I’ve played this game long enough to know the fine line between victory and heartbreak. You can plan every session, every over, every angle — and still watch it all unravel in the final five overs. That’s exactly what’s happening with the Indian women’s team in this World Cup.
The two defeats — first to South Africa, then to Australia — aren’t just results. They’re reminders that talent alone doesn’t win tournaments. Strategy does.
The loss to South Africa in Visakhapatnam was a classic case of letting the initiative slip. India were reeling at 102 for 6, before Richa Ghosh played the innings of the tournament — a brilliant 94 off 77 balls — lifting the side to 252 with help from Sneh Rana (33 off 24). On that pitch, it was a competitive total.
But the bowlers couldn’t defend it. South Africa’s Laura Wolvaardt (70) set the chase up, and Nadine de Klerk bulldozed it home with a stunning 84 off 54 balls, sealing a three-wicket win.
Now, anyone who’s played cricket knows momentum is fragile. The bowlers had the match in control till the 40th over — and then discipline deserted them. Boundaries off loose deliveries, fields spread too wide, and a captain unsure whether to attack or contain. The plans that worked for 35 overs suddenly disappeared.
That’s not bad luck. That’s a poor tactical response.
Then came the Australia clash — a nightmare that no coach wants to relive. India’s batters did everything right. Smriti Mandhana (80) and Pratika Rawal (75) gave a dream start, setting up 330, one of India’s highest World Cup totals.
Yet, it wasn’t enough. Alyssa Healy made a mockery of the chase with a magnificent 142 off 107 balls, as Australia hunted down the target with three wickets to spare — the highest successful chase in women’s ODI history.
Where did it go wrong? In the middle overs, when India persisted with just five frontline bowlers and no backup. Shree Charani bowled her heart out for figures of 3 for 41, but the rest crumbled. Kranti Gaud went for 73 in nine overs, Sneh Rana for 85 in ten, and no one looked capable of forcing a breakthrough.
I personally feel our bowlers must realize that what’s a good length to an Indian batter is often a half-volley to an English or Australian one. Good length is inversely proportional to the batter’s height — the taller the opponent, the shorter that ‘good length’ becomes.
When you’ve posted 330 on the board, you don’t need miracles — just clarity. But instead of rotating bowlers or varying pace and angles, India stayed rigid. As Healy shifted gears, the response was painfully predictable: short balls when she wanted width, full tosses when she wanted pace.
That’s not bowling under pressure — that’s bowling without a plan.
Skipper Harmanpreet Kaur is a warrior, no question about it. But captaincy requires detachment — the ability to read a match without emotion clouding judgment. Against both South Africa and Australia, her bowling changes came too late, her fields too defensive, her reactions half a step behind the game.
In her post-match comments after the Australia defeat, she blamed the lower order for not adding 30–40 more runs. Fair point — but runs weren’t the issue. We lost because we couldn’t defend 330. That’s a bowling and strategy problem, not a batting one.
It’s not just the captain. The team management must answer hard questions. Why persist with a five-bowler formula when it’s clearly backfiring? Why no sixth bowling option? Why no contingency when the frontline attack falters?
Head coach Amol Muzumdar himself admitted after the defeat that the side lacked bowling depth and failed to sustain dot-ball pressure. In a World Cup, you can’t afford to “learn” match by match. You plan for the crunch before it arrives.
India’s women are playing fearless cricket — but their strategies feel timid. There’s too much reliance on talent, too little emphasis on tactical adaptability.
The Indian bowling attack looks talented on paper but has lacked imagination. The spinners — once our pride — are now overused and under-threatened. Pacers bowl in predictable channels. There’s little use of cutters, cross-seam deliveries, or defensive fields designed for wickets.
Modern cricket is about constant reinvention. Bowlers like Annabel Sutherland — who took 5 wickets against us — prove that aggression backed by accuracy wins matches. India’s attack, by contrast, looks reactive — waiting for mistakes instead of forcing them.
This, above all, is the heartbreak. India’s batters are finally coming into their own. Mandhana and Ghosh are in sublime touch. Youngsters like Rawal are showing composure beyond their years. They’ve given the team match-winning totals twice — and twice, the bowlers have let it slip.
No side can thrive when one department constantly rescues the other. That’s not teamwork; that’s imbalance.
If India wants to remain in contention, a few changes are non-negotiable:
- Include a sixth bowler. You can’t fight modern batting depth with five predictable options.
- Back aggressive bowling. Attack in pairs, not overs.
- Empower the captain. Allow tactical freedom — not playbook rigidity.
- Use analytics smartly. Identify match-ups before the match, not after defeat.
- Mental conditioning. Practice defending tight totals. Nerves are muscles — train them.
As someone who has lived the grind of domestic cricket, I can tell you this — talent without temperament wins nothing. The Indian women’s team has both skill and hunger. What they lack right now is composure in moments that decide games.
We can’t keep calling these “narrow defeats.” These are missed opportunities — born not out of weakness, but out of unpreparedness.
It’s time we stop celebrating “close fights” and start demanding “clinical finishes.”
Because at this level, spirit alone isn’t enough. Strategy wins matches.
