Mumbai: India’s defeat in the first Test against South Africa at Eden Gardens raised questions aplenty. Speaking on JioStar’s post-match show ‘Cricket Live’, JioStar experts Cheteshwar Pujara and Aakash Chopra examined the impact of the difficult surface on batting, adaptation in transitions, and the need for more tailored pitch preparation and role clarity for India’s players.
Speaking on ‘Cricket Live’, JioStar expert Cheteshwar Pujara disagreed with Gautam Gambhir’s assessment of India’s Test defeat: “I disagree with Gauti bhai that the pitch didn’t contribute to India’s batting struggles. He felt the team wanted such conditions, but this surface was clearly tough to bat on, no one except Temba Bavuma managed to cross fifty. Indian batsmen looked underprepared for playing on such turning tracks. On turning tracks, you need different shot selection, more sweeps, and positive intent to keep the scoreboard moving. Since India prefers spin-friendly pitches, our batters must prepare according to the demands of these spin-conditions instead of expecting usual batting-friendly surfaces.”
On the pitch debate: “Some dismissals were due to batting mistakes, but that still doesn’t mean the pitch was easy. Temba Bavuma showed that you can score on this surface, but only by playing differently, using sweeps and showing positive intent instead of relying on traditional defense. This wicket doesn’t support the usual Test-match style where you block, grind, and build an innings slowly. To do well here, batters have to play in an aggressive manner, use sweeps and lofted shots, and take calculated risks. We may not prefer these kinds of pitches in long-term, but the truth is that traditional Test batting becomes almost impossible on surfaces where you constantly need to innovate just to score”
Speaking on ‘Cricket Live’, JioStar expert Aakash Chopra provided a detailed analysis of India’s ongoing transition phase in Test cricket: “Transition is always painful, though the England series temporarily hid this harsh reality due to unusual English pitch conditions. While drawing that series felt encouraging, we must acknowledge we’re still in the labor pains before new growth emerges. The number three position remains unsettled – we’ve seen Sai Sudharsan, Karun Nair, and now Washington Sundar batting there. Dhruv Jurel shows promise but has played only five Tests. Role clarity remains a concern. Is Sundar primarily a batter or bowler when he only delivered one over? We faced similar uncertainty with Nitesh Kumar Reddy recently. Rather than pretending we’re a finished product, we must accept this transition continues and will involve challenging phases before achieving stability”
On India’s pitch preparation strategy after their Test defeat: “Our practice sessions should feel like real match conditions. Players like Pant and Jurel needed time on rank turners, and someone like Gill, coming from bouncy Australian pitches, needed that adjustment too. Pitch preparation isn’t an exact science, but we still need to ask whether extreme turning tracks are the best way for us to win. When a Test ends in two and a half days, it shows something isn’t balanced. With four spinners compared to their two, why bring the contest down to their level? We’ve seen this happen against New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa before. If this becomes our only home strategy, then every batsman will need very different and specific preparation just to cope”
On the pitch debate through statistical evidence: “Exceptions define the norm, and Temba Bavuma’s fifty stands as the exception among 38 wickets that fell in this match. If batting were straightforward, multiple players would have scored heavily, not just one batter. While Bavuma’s performance deserves credit, the reality remains that only one person succeeded where others failed. Learning through victory feels rewarding, but learning through defeat creates bigger challenges for team development”
