Watching Bharat’s ongoing Test series against Sri Lanka, I cannot help asking a rather uncomfortable question: is this really the best way for Bharat to construct a Test team?
I have nothing against Rishabh Pant. He is an exceptional cricketer and, on his day, can change the complexion of a Test match. But when Pant walks in at No. 5, followed by Dhruv Jurel, and you also have KL Rahul in the XI—another player perfectly capable of keeping wickets—one has to ask whether Bharat is becoming too obsessed with multiple wicketkeeping options at the cost of specialist batting.
The present combination raises questions about the selection philosophy itself. Bharat appears to be going into a Test with effectively four frontline batsmen before Pant, depending heavily on the all-rounders and lower order to provide depth. That may work in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or against teams that are struggling for consistency. But can this formula withstand Australia, England or South Africa, where Test cricket demands sustained batting and where one bad session can put an entire match beyond reach?
The irony is that Bharat does not appear to be short of batting talent.
Sarfaraz Khan was called into the squad after Sai Sudharsan was ruled out through injury. Sarfaraz has demonstrated his appetite for big scores in domestic cricket and has already shown that he belongs in the conversation for Test selection. Yet he was left out of the playing XI for the opening Test, with Bharat choosing a three-spinner combination instead.
So the obvious question is: if Sarfaraz was good enough to be summoned as the replacement, what exactly was the selection thinking behind not giving him an opportunity when the team itself appears light on specialist batsmen?
I am not questioning the talent of any individual player. I am questioning the balance of the side.
Look at the present match and examine the so-called bowling all-rounders. There is nothing wrong with having genuine all-rounders. In fact, I would welcome a batting all-rounder who can contribute substantially with the bat and give the captain useful overs. But an all-rounder should not become a convenient label simply to justify playing an extra bowler at the expense of a specialist batsman.
Test cricket is not T20 cricket. It is not about packing the XI with players who can perform a little bit of everything. It is about having specialists who can withstand pressure, occupy the crease, build partnerships and win sessions.
Bharat’s first Test in Galle has already demonstrated the value of batting depth. Devdutt Padikkal produced a magnificent maiden Test century, while KL Rahul and the lower order contributed substantially to Bharat’s imposing total. Rishabh Pant also made a brisk contribution, while Jurel followed with a half-century.
But one good score should not disguise a structural question.
What happens when Bharat faces a genuinely formidable attack on a difficult surface? What happens when the top four fail? Who is expected to bat Bharat out of trouble? And why should a country with perhaps the deepest pool of batting talent in world cricket repeatedly compromise specialist batting positions?
The selectors must answer these questions.
There is also a larger concern. Selection should be based not merely on winning the next Test against Sri Lanka, but on building a side capable of competing for the World Test Championship and winning Test series against the strongest teams. Bharat currently has to climb back into contention after recent setbacks, making every Test important.
Sri Lanka may provide a relatively comfortable laboratory for experimentation. But the national team cannot be built around the assumption that every opponent will be accommodating.
Three wicketkeepers, four specialist batsmen and a collection of bowling all-rounders may look flexible on paper. To me, it looks like selection without a clear batting philosophy.
Bharat has never lacked batsmen. If anything, Bharat has too many talented batsmen competing for too few places.
That makes the present situation even more difficult to understand.
The selectors should not merely ask, “Can this player bowl a few overs?” They should ask the more important question: “Can this player win us a Test with the bat?”
Because Test cricket is ultimately won by runs, wickets and resilience—not by the number of roles a player can be squeezed into.
If Bharat wants to be a serious Test force against the best teams in the world, it must get the balance right now.
Experimentation is acceptable. Confusion is not.
