India's win at The Oval might herald a golden era for them - Greg Chappell

[vvvslaxman]

India's win at The Oval might herald a golden era for them

At a time of transition, India's young squad proved themselves more than capable of filling the shoes of their former storied colleagues

 

 

Test cricket has a way of echoing through the decades. For those of us who played in or witnessed defining moments in cricket history, certain performances trigger memories of past turning points - moments when a team doesn't just win a match but announces a new identity. India's extraordinary comeback victory in the final Test of the 2025 series against England at The Oval was just such a moment.

 

To level the series 2-2 after being 2-1 down, against the odds, at one of England's most iconic venues (and one of India's happy hunting grounds!) was not merely a case of square scores. It was a declaration of purpose. It brought to mind, quite vividly for me, Australia's 1972 Ashes draw under Ian Chappell. The last match in that series, also played at The Oval, also to level a series, sparked a generational shift in Australian cricket that would shape the coming decade.

 

The parallels are too strong to ignore.

 

In 1972, Australia arrived in England in a transitional phase. Bill Lawry had departed. Graham McKenzie, Ian Redpath - names synonymous with the preceding era - were gone. A young side, led by my brother, stood on the brink of the unknown. When we won the final Test to draw the series, with Dennis Lillee announcing his ascension to the Australian fast-bowling throne, we didn't just save face. We established a tone - one of aggression, unity, and belief - that underpinned the golden era of the 1970s.

 

India in 2025 finds themselves at a similar inflection point. Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli, R Ashwin are all absent. Their replacements didn't just fill gaps; they filled their boots and went on to create new ones. Shubman Gill, entrusted with the captaincy, brought a calm authority and youthful assertiveness.

 

At times he allowed the game to drift and appeared to change the bowling by the clock, but he will grow quickly in the role if supported appropriately on and off the field. His use of the meagre bowling resources allotted was quixotic at times, but he now has the status to be more assertive at the selection table.

 

To me, Kuldeep Yadav not being picked was incomprehensible, as he is a potential match-winner. Fixing errors like that, and embarking on a continuing search for bowling depth, can make this a formidable team.

 

Gill's own form was nothing short of spectacular. Yashasvi Jaiswal played with flair and maturity. Rishabh Pant added spark and steel, KL Rahul and Ravindra Jadeja brought experience and consistency. I will be surprised if Washington Sundar doesn't establish himself as the team's premier allrounder, who I expect to play in excess of 50 Tests.

 

 

And then, there was Mohammed Siraj.

 

The win at The Oval, like Australia's in 1972, was more than a statistical result. It was a statement. India's young team - much like Australia's back then - has shown that it is not waiting to inherit greatness. It is intent on creating its own legacy.

 

But no one embodied that transformation more than the proud warrior Siraj.

 

To bowl more than 185 overs in five Test matches over six weeks in any conditions is a physical, mental and emotional marathon. To do so with consistent intensity, while carrying the attack in the absence of Jasprit Bumrah for stretches, is bordering on heroic. Siraj's final-innings spell at The Oval - culminating in nine wickets for the match - sealed the game. But it was what led to that moment that truly stood out.

 

Siraj began the series tentatively. He lacked rhythm and confidence and bowled mixed lines and lengths. Questions were rightly asked about his readiness to lead the attack sans Bumrah. But with each Test, he grew. The body language changed. The shoulders didn't slump; they squared. The run-up lengthened, the wrist snap sharpened, the eyes burned even brighter. He didn't just gain form - he grew in stature.

 

By the final Test, he was no longer the support act. He was the main event. His dismissal of Zak Crawley in the second innings - a ball that tailed late and hit the base of off - was the kind of delivery that legends produce, not just fast bowlers. It wasn't just about speed or swing. It was about understanding, execution, precision.

 

Siraj's story is one of resilience - physical, mental, and emotional. Here's a man who has carried grief publicly, who wears his emotions on his sleeve, and who channels all of it into his cricket. He bowled like a man possessed, but also a man who had learned the art of pacing himself, of understanding the moments that matter.

 

What impressed me most wasn't the effort - which was immense - but the evolution. He started as a bowler with passion. He ended as a bowler with passion and purpose. That's the difference between a player and a leader.

