Last Updated:
No one wanted it to be like this — but after two years of confusion, contradictions and collapses, Gautam Gambhir’s Test reign is hanging by a thread.
Who wanted rank turners? Apparently, no one. (PTI Photo)
‘No one wanted it to be like this.’
It’s a powerful line. The words are from India batting coach Sitanshu Kotak, in the role for just over nine months, but at this moment they reflect the entirety of Gautam Gambhir’s Test coaching tenure.
When Gambhir was appointed in July 2024, it was hard to predict what would happen. Check the range of ideas people had of him here.
After all, he had no coaching experience, let alone in Tests. His only coaching credentials were mentorship roles with a decent Lucknow Super Giants and a title-winning Kolkata Knight Riders, both backed by large staffs with heavier responsibilities.
Still, it was impossible to imagine that in the 16 months since Gambhir’s appointment, India would lose four of their eight home Tests, winning only against Bangladesh and an injury-ridden West Indies. Or that India would be in Guwahati for a home Test trying to prevent not the first but the second series whitewash in just over a year.
No one wanted it to be like this.
Not Gambhir. Not Kotak. Not Rohit Sharma or his successor, Shubman Gill.
But it is like this. And much of it stems from the sheer confusion currently surrounding Indian men’s Test cricket.
Take Kotak’s statement, for example.
“Now, what happened in the last match, after a day it felt like it was crumbling,” he said of the spin-friendly Eden Gardens pitch. “There was a little bit of soil that came up after the ball pitched. All of you could see that. That was not expected. Even if the spin was expected, it was after three days or on the third evening. Sometimes the weather, sometimes even the curators did not want it. I am telling you the truth. No one wanted it to be like this.”
In isolation, it is a perfectly sound comment. He’s saying the 22 yards weren’t what the team expected because something went wrong.
But it came only days after Gambhir, in the post-match press conference, said: “This is exactly the pitch we were looking for. The curator was very, very helpful and supportive. This is exactly what we wanted, and this is exactly what we got. When you don’t play well, this is what happens.”
Only one of those statements could be factually true – either India got what they wanted or they didn’t – yet Kotak also said Gambhir told him he “took the blame because he felt he should not blame the curators.”
Confused yet? We’re just getting started.
Let’s ignore the fact that in defending the head coach, Kotak did what Gambhir supposedly didn’t want: blame the curator. If, as Kotak said, he did it to protect Sujan Mukherjee, the Eden Gardens curator, he’s likely the first Indian coach in history who chose to defend the curator over his team when they needed him most.
Yes, perhaps he feels Mukherjee has been treated unfairly by IPL captains for years and wanted to protect a man earning an honest living. But couldn’t there have been a middle ground between criticizing players already feeling low after a loss and placing the blame squarely on the curator?
Who wants rank-turners?
One consistent point in both Gambhir’s and Kotak’s statements is that neither wants rank-turners.
A major critique of this era is that the coach wants as much help from the pitch as possible, which backfires because it levels the field for less experienced visiting spinners. But both coaches said they prefer sporting wickets that deteriorate gradually.
So perhaps it was the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) that wanted the ball to turn from day one at Eden? Sourav Ganguly, former BCCI president and CAB chief, said before the first Test that the team hadn’t asked him for rank-turners either.
However, in his comments after the Test, he said: “There is no controversy. It was not the best Test wicket, but unfortunately India lost. And they still should have got 120. It wasn’t the greatest Test pitch. Gambhir said they wanted such a pitch and that they instructed the curator. Yes, that is true — instructions were given… We will continue for a while, but we must play on good pitches.”
Who is left? Maybe Gill?
When Gill took over the captaincy this year, he suggested the end of rank-turners: “I can’t really speak about what the conversations were before I came in, but yes, we would be looking to play on wickets that offer help to both batsmen and bowlers.”
Blame the batters, then?
Another common thread in both Gambhir’s and Kotak’s statements was harsh words for the batters.
Despite Kotak’s claim, Gambhir didn’t actually accept responsibility for the loss. He has done so before, but here he demanded better application and technique from his batters.
Gambhir also said his team lacked “experience in batting from top to bottom” and the “mental toughness” required to win Tests. Kotak was far more blunt.
“People are only doing, ‘Gautam Gambhir, Gautam Gambhir’. I am saying this because I am a staff member and I feel bad,” the batting coach said. “That’s not the way… No one is saying this batsman did this, this bowler did that, or we can do something different in batting.”
So to sum it up – Gambhir blamed the batters to protect the curator, and now Kotak blames the batters to defend Gambhir?
The team management, in trying to explain one of the toughest stretches of Indian Test cricket at home, has begun to isolate the players.
The batters they’re blaming were chosen by them. Under them, Rohit was removed as captain, Washington Sundar became a No. 3, and Sarfaraz Khan was dropped despite being India’s best batter in the New Zealand whitewash.
Cheteshwar Pujara recently said the team’s transition can’t be an excuse for a home loss. He’s right – not because transitions should be easy for a talented team like India, but because Gambhir initiated the transition in the first place.
With a few different decisions, Virat Kohli, R Ashwin, and Rohit could still have been playing this series, and the team wouldn’t lack “mental toughness.”
But he chose otherwise.
The transition happened because India moved on, and new players showed the potential to fill the shoes of their predecessors. Blaming them for their own inexperience is convenient and unfair.
Tight rope
A day may soon come when Kotak himself is blamed. Before him, assistant coach Abhishek Nayar took the fall for the 3-1 loss in Australia.
But even until then, the rope couldn’t be tighter for Gambhir. The last time India lost four of six home Tests was 53 years ago, when the team didn’t even have a full-time coach.
Kotak has said Guwahati is likely to be a better batting pitch. Even if it wasn’t going to be, there was time to learn from Eden and fix it.
The batting lineup will be without Gill, but Gambhir had time to pick a replacement. He chose to stick with Sai Sudharsan/Devdutt Padikkal and call up Nitish Reddy instead of Sarfaraz or Karun Nair.
After nearly two years, these are his batters, his all-rounders, his bowlers, and his staff. If he becomes the first coach to suffer two home whitewashes, it will be because of his decisions and abilities.
If that happens, the confusion of blame will need to give way to a fresh draft of accountability.
November 21, 2025, 08:41 IST
Read More
