IND vs ENG 2nd Test: Ahead of India’s tour to England, two things were clear — Jasprit Bumrah is currently the top bowler in the world, and he wouldn’t be able to feature in all five matches of the Test series.
While there was a slim possibility of him playing four Tests, that chance disappeared once the first Test stretched the full five days and Bumrah bowled 43.4 overs — the highest workload among Indian pacers. Had the match ended sooner or Bumrah bowled less, he might have been available for both the second and third Tests due to the scheduling gaps.
With Bumrah ruled out, the biggest dilemma for India’s team management became: How do we take 20 wickets without him?
Many fans and experts were left disappointed with India’s approach in the second Test at Edgbaston, as the team appeared to choose a more cautious, defensive playing XI instead of a bold, attacking combination.
Should Bumrah have played?
Simply put, no. While it’s understandable to want him in the XI — he’s the best in the world, after all — pushing him to play every Test comes with serious risks, as past tours like the five-match series in Australia have shown.
Fast bowling is already physically punishing, involving unnatural movements and high stress on the body with each delivery. Injuries are common, especially for someone like Bumrah, whose unique bowling action adds even more strain.
What this essentially means is that India must accept some short-term setbacks in order to safeguard long-term success. Jasprit Bumrah is a prized asset — the golden goose — and overworking him could prove costly. If medical advice limits his participation to three Tests in the series, that decision must be respected. The team management has rightly followed this recommendation and deserves credit for prioritising player welfare over short-term gains.
India’s Team Selection Strategy
However, once you decide to rest your most potent wicket-taker, the next challenge is figuring out how to still take 20 wickets to win a Test match.
India had three spinners in the squad: Ravindra Jadeja, Washington Sundar, and Kuldeep Yadav. In English conditions, Kuldeep arguably poses the greatest wicket-taking threat among them. Yet, India opted for the other two.
Both Jadeja and Washington offer more with the bat than Kuldeep, providing depth and balance to the batting lineup — something India lacked in the first Test. The selection debate likely centered on whether Kuldeep’s attacking spin could justify replacing Washington’s all-round reliability at No. 8.
In Test cricket, choosing batting depth over bowling firepower is generally considered a defensive move. That’s exactly what India did — prioritised batting security — which has raised questions about the intent behind their XI.
Former India pacer Dodda Ganesh summed it up well on X (formerly Twitter), pointing out that team selection seems to be influenced more by a player’s secondary skill than their primary role. He sarcastically suggested that Kuldeep should start batting in the top order for Uttar Pradesh in domestic cricket just to get selected in Tests.
India didn’t just select Jadeja and Washington; they also brought in Nitish Kumar Reddy. While all three can bowl, none of them are strike bowlers in English conditions. This has left India relying heavily on just three pace bowlers to do the damage — a questionable strategy given the number of bowlers in the squad.
Can India Make It Work?
India’s management might have accepted that taking 20 wickets without Bumrah is unlikely. They may believe the remaining bowlers either lack the experience or the incisiveness to consistently dismiss England twice.
If that’s the case, then stacking the batting lineup makes more sense. A big first-innings total can apply scoreboard pressure and possibly help force errors from the opposition, while also reducing the chance of a collapse and defeat.
If this logic guided their selections, then the approach is understandable. However, it also reflects a lack of confidence in the bowling attack without Bumrah — a point worth scrutinising. After all, several of these bowlers have performed well either at the domestic level or shown flashes of brilliance internationally.
No fast bowler starts out as a finished product. If India dominate parts of the second Test but fail to convert that into a win, it may trigger deeper reflection on whether a more attacking bowling combination would have been wiser.