 

 

I don't think it is unfair to say that, despite the many wonderful batting efforts, Siraj was the main reason that India was competitive in the series.

 

To be fair, he has turned in many fine performances before, at the MCG, the Gabba, Perth, Lord's, Cape Town and Birmingham, but what he did at The Oval was his true coming of age. With or without Bumrah, he is ready to be the spiritual as well as actual leader of Gill's attack.

 

While India's win will rightly dominate the headlines, England's own journey in this series presents a cautionary subplot - one embodied by the brilliant but mercurial Harry Brook, whose virtues I have extolled publicly before.

 

Brook has the tools to be one of England's finest batters, arguably their most destructive, in the modern era - a worthy successor to Joe Root. He has time, range, confidence, and that rare gift of making batting look effortless. But cricket, particularly Test cricket, is not just about shot-making. It's about judgement. About recognising when the moment demands attack - and when it demands restraint.

 

Brook's dismissal at The Oval, with the game finely poised, was symptomatic of the conundrum that is facing the England setup. The "Bazball" philosophy - of fearless, attacking cricket - has revitalised their Test side. But it cannot become an excuse to avoid doing the hard yards. At 301 for 3, all England needed was for one batter to hold his nerve. To absorb pressure. Brook went for the glory shot - and perished.

 

There's nothing wrong with positivity. But positive cricket doesn't mean reckless cricket. It means confident, calculated risk-taking. Brook is emerging, and he will learn. But to become the match-winner England need, he must embrace the grind along with the glamour. Root didn't become England's most prolific batter by always playing pretty strokes. He earned it with grit. Brook will need to do the same if he is to fulfil his vast potential.

 

This India-England series will long be remembered not just for the result, but for the theatre. The subplots. The redefinition of roles. Both sides were tested - physically, tactically, emotionally. But it was India who emerged as moral victors. They won clarity. Identity. Purpose.

 

 

Much like Australia at The Oval in 1972, India have drawn a line in the sand. They've told the cricketing world: "We are here. We are ready. And we are building something."

 

For a sport that thrives on cycles and legacies, the echoes from The Oval - from 1972 to 2025 - may prove to be uncanny.

 

The baton has been passed. Siraj, Pant, Jaiswal, Washington and Gill, and this fearless young Indian team are itching to run with it.

[Tillu]

The Chappell brothers have always been generous in their praise for the Indian team.

 

Ian Chappell too after our Gabba and Test series win said that this is the moment India will leave the other teams in the dust with so much talent waiting in the wings, but India instead regressed.

Edited August 5, 2025 by Tillu

[BacktoCricaddict]

Am glad he's 60+ because he sure sounds like he's angling for that naukri again. Da worst EQ of any coach I've seen, including GG.

Edited August 5, 2025 by BacktoCricaddict

[Gollum]

8 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Am glad he's 60+ because he sure sounds like he's angling for that naukri again. Da worst EQ of any coach I've seen, including GG.

Chappell bros are blunt but fair.

 

His coaching stint did many good things, Kirsten benefitted because GC had taken the tough decisions, blooded youth.

Edited August 5, 2025 by Gollum

[Ultimate_Game]

We'll be fine at home thanks to spin all-rounders and batting should be fine as long as we don't create stars the way we did with Kohli and Rohit. But we need to find pacers and a couple of pace all-rounders to be competitive away. Pace bowling is too dependent on Bumrah and Siraj. Need long term replacements for Shami and Ishant Sharma. Plus need pace all-rounders to step up as we can't carry 4 bowlers who can't hold the bat.

[Sandz]

We need to find some fast bowlers first, cupboard seems to be bare hence they had to play semi fit Bumrah and Akash.

[BacktoCricaddict]

10 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Chappell bros are blunt but fair.

 

His coaching stint did many good things, Kirsten benefitted because GC had taken the tough decisions, blooded youth.

Perhaps, but one can be blunt without being abusive. 

[LordPrabhzy]

Golden era lmao lol i predict India will stop playing test cricket after a decade and other teams will follow

[Lone Wolf]

52 minutes ago, Tillu said:

The Chappell brothers have always been generous in their praise for the Indian team.

