders, the parts added up to a jumbled whole. That whole could have still beaten a weaker opposition even with all their ill-luck with the toss and injuries. Against a quality South Africa side that had just won a WTC final and drawn a series in Pakistan, however, the whole was just too full of holes.