MANCHESTER, July 5: India’s four-wicket defeat to England in the second T20I at Old Trafford has once again exposed a recurring problem that has haunted the national team in recent years — an alarming refusal to adapt, an obsession with rigid tactical templates, and a team management seemingly unwilling to learn from its own mistakes.
For all the talk of data-driven planning and match-ups, India’s latest defeat was less about England producing something extraordinary and more about India engineering its own downfall through questionable captaincy, inflexible coaching philosophy and avoidable tactical blunders.
The result has inevitably intensified scrutiny on new T20I captain Shreyas Iyer and head coach Gautam Gambhir, whose decision-making throughout the match has come under severe criticism. More worrying for Indian cricket, however, is that many of the errors witnessed in Manchester have become familiar themes under the current management.
India appeared destined for victory after racing to 130/2 in just 13 overs on one of the flattest batting surfaces seen during the series. A total well in excess of 210 looked inevitable.Instead, the innings lost all momentum.Rather than allowing established batters to continue their natural rhythm, the management once again prioritised maintaining left-right batting combinations — a tactical obsession that has increasingly defined India’s T20 approach under Gambhir. The constant reshuffling disrupted the batting order, slowed scoring dramatically and transformed what should have been a commanding finish into a disappointing 190/7.Between the 13th and 18th overs, India managed just 32 runs in a stretch of 31 deliveries. On a surface offering little assistance to bowlers, that slowdown ultimately proved decisive.
Critics argue this has become one of Gambhir’s biggest shortcomings as coach.
Instead of trusting players to play according to the match situation, India increasingly appear to follow pre-planned algorithms regardless of how the game unfolds. Tactical flexibility — once considered the hallmark of successful T20 teams — has been replaced by rigid adherence to predetermined match-ups and batting templates.
The consequences were evident once England began their chase.Reduced to 51/3, England were briefly under pressure and India had an opportunity to finish the contest. Instead of attacking aggressively and searching for more wickets, Iyer adopted surprisingly defensive fields that allowed Jacob Bethell and the middle order to settle comfortably.
Rather than pressing home the advantage, India retreated.Former players have repeatedly stressed that successful T20 captains recognise momentum shifts and respond instinctively. In Manchester, Iyer appeared tied to pre-match plans rather than reacting to events unfolding before him.The defining moment of the match came in the 17th over.Ravi Bishnoi had endured a difficult evening. His rhythm was visibly disturbed, his run-up inconsistent and his control deteriorating with every over. Yet despite the warning signs, Iyer entrusted him with one of the most crucial overs of the innings.The gamble proved disastrous.
Bishnoi delivered three back-foot no-balls, gifting England free hits that Jacob Bethell punished mercilessly. Twenty-nine runs came from the over, completely altering the course of the contest and effectively ending India’s hopes.The decision has prompted widespread criticism because the warning signs had been obvious.
A captain’s responsibility extends beyond simply following bowling plans. It includes recognising when a bowler has lost confidence and protecting him from further damage. Instead, Bishnoi was left exposed during the most critical stage of the match.Equally puzzling was India’s refusal to explore alternative bowling options.Despite Bishnoi conceding 60 runs in his four overs, all-rounder Shivam Dube was not given a single over. Even as the frontline spin strategy unravelled, India persisted with the original blueprint without attempting to disrupt England’s rhythm.That lack of flexibility has become another recurring criticism of the current management.
Under Gambhir, India’s tactical approach increasingly appears designed before the toss rather than during the game itself. Successful international teams constantly adapt according to conditions, opposition momentum and individual performances. India, however, continue to appear committed to predetermined plans even when evidence suggests those plans are failing.Bishnoi’s performance has also raised uncomfortable questions regarding preparation.
His three back-foot no-balls were particularly alarming because such errors rarely occur accidentally. Unlike front-foot no-balls, back-foot infringements often indicate technical flaws that should have been identified and corrected well before match day.
Statistics further underline the concern.
The leg-spinner has now bowled 10 no-balls in T20 cricket since 2022, among the highest by specialist spinners during that period. Yet there appeared little evidence that the issue had been addressed before one of India’s most important overseas assignments.
Observers noted that Bishnoi’s exaggerated run-up, introduced during the IPL to create different angles, left him vulnerable to repeatedly landing illegally behind the return crease. By the latter stages of his spell, he seemed more concerned about where his feet were landing than where the ball itself was pitching.
Such technical issues inevitably raise questions not only about the player but also about India’s coaching standards and preparation methods. (Agencies)