 

Ian Chappell too after our Gabba and Test series win said that this is the moment India will leave the other teams in the dust with so much talent waiting in the wings, but India instead regressed.

Chapell said world feared what would happen if India brings professonalism and manages to bring out the best of the talent available to them post that win.

 

Safely to say India didn't have managed to do that over the course of time.. especially in bowling department.

 

People in charge themselves have no idea what's the best a available to us.

Otherwise we won't see folks like Kamboj trundling at 119kph in Old Trafford.

Edited August 5, 2025 by Lone Wolf

[Sooda]

Getting carried away now. 

[vvvslaxman]

32 minutes ago, Sooda said:

Getting carried away now. 

 

There are not many good test teams in the world. Only 5. England and AUstralia are big ticket teams. We showed tremendous fight in their own backyard. So it is not hard for this team to continue their excellence.

[coffee_rules]

Will agree if we win a series in SA and NZ, We haven’t won a series in England since 2007. Even SL has managed to win series in Eng and SA recently in the past few years, even through they are 2-test series

[vvvslaxman]

54 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Will agree if we win a series in SA and NZ, We haven’t won a series in England since 2007. Even SL has managed to win series in Eng and SA recently in the past few years, even through they are 2-test series

We play NZ less that What BD does. I think they don't host us often enough to have a wood over them.

[Need4Speed]

just need to encourage 140k+ pacers and 135k+ ARs in domestic circuit and we should go from strength to strength..

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

We play NZ less that What BD does. I think they don't host us often enough to have a wood over them.

And what is worst is the 0-3 recently at home. It facilitated change in the team , Rohit and Kohli going out. Bit. Even if we had won 2-1 , India would have qualified to that stupid WTC final 

Edited August 5, 2025 by coffee_rules

[Lord]

5 hours ago, Gollum said:

Chappell bros are blunt but fair.

 

His coaching stint did many good things, Kirsten benefitted because GC had taken the tough decisions, blooded youth.

 

Yes our superstars didn't like it but many youngsters debuted under him 

[StraightDrive26]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Will agree if we win a series in SA and NZ, We haven’t won a series in England since 2007. Even SL has managed to win series in Eng and SA recently in the past few years, even through they are 2-test series

Lets put things into perspective winning 2 test series easier and winning 5 Test series. For example in 2014 India drew the first Test and won the second, if it were a two Test series India would have won that series. I would give it to SL for the SA series though as they won 2-0 and it was a great win. India were just carrying dead weights for a long time and glad that we have gotten rid of them now. After a long time I think an Indian batting line up is giving us confidence. We haven't had it since 2019 overseas. Virat, Pujara (except for Aus series) and Rahane had made our middle order a joke for about 6 years.

[Gollum]

10 hours ago, Lord said:

 

Yes our superstars didn't like it but many youngsters debuted under him 

Dada did get too big for his boots then, too entitled and brattish, poor performances compounding. Dropping him made him a better player in his comeback, changed his attitude for the good. 

 

As you said, so many youngsters were groomed in that brief period. Pacers got more encouragement. 

 

Our ODI chasing woes were sorted, people don't remember what a big mental block that was for us for many years. 

 

WC was a disaster but it was the foundation for something more beautiful starting from T20 WC win....next 4 years were very good for us. 

 

Kirsten benefitted the most, because he didn't have to take the tough decisions, gelled with the players and became a very good man manager. 

[rollingstoned]

26 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Dada did get too big for his boots then, too entitled and brattish, poor performances compounding. Dropping him made him a better player in his comeback, changed his attitude for the good. 

 

As you said, so many youngsters were groomed in that brief period. Pacers got more encouragement. 

 

Our ODI chasing woes were sorted, people don't remember what a big mental block that was for us for many years. 

 

WC was a disaster but it was the foundation for something more beautiful starting from T20 WC win....next 4 years were very good for us. 

 

Kirsten benefitted the most, because he didn't have to take the tough decisions, gelled with the players and became a very good man manager. 

What happened to JP Yadav? Chappell used to like him and he suddenly disappeared after 2007. 

[Gollum]

4 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

What happened to JP Yadav? Chappell used to like him and he suddenly disappeared after 2007. 

Like Venugopal Rao, a domestic titan who couldn't cut it in internationals.