Former India spinner Harbhajan Singh has weighed in decisively on the ongoing debate over the coaching structure of the Indian cricket team, reiterating that there is currently no need for split coaching — separate specialists for red‑ball (Test) and white‑ball formats — despite recent poor results in India’s Test cricket. His comments come amid rising scrutiny of head coach Gautam Gambhir’s credentials, especially in longer formats of the game.
The Debate Around Split Coaching
The discussion around split coaching in Indian cricket has gathered momentum due to the contrasting fortunes of the national side across formats. Under Gambhir’s tenure as head coach, India has maintained a strong record in limited‑overs cricket, including winning major events like the ICC Champions Trophy. However, India’s performance in Test cricket has been patchy, marked by series defeats such as the 0‑3 whitewash by New Zealand in 2024 and a 0‑2 loss to South Africa at home in 2025. These results have intensified calls from some quarters for a coaching overhaul or format‑specific coaching structures.
Harbhajan Advocates Patience
During a recent interaction with the media ahead of India’s white‑ball series against New Zealand, Harbhajan Singh urged patience and stressed that shifting to a split‑coaching model is not the right move at this moment. He emphasised that coaches, like players, must be given time to settle, adapt, and work through challenges before their abilities are judged or structural changes are implemented.
Stability Over Structural Changes
Harbhajan’s stance reflects a broader belief in stability and continuity within the team’s management. “In India, it is our tradition that if the team plays well, everyone remains quiet, but as soon as the team performs poorly, all blame is directed at the coach,” he noted. According to him, criticism often overlooks the multifaceted challenges that come with coaching a national side across formats. He highlighted that Gambhir’s contributions and past performances for India as a player and leader should not be forgotten, and that knee‑jerk reactions to recent results could be counterproductive.
oneproud.com | jardin-planetario.com | kimgen.info
bltr-cream.com | sigerplus.com
The Case for a Unified Coaching System
A central part of the argument for maintaining a unified coaching setup is the belief that consistency and a single vision help uphold team culture and cohesion. Cricketing nations that operate with a single head coach often argue that it ensures seamless communication between formats, helps in long-term planning, and maintains overarching strategic clarity. Harbhajan’s view aligns well with this school of thought; he suggested that while split coaching is not wrong in principle, the current moment doesn’t necessitate such a change.
Gautam Gambhir’s Defense
In response to criticism, Gambhir himself has defended his approach, pointing out that factors such as pitch conditions, player form, and selection decisions contribute significantly to match outcomes. He has also expressed frustration at external commentary, especially suggestions from non-cricketing voices, about how the team should be managed.
Balancing Expectations with Strategic Continuity
This exchange underscores a critical tension in contemporary Indian cricket: balancing expectations with strategic continuity. Fans and pundits often measure a coach’s success by immediate results, particularly in high-prestige formats like Test cricket. Yet cricketing experts argue that building a competitive and adaptable Test side — replete with technical resilience and mental discipline — requires time, meticulous planning, and a stable support structure.
The context of India’s white-ball success under Gambhir cannot be overlooked. India’s limited-overs teams have performed robustly, with players responding well to tactical inputs and strategic frameworks. Champions Trophy victories and consistent T20I series wins highlight a system that, in white-ball cricket, functions effectively. Harbhajan’s view suggests that this shouldn’t be dismissed or separated hastily from the overall coaching setup.
The Challenges in Test Cricket
On the flip side, struggles in the longest format — especially in home conditions that historically favored India — raise legitimate questions about adaptation and preparation. Test cricket demands different planning cycles, deeper player conditioning, and often a distinct approach to technique and temperament. Some analysts believe that a dedicated Test coach could bring in fresh perspectives and specialized methods to address these specific needs.
Conclusion: Patience and Collective Responsibility
Harbhajan Singh’s central message is one of measured optimism and patience. Instead of structural upheavals, the focus should remain on enhancing team performance through collective responsibility, improved player accountability, and strategic fine-tuning. Players — not just coaches — bear responsibility when results go against the team, especially in a tradition-loaded format like Tests.
In summary, Harbhajan Singh’s comments serve as a reminder that Indian cricket, with its rich legacy and passionate fan base, must tread carefully before making substantive changes to its coaching framework. While split coaching remains a viable option for the future, the current juncture demands patience, trust in the existing setup, and a nuanced evaluation of performance beyond headlines and short-term results.
