Until quite recently, you would look through an Indian Test XI and see experience everywhere: Mohammed Shami, Ravichandran Ashwin, and Ravindra Jadeja with the ball, Rohit Sharma, Cheteshwar Pujara, Ajinkya Rahane and, of course, Virat Kohli with the bat.
The current series against England has had the distinct feel of change; as if the future is here. Rohit might be on his last legs, Pujara and Rahane are no longer being picked and the younger batsmen are beginning to make their mark.
The biggest loss for this team, though, is undeniably Virat Kohli who has been ruled out for the entire Test series with the Poms due to personal reasons. It’s not as if his form has been extraordinary in Test cricket in recent years. The hundreds have dried up, and his four double centuries in the summer of 2016/17 is now a very distant memory. Three years ago, if you took Kohli out of an otherwise full-strength Indian XI, you felt like they’d be fine, especially at home. But right now, something is slightly amiss. They feel vulnerable.
With the recent announcement that Kohli will miss the entire series against England, two concerns came to mind: they seem to be lacking something now, and how can they get that something back when the king’s reign has ended?
It’s currently 1-1 in the series and England is near enough to full strength. Jadeja’s current absence from the team removes a large portion of their X factor, and the much calmer, and currently under-pressure skipper Rohit doesn’t provide much of a spark in terms of exuberance. That just isn’t his style.
Kohli offers runs, and they’ll be hard to replace, but energy, spark, X factor, whatever term we use, will be almost impossible to replace. When Kohli leads his teammates follow, whether he’s captain or not. They’re already feeling the effects.
Virat Kohli. (Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
Had Kohli been out there in the field as Ollie Pope amassed 196 in Hyderabad, would things have been different, or perhaps would they have just chased the runs down if Kohli was there? His record in run chases is legendary, after all.
Yes, they won the second Test without him, but the two teams just seem quite evenly matched. At pretty much any moment in the last ten years, a five-Test series in India always felt as though it could only go one way. The situation is still tough for England but India feels beatable. As if an era is about to end.
And the thing is, their era is about to end. In, say, three years’ time, any or all of Ashwin, Jadeja, Rohit and Kohli may no longer be Test players. What do the team’s prospects look like then?
Well, it’s worth keeping in mind that Indians have been spoiled for a long time in terms of success. The last ten years or so have seen the Indian Test team go places they had never gone before. The longest streak of home Test series won is one thing, but significantly improved away results, especially in Australia, has legitimised the modern era largely defined by Kohli. Defined by his runs, yes, but also his character.
Perhaps the likes of Yashasvi Jaiswal and Shubman Gill can match the swagger, and Mohammed Siraj the aggression.
But who will be able to score big runs in Australia while having to deal with the chirping fielders and the relentless crowd? Who can do this, returning a barb or two from under the helmet? This isn’t to suggest India have won matches purely through chat and confidence. But so many teams come to Australia knowing they can’t win before they arrive, and Kohli led the charge against that mindset.
The truth is, India might simply not be as good a team in a few years and that’s okay. Eras come and go. The next generation of spinners will be unlikely to produce one Ashwin or Jadeja, let alone two of them. Pujara replaced Rahul Dravid as the anchor at number three in the batting order in an almost seamless transition. Such things are rare. Replacing royalty is even more difficult, maybe impossible.
Long live the king.
Mick Cooney
Roar Rookie
And that's why every touring side should insist on having at least 2 four-day first class games to adjust to the pitch conditions in every country. instead of a couple of meaningless T20 or ODI's.Particularly the extra bounce on Australian pitches.The lesser playing nations are being suicidal without preparations.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Look at the Chinese. There is money, there is population and there is fervour for two sports: Basketball and Soccer. With the former, they can't find 5 men good enough to get out of the group stage in the world cup. With the latter, the best XI they can find not only can't qualify for a world cup, but it can't even get into the round of 16 in the Asian Cup.
Bobbo7
Roar Rookie
Averaged less than 30 his first 20 Tests at no 3 behind some bung average openers. 14 of those innings v India and Australia. His overall record in all formats since has been incredible.
Blink
Roar Rookie
India have struggled away from home in the past, and post Kohli I see that returning. No doubt about the talent available in India but scoring runs abroad is harder as they all discover including our lot.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
I’d take Bumrah
Ben Pobjie
Expert
I’d never bet against a nation that big being able to keep producing great cricketers.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
Williamson averages 45 away. Kohli? 42 away.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
In the fifties and sixties the New York Yankees were the best baseball team. Other sides, knowing that they'd lose, still took their best team because: 1. They were playing against the best. 2. Their own supporters deserved it. 3. The league asked/demanded it of them. Play the best side you have every time. Don't send your third string team. Rotate one or two of your top players.Don't ask them .
