With the 2027 ODI World Cup some fourteen months away, India face an uncomfortable question: how ready are they for a tournament they haven’t won since 2011? Going by the evidence, not very. This remains a team yet to settle its best XI, and the uncertainty has begun to show in the performances themselves.
None of this is a talent problem. This remains one of the deepest squads in world cricket. The risk is self-inflicted: a side this talented undone by its own indecision rather than by an opponent. The recent series in England exposed a side still short on balance, and further still from identifying the core group it will carry into South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia before the southern hemisphere summer sets in.
That imbalance isn’t only about personnel. Few players in this set-up are certain of their spot or their role, and that uncertainty runs from the top of the order to the bottom. The danger is that a muddle like this rarely stays confined to the XI. It breeds an insecurity that shows in body language as much as in results.
Top order, unresolved
Start with the suspense that refuses to lift around Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli. As reported by this newspaper, selectors have already told Rohit he isn’t part of their plans. Yet at Lord’s, the 39-year-old showed he still has performances left in him. Kohli’s situation is murkier: his presence lifts the team, but he too remains unsure of his place in it. With two of the biggest names still uncertain, the unease at the top has set the tone for everyone below them.
With captain Shubman Gill locked in at the top, the only other opening option tried has been Yashasvi Jaiswal, who remains a back-up.
No settled No. 6
Move down the order and the uncertainty continues. Shreyas Iyer’s spot is locked in, but beyond him lies open ground. KL Rahul had been India’s first-choice wicketkeeper in the format for four years; in England, Ishan Kishan took the gloves instead. With few left-handers at the top, his inclusion looked less like a plan than a scramble to fit him in, and he was asked to bat in the middle order besides, a role he has occupied only once for Jharkhand, in the Vijay Hazare Trophy against Karnataka, when he made 125 off 39 balls at No. 6. Before the England tour, India’s team management had wanted Sanju Samson in the squad; the selectors turned the request down. Had they said yes, another question would only have followed: where does Samson bat?
At No. 5, India have tried Axar Patel and Washington Sundar. Neither has looked the natural fit for a role that needs a batsman comfortable swinging between aggression and consolidation, and comfortable with the semi-old ball introduced after the 34th over. The need for a left-hander at that slot, and for someone who can handle that older ball, pushed Rahul down from No. 5, where his numbers were excellent, to No. 6.
Story continues below this ad
Since the Champions Trophy, Rahul has been settling into that unfamiliar role of finisher, a job that asks for power-hitting, which isn’t naturally his game. The thinking rests on trust in his batting rather than his hitting: that in the mid-30s overs, with five fielders outside the circle, he can manoeuvre the gaps and accelerate late. India don’t have anyone better suited to the job. They have handed it to him anyway.
At the start of Gambhir’s tenure, India also tried Riyan Parag and Rishabh Pant in these middle-order slots; neither is in the picture now.
The all-rounder gap
Then there is the seam-bowling all-rounder India cannot cover. With Hardik Pandya carrying injury concerns, the team has leaned on Nitish Kumar Reddy, another player whose body has not always cooperated. Pandya has not played since the Champions Trophy in March 2025 and has not bowled his full quota of ten overs even in domestic cricket. Without him, India go into the World Cup short a finisher capable of landing the late blows, a gap in the XI no one else quite fills. If Pandya isn’t fit, is anyone else ready? No.
Even the all-rounders head coach Gautam Gambhir favours come with question marks. Axar, Washington and Nitish add depth with both bat and ball, but none has shown he can win a match on the strength of either discipline alone. The numbers make the case on their own. Since the Gambhir era began, Washington has completed his full ten overs only twice in fifteen matches, and in six of those outings has bowled five or fewer. Axar has completed his full quota in six of seventeen matches; in all but one of the remaining eleven, he has managed at least six overs. Nitish has never sent down ten overs across six matches, his highest being eight, against New Zealand; against Afghanistan recently he managed four and six across two games.
Story continues below this ad
This isn’t Gambhir’s fault alone. For years India have struggled to produce batsmen who can bowl a handful of overs, or seamers who can be trusted for 20 or 30 runs down the order. The all-rounders who do emerge from the domestic system tend to bowl spin, which is why the selectors keep returning to Washington and Axar.
In search of balance, India have also tried making all-rounders out of Harshit Rana and Shivam Dube, without success. Their new hope as a spin-bowling all-rounder is Harsh Dubey.
Kuldeep, and no one else
That leaves India without a wicket-taking X-factor in the middle overs whenever Kuldeep Yadav isn’t playing. England exposed exactly this: captain Shubman Gill admitted his side had to defend when the opposition spinners were on. In South Africa, where turn will be harder to find, Kuldeep’s wrist spin, and the bounce that comes with it, becomes still more valuable.
Beyond Kuldeep, the team management has looked at Varun Chakravarthy, but his fitness and fielding have kept him from being the answer they’re looking for.
Story continues below this ad
Pace, and not much depth
The pace attack is where the concern sits deepest. With Mohammed Siraj currently out of the picture, India lean almost entirely on Jasprit Bumrah. Arshdeep Singh is only as effective as the conditions allow him to be. Prasidh Krishna continues to frustrate. Harshit Rana’s fitness remains well short of what the role demands. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, in a fitter attack, might have been in the conversation; he isn’t even part of it now. At the last World Cup, India turned to R Ashwin at the eleventh hour because they needed an off-spinner. In South Africa, Bhuvneshwar would offer something similar, and a batsman capable of contributing at No. 8 besides.
The plan to groom Rana, Prasidh, Gurnoor Brar and Prince Yadav hasn’t worked so far. But with Brar, there is some genuine hope.
The options exist. What India lack is the clarity to choose between them.
