India vs England: Five centuries but no win — Where did India go wrong in Headingley Test?

Five centuries — and yet India lost the Headingley Test. I did predict that. Simply because those five centuries (two from Rishabh Pant) didn’t translate into imposing totals, and that made all the difference. The target wasn’t daunting, although anything over 350 isn’t easy to chase. But a target of 400 or 450 would’ve put real scoreboard pressure on England.

A five-wicket win means England were under no such pressure; there was no need to rush or take unnecessary risks. That was clear on Tuesday morning, when Zak Crawley and Ben Duckett played cautious, un-Bazball cricket, only to accelerate later.

England had just two centuries and a 99 in the match, yet that was enough to win and go 1-0 up in the Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy series. While Ollie Pope’s ton and Harry Brook’s 99 helped England match India’s first-innings score, Duckett’s quickfire century sealed the deal.

The moral of the story: it’s not about how many centuries you score, but how many runs you put on the board. And India didn’t put up enough. The late middle-order was fragile, failing to build on the platform laid by the top order.

In both innings, collapses came suddenly — what could have been formidable totals ended up merely competitive. It’s easy to blame Karun Nair, who failed in both innings on his return to Test cricket after eight years. Had he contributed, India might have posed a tougher challenge. Still, given his domestic form for Northamptonshire since 2023, he deserves at least two more Tests.

And Shardul Thakur? Picked as an allrounder, he failed with both bat and ball. His two wickets came too late in England’s second innings to make a real impact.

The Nitish Reddy factor

To shore up the late-order batting, Nitish Kumar Reddy might be a better pick. He showed great promise with the bat in Australia late last year, though his bowling needs work. That could improve with more international exposure.

Where else did India fall short? Bowling and fielding, undoubtedly. The bowling attack looked one-dimensional. Jasprit Bumrah was the only consistent threat, taking five wickets in the first innings. But when he couldn’t strike early in the second innings, England raced to victory.

Had India picked up a couple of wickets in the first hour on Tuesday, it could have changed the game.

Mohammed Siraj had his moments, but Prasidh Krishna’s shorter length is ineffective on English pitches. Perhaps left-arm swing from Arshdeep Singh would add variety. If Thakur isn’t replaced by Reddy for his batting, India could also consider including left-arm wrist-spinner Kuldeep Yadav. He’s an X-factor bowler whose flight and guile can produce wickets even on unhelpful pitches.

Then there’s the fielding. India may well have lost the match there. Six dropped catches in England’s first innings meant they only secured a slender lead, which wasn’t enough to build pressure. The final target proved too modest for a toothless bowling attack.

Poor late-order batting, lacklustre bowling, and sloppy fielding — that’s a recipe for disaster. And that’s exactly what the first Test was for India.