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Yes, I don't think even the most fervent supporter really enjoys a routine demolition as it just looks as if a team is playing in the wrong league, age group etc..If it gets to the point where one team that bats always declares and matches last two days, then it doesn't feel like an achievement as they haven't been tested. As a rare occasion when one of two evenly matched teams has a great day and flattens the other, it can be fascinating, but not because it's an opponent they shouldn't really be playing.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I just don't accept that football dominates Italy and France in the way you say. I'm not going to dispute they're not huge, massive, and I'm not going to dispute there aren't rabid fans in the millions. But I've lived in France, I experienced a pretty healthy spread of sports being enjoyed by people. Italy might be a bit more obsessed, but again, I really think you're over egging the football thing just a tad. If the NRL didn’t exist and everyone played rugby, the Wallabies would be near invincible which would be no fun for anyone. This is just a fantasy, it's something delusional Australian rugby fans tell themselves. Yes Australia would be better, for sure, but we wouldn't turn into the All Blacks. The All Blacks were a dominating rugby team before Rugby League even arrived in Australia (see the 1905 tour), but Australia was not and never had been a similarly strong rugby team. Australia would become of the big boys, sure, but it wouldn't be invincible overnight. The NRL is not the NBA in hiding, it would just become the marginally biggest/best rugby competition, nothing more. Anywho, I hope I'm right too, cause as you say, who wants to watch the same team win over and over, I didn't even like it when Australia did that.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Sure, much of that's true. But if you look at Soccer, what are the biggest richest countries that play it? France, Italy, Germany, Spain, England and those are basically the top teams in the world. Smaller rich countries come next along with middle-income developing countries. Soccer absolutely dominates Italy and the other sports are next to insignificant including rugby. France is actually quite similar, although rugby is bigger and will take a few players perhaps though not that many. England is perhaps the one country where rugby and cricket might chip away more at soccer's playing stocks and the team is generally weaker. Germany and Spain soccer has next to no competition. In terms of NRL/AFL/Soccer etc...there are positions and body types where players wouldn't be able to get anywhere as Israel Folau's attempt to play AFL showed (imagine, props, locks trying to play). But then many sportsmen are simply the best at whatever sport they play. I imagine cricket loses many teams' worth of players to the other codes. They just value them more highly. It's a cultural thing: someone in Melbourne might be surrounded in an AFL obsessed environment, and the same with league in Sydney. Not that there's much that can be done about it, especially without a domestic league that appeals to anyone. I hope you're right about India as it would be very boring to watch one team bulldoze the rest of the world in perpetuity. If the NRL didn't exist and everyone played rugby, the Wallabies would be near invincible which would be no fun for anyone.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
You're right TB. My brain was thinking Rahul Dravid while my fingers were typing KL Rahul. :happy:
The Bush
Roar Guru
KL Rahul Surely he doesn't deserve to be discussed in the same breadth as those champions?
The Bush
Roar Guru
Yes but compare the GDP of Brazil with Italy or France. Actually the GDP of Brazil compares favourably with both those countries, being just smaller. Obviously per capita it falls away due to having way more people, but still. I did say no analogy is perfect, but there are other reasons why I can counter with the GPD point; Brazil's sporting landscape is pretty small, it goes football, daylight, other sports. In contrast, France and Italy have athletes and money directed to all sorts of other sports; rugby, basketball, handball, large Olympic programs. Brazil doesn't do anything like that, it is football mad in a way I've never seen anywhere else I've travelled. I also don't think your point about the NRL and AFL and Soccer is quite that great, they're different season sports so they don't compete and a lot of the time, they don't have body sizes that make them too much in competition. It does happen, I'm pretty sure M Marsh was nearly an AFL prospects. But honestly, cricket has so much money and such a profile in Australia, that if you're good at it, you generally go down that path, I actually can't recall the last time we lost a player to the football codes. Ultimately, scale works in things like professional leagues and it'll keep them at the top of the pile more consistently and for longer, but again, you can only put your best XI out there, so at a certain point, scale doesn't mean what you think it does. India already has hundreds of millions of middle class people and a GPD way bigger than Australia's. They've had the IPL for over 15 years and they've been the centre of the cricket universe for even longer. But it hasn't translated into complete dominance yet and I don't think it ever will.
Ouch
Roar Rookie
nope. Williamson has never impressed. He’s made his runs against the lesser teams. Against India, England and Aust he is poor. Aust doesn’t need Rabada.
Bobbo7
Roar Rookie
Really? You would not take Williamson who averages 6 more in Test cricket than Kohli or Stokes? Rabada?
Ouch
Roar Rookie
Virat is the only player from any other country that i wish was Australian.
Ouch
Roar Rookie
It’s still just a question of time before the Indian 3rd 11 can whip everyone for fun well, their U19's just lost to Australia in the WC so i think we're good for some time.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
Jaiswal certainly looks promising but struggled a lot in South Africa (he wasn't alone in that regard). Still only young so plenty of time to show what he can do. He just needs a partner given Rohit's pushing 37.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I watched a bit of that but tough to tell who the real Test quality players were because the pitch was not great. Both teams look to have some pretty useful prospects though.