The quality of change-up bowlers often decides the result of a Test match. If there is no weak link, opposition batters get no respite and eventually succumb.

In Centurion, India's three experienced bowlers - Jasprit Bumrah, Mohammed Siraj and R Ashwin - bowled 69.4 overs for 201 runs and seven wickets. With conditions getting easier for batting than on day one, 201 for 7 is a decent response to being bowled out for 245. However, the two less-experienced bowlers - Shardul Thakur in his 11th Test, and Prasidh Krishna on debut - went for 194 for 2 in 39 overs, which is where the Test was lost no matter how much India's batters are criticised for their second-innings collapse.

This is not to say the batting doesn't need improvement, but the recurring problem was the bowling. India's bowlers tend to draw less seam movement or uneven bounce from pitches in South Africa than the home team's bowlers even if they hit better areas, which they did for considerable periods with the new ball in Centurion.

Despite that India have won a Test in four of their last five tours of South Africa. That's because the bowlers getting less out of the pitch were still able to provide control, which was not the case in Centurion, where India got blown away in two of the four bowling sessions. At their best, this attack used to take pride in being able to bowl with control when conditions were not in their favour.

India's Centurion performance was their most ordinary effort in the first innings since Lord's in 2018, but worryingly for them, such displays have become more common in the second innings in the last three years or so. It happened twice on their previous tour of South Africa, twice in England in one-off Test matches in 2022 and 2023.

There is a palpable fall in the bowling intensity of this team from 2018 to early 2021. Now is a good time to appreciate how lucky India were during that period to have Bumrah, Siraj, Ishant Sharma, Mohammed Shami and Umesh Yadav at their best. They were not products of a system: one was not considered good enough for his state and three others took forever to develop. Ishant's early struggles are legendary, Shami went at 4.24 an over on his first tour of Australia, and Umesh at one point had one of the worst averages for bowlers with 100 Test wickets.

Krishna's struggles in Centurion need to be seen in that light. India are in transition and despite identifying Krishna as the bowler to perform Ishant's role, India couldn't develop him because of his back injury. He played his first first-class match in 21 months this month, and this Test was only his 13th first-class game. Not everyone can be the bowling god that Bumrah is, and impress on Test debut despite not playing a first-class game in more than a year. But even Bumrah had played 26 first-class fixtures before his Test debut, compared to Krishna's 12.

Only Siraj is a product of a process where the team management, selectors and India A teams worked in sync, while the BCCI gave them whatever they wanted. A fast bowler needs to play plenty of first-class cricket against competitive opposition to get used to bowling so many overs and also become mentally experienced at handling different conditions and match situations. Siraj had played a lot for India A before making his Test debut.

The effect of the BCCI's reluctance to invest in development programmes immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic is showing right now. "If the impact of the work put in on Siraj in 2018 showed in 2020, it's also possible we might see the real impact of no developmental programmes in two or three years' time," we wrote in June 2021, after speaking to those responsible for a successful mini-transition at the time.

It's 2023, and India don't have a bowler ready for when Shami is injured. Thakur's beginner's luck has turned and he is averaging 56 per wicket in his last five Tests, all of which have been in seam-friendly conditions. If the trend continues in the New Year's Test in Cape Town, India might wonder whether they are better off playing a more effective bowler instead of Thakur going forward, even if it compromises their batting depth.

There is outrage in the aftermath of Centurion; the defeat in the first of two Tests ensuring South Africa will continue to remain the only country where India have not yet won a series. It is partly due to the utter lack of planning by the BCCI. The present team management went through their first stint, which ended with the ODI World Cup in November, not knowing if they would be asked to continue. The decision makers neither ruled out an extension nor looked for replacements because they were evidently going to decide based on the outcome of the World Cup final. As it turned out, they had no time to look for alternatives if they wanted to, and the team's leadership went on a tour of South Africa with zero long-term planning.

Part of the outrage stems from the higher-than-reasonable expectations of this team after the win in Australia in 2020-21. We tend to forget the unusual amount of luck India needed on the field to win that Border-Gavaskar Trophy after losing their whole first-choice attack to injury. The struggle in Centurion is more the norm for an inexperienced attack in Test cricket.

(With inputs from agencies)