India may have taken an important step towards solving one of their biggest recent Test batting problems after the Sri Lanka series, where Devdutt Padikkal, Dhruv Jurel, Rishabh Pant and KL Rahul showed different but effective ways of handling spin.
For much of the past two years, India’s batting against spin had become increasingly uncertain, even in conditions where the team had traditionally been dominant. Batters appeared hesitant, struggled to use their feet and often allowed spinners to dictate the tempo.
The problem became particularly evident during New Zealand’s 3-0 series win in India in 2024. New Zealand’s spinners claimed 81 of the 112 Indian wickets in that series, with Ajaz Patel taking 15 wickets and Mitchell Santner claiming 13 in one Test. India were bowled out for 263 and 121 in Mumbai as their batting struggled to counter spin.
South Africa’s 2-0 victory the following year added to the concern, with India averaging just 15.23 with the bat and Simon Harmer taking 17 wickets at less than nine runs each.
The issue was therefore not simply about individual players. India appeared to have lost a collective method for playing spin — using the crease, rotating the strike, playing late, attacking the right deliveries and forcing the bowler to change plans.
The Sri Lanka series offered signs that this method may be returning.
Padikkal emerged as the biggest individual success story. The left-hander scored 328 runs in three innings at an average of 109.33, including centuries of 167 in Galle and 117 in Colombo.
However, the bigger takeaway was not simply Padikkal’s two hundreds. India had several batters contributing in different ways, allowing the team to build large totals without depending on a single player.
Dhruv Jurel scored 173 runs, Rishabh Pant contributed 168 and KL Rahul made 135. India scored 462 in the first Test and reached 503 for nine before declaring in the second.
The second Test provided the clearest example of the change. India were 300 for five when Jurel and Pant combined to rebuild and accelerate the innings. Pant scored 63 while Jurel remained unbeaten on 115. Their 112-run partnership for the seventh wicket helped India move towards a total above 500.
Jurel then continued batting with the lower order and ensured India could declare at 503 for nine.
The significance of the innings was that India were able to absorb pressure, change tempo and continue adding runs even after losing established batters.
DEVDUTT PADIKKAL'S PREPARATION FOR SPIN
Padikkal’s success was also linked to deliberate preparation.
India’s batting coach Sitanshu Kotak revealed that Padikkal had worked extensively on his back-foot game at the BCCI Centre of Excellence because the team expected to face substantial amounts of spin in Sri Lanka.
His preparation also included practising the step-out and sweep.
Kotak said Padikkal had worked on his back-foot game while also developing his ability to step out and sweep against spin.
That preparation became visible during the Tests.
Instead of allowing Sri Lankan spinners to settle into a comfortable length, Padikkal frequently went deep into his crease and played the ball late. When bowlers offered opportunities, he moved forward and attacked.
His sweep also provided an option against left-arm spinner Prabath Jayasuriya, while his back-foot play prevented Sri Lanka from simply bowling defensively and waiting for a mistake.
Against spin, forcing the bowler to continually alter length and line can be as important as hitting boundaries.
Padikkal demonstrated that principle effectively.
His second century in Colombo was particularly encouraging because it was less about free-flowing strokeplay and more about absorbing pressure. For a No. 3 batter, that ability could prove more valuable than simply producing spectacular shots.
Padikkal has also indicated that there had been considerable discussion within the Indian dressing room about how the team wanted to play spin.
That suggests his performances were not simply the result of individual improvisation. India had developed a specific approach and Padikkal was able to execute it.
INDIA MAY HAVE FOUND STABILITY AT NO. 3
One of the most important questions for India has been the No. 3 position since Cheteshwar Pujara moved on.
Several players have been tried in the role, including Sai Sudharsan, Shubman Gill, Karun Nair, Washington Sundar, KL Rahul and Padikkal.
The constant changes have made it difficult to establish a player with a clear understanding of the role.
Padikkal’s performances in Sri Lanka could give India a reason to settle on him for an extended period.
He should not be expected to immediately replicate Pujara’s career or occupy the same role in exactly the same manner. What India need first is stability.
His two centuries have given him a strong case for another sustained opportunity at No. 3.
At the same time, Sai Sudharsan should not be viewed as the casualty of Padikkal’s rise. Sudharsan had been India’s preferred No. 3 before injury ruled him out of the Sri Lanka series.
India could benefit from keeping both players in contention.
Kotak has indicated that Padikkal and Sudharsan can potentially operate in different positions, giving the team flexibility as the top order develops.
That means Padikkal’s emergence does not necessarily have to eliminate another option.
DHRUV JUREL PROVIDES A DIFFERENT KIND OF STABILITY
Jurel’s performances were another major positive from the Sri Lanka tour.
His unbeaten 115 in Colombo was his second Test century and his first hundred outside India.
More importantly, the innings came when India could have settled for a substantial total but instead continued to push towards 500.
Jurel and Pant added 112 runs for the seventh wicket. While Pant provided aggression and changed the tempo, Jurel supplied stability.
After Pant was dismissed, Jurel continued with the lower order and remained unbeaten.
He had reached 95 before a rain interruption and later completed his century after waiting on 99.
The innings demonstrated a quality that is particularly useful in Test cricket: patience.
Jurel does not need to play exactly like Pant. The two provide different solutions.
Pant can attack and change the tempo of an innings, while Jurel can absorb pressure and allow an innings to continue.
Together, those qualities give India greater balance.
The same principle applies to the rest of the batting order. KL Rahul can provide a platform, Padikkal can control the middle phase, Jurel can absorb pressure and Pant can accelerate.
A strong Test batting unit does not require every batter to play in the same manner. It needs enough players capable of answering different challenges.
INDIA'S OLD SPIN PROBLEM IS NOT COMPLETELY SOLVED
Despite the encouraging performances, the Sri Lanka series cannot be treated as definitive proof that India have solved their problems against spin.
Sri Lanka's bowling attack was competent but did not pose exactly the same challenge as the attacks that dismantled India during their recent home defeats.
The Sri Lankan pitches were slow but were not necessarily as difficult as the surfaces on which India struggled against New Zealand and South Africa.
That means the real examination is still ahead.
India will eventually face stronger attacks and conditions in which the ball turns more sharply or behaves unpredictably.
The important questions will be whether Padikkal can maintain his method against higher-quality spin, whether India's batters can continue rotating the strike without over-attacking and whether they can remain proactive when the pitch starts dictating terms.
Those are questions Sri Lanka could not completely answer.
Former India batter Cheteshwar Pujara has also suggested that Padikkal needs to be judged in tougher conditions before any final conclusions are drawn.
Sri Lanka may have given him time, but it cannot provide the final verdict on his Test career.
Still, the series provided India with something they had been missing: clarity.
Padikkal looked like a No. 3 with a defined method. Jurel demonstrated that he could extend an innings under pressure. Pant remained an attacking option, while Rahul provided experience and stability at the top.
India also benefited from having several contributors rather than relying entirely on one batter.
That could be the biggest lesson from Sri Lanka.
India have not necessarily rediscovered their old dominance against spin yet. But they appear to have rediscovered a more coherent way of approaching it.
The focus is no longer simply on surviving the spinner. India’s batters are showing a willingness to use the crease, rotate the strike, attack selectively and force bowlers to change their plans.
For a team that had recently looked uncertain against spin, that represents meaningful progress.
The next challenge will determine whether it is a temporary improvement or the beginning of a genuine change in India's Test batting culture.
