The Gill Conundrum: England’s Monotony and a Batter’s Flourish

On the opening day of the Visakhapatnam Test in 2024, Shubman Gill exuded the composure of a man who had momentarily banished the ghosts of Hyderabad. Unlike his first-innings effort there — where mere survival seemed his solitary aim — here, Gill batted with purpose, his movements crisp, his intent to score never in doubt. Only occasionally was he troubled by the scrambled seam that James Anderson, cricket’s ageless conjurer, has weaponised so subtly in recent years.

Gill glided to a visually sumptuous 34, his drives purring off the blade, before allowing temptation to dictate fate. A ball from Anderson, which jagged away ever so slightly, found the edge of Gill’s bat. Ben Foakes, vigilant as ever, did the rest. What began as a promise of resurgence ended prematurely, leaving in its wake murmurs of a burgeoning pattern of failures — murmurs the team management might hesitate to voice aloud, yet which statistics lay bare.

Indeed, by that dismissal, Gill had already been caught behind the wicket — by keeper, slip, or gully — on 13 occasions in his Test journey, felled by both pace and spin. There is, unavoidably, a pattern. A modern batter schooled on the creed of ‘bat on ball’, Gill is often reluctant to let the cherry pass unmolested. He tends to chase with his hands when discretion might counsel restraint. Because he habitually positions himself slightly leg-side of the ball to carve his exquisite off-side strokes — the kind that illuminated his tours of Australia and England — his feet lag, passengers rather than guides. Thus, hands and torso lunge where head and front foot should lead, rendering him vulnerable to anything that deviates outside off. His hard hands, meanwhile, all but guarantee that edges will carry obligingly to waiting catchers.

This susceptibility is most pronounced against deliveries shaping away — be it the classical away-swinger, the subtle leg-cutter from right-arm quicks, or the ball holding its line from the left-arm angle of a Wagner or Boult. Yet Gill’s vulnerability is not one-dimensional. He has been bowled seven times and trapped leg-before six more, suggesting that the inward movement is no less a threat.

Overall, an arresting 43.1% of Gill’s Test dismissals have come against balls that lured him around that probing off-stump channel, particularly when conditions lent even modest assistance to swing. If the surface offered any encouragement, Gill was prone to succumb. Conversely, when bowlers erred by bowling consistently outside off without pace or deception, Gill’s flair blossomed. He thrives on predictability; given time and width, he constructs innings with an artist’s flourish.

This was conspicuously on display in England, at Leeds and Edgbaston, where circumstances conspired to flatter him. England, in their planning, perhaps outsmarted themselves. By crafting benign surfaces and electing to bat first on what turned out to be veritable highways, they inadvertently invited Gill to dictate terms. The usual logic — to accumulate runs, stretch opponents, and later exploit a deteriorating pitch — turned inward on England. Instead, they faced an India growing in confidence, their own attack bereft of spark.

At Leeds, England’s bowlers targeted the orthodox 6–8 metre length outside off, sending down 197 balls in that corridor across 86 overs. In contrast, India’s attack employed a similar count of such deliveries — 203 — but in just 77.4 overs, blending them with more varied tactics. England’s approach proved too uniform. Their lengths were predominantly full, their lines rigidly outside off, their pace pedestrian. Deviation was scarce; creativity, scarcer still.

This strategic monotony played straight into Gill’s hands. Bowlers pitched up and slightly angled in, but rarely altered the recipe. There was little surprise — few short balls to push him back, no well-concealed cutters to draw him forward nervously, no bursts of sharp pace to disrupt his rhythm. As a result, Gill could measure his strokes, pace his innings, and punish errors with impunity.

The lesson for England is stark. If they continue to persist with this one-dimensional method — full, off-stump, and hoping for the ball to do the work — Gill and his peers will feast. Test batting of quality is vulnerable not to mere discipline, but to a cocktail of cunning: shifts in length, subtle changes in angle, variances in pace. Without these, England risks seeing their lines carefully plotted on a chart, only for Gill to trace them to the boundary rope.

In Visakhapatnam, even as Gill fell for another innings that flattered before it truly threatened, the signs remain. Give him predictable bowling, and he will paint masterpieces. Challenge him with guile and variation, and the edges — literal and figurative — begin to show. England would do well to ponder this if they hope to rein in a batter whose flaws, while evident, require more than mere patience to exploit.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar