Indian cricket hasn’t had the best of relationships with players who have dared to be different. Vinod Kambli is, perhaps, the most telling example of this – one who liked to have a good time off the pitch while he was incredibly good at what he was supposed to do: playing cricket. However, his flamboyance, as his coach and one of the greatest to have honed cricketers in the country, the late Ramakant Achrekar, put it, rubbed people the wrong way.

Once the impression was formed, Kambli found it difficult to shed and despite the nine comebacks, he played merely 17 Tests, which was a price he paid for being who he was – different from others. It would be difficult to imagine if the legendary Shane Warne, a ‘different’ cricketer in his own right, would have achieved the same things he did if he was playing for the Indian cricket team, for his flamboyance might have been a tad bit difficult to digest.

Indian cricket has an easy relationship with cricketers who mind their own business. However, you bring in a Ravi Shastri – whose glittering cricketing achievements as a player and a coach are certainly up there with some of the best Indian cricket has seen, but who receives a fair amount of criticism from time to time for the way he is – he is different from the expected norm a cricketer in India is supposed to follow.

Shastri is outspoken; likes to enjoy his life, and that, not his cricketing achievements, draws eyeballs and criticism. If a footballing analogy can be brought into the argument, let’s just say that Indian cricket has a problem adjusting to a Jose Mourinho but is fairly comfortable with a Sir Bobby Robson.

It seems now, however, with Sourav Ganguly at the helm, who has experience of handling fairly well such ‘different’ cricketers during his tenure as the captain, that the things have improved, as evidenced by the successful reintegration of KL Rahul and Hardik Pandya into the Indian team.

However, for the fans, at least for some of them, the different characters are difficult to get attuned to. For them, there is still the same old template to follow to be the ideal cricketer – be docile on the field while off the field there should be no/bare minimum social media activity. Deviate from this narrative and things get tricky, moderated by how good your form is – the worse it is, much more likely that you will be criticised.

Take, for example, Pandya, who is currently being universally praised for his captaincy after the 2022 IPL. Shreevats Goswami, who played for Sunrisers Hyderabad last season, called out the hypocrisy with a tweet, drawing attention to how the player has been criticised countless times before for his dressing style or his confidence. Virat Kohli, too, faced it in his earlier days – for the tattoos and his aggressive demeanor. When with the same attributes, he propelled himself to become the best batter in the game, it was all counted as a positive, much like it is happening with Pandya right now.

It all points to one thing: each player has his own journey to the top. There isn’t a fixed mould, contrary to popular perception, that guarantees success in the sport. The problem is not that oftentimes people consider someone like Rahul Dravid as the ideal cricketer, the problem is that they shut themselves off from the idea that people are different, they can be different. Many have perished in this clamor for uniformity, for they lacked the self-belief, clarity, and resilience that the likes of Kohli, Pandya, or Shastri had in themselves.

The current one on the radar is the 20-year-old Riyan Parag. He has shown the promise and given his seemingly playful nature, whenever the chips were going to be down, him being the target was a foregone conclusion.

Cricket, as Dwayne Bravo once told Sompal Kami, the Nepali cricketer who shared the dressing room with him during the Canada T20 league, is all about self-belief more than anything else. As long as Parag is comfortable with himself, as the successful players before him have been, the results are bound to follow – sooner or later – just as they did with the Gujarat Titans captain. Doubting himself and changing in the aftermath of outside opinion, however, will be disastrous, as it happened with a young Graeme Hick when the Englishman began doubting himself and his technique following criticism by a section, despite the same having fetched him countless runs in the county circuit.

The job of the sportswriter is to glorify sport. It is to elevate the simple act of a bat hitting a ball at just the right angle to something greater, to something worthy of capturing the imagination of a billion people. 

To do this is not easy, and so sportswriters search for meaning beyond the simple ebb and flow of a well-played session. We search for metaphor. We call cricket stadiums modern-day gladiatorial arenas. Cricketers are combatants. Sport is modern-day war. It’s a natural comparison to make, and I’m guilty of having made it myself in the past. I do not, however, think it is necessarily the correct one all the time.

It was especially not the correct one whenever Abraham Benjamin de Villiers occupied the crease. When he came out to bat, sport was not war. Sport was joy.

Was joy. It pains my heart to write that. With his retirement – and I say this fully conscious of how dramatic it sounds – something ephemeral has forever left cricket. It is a well-worn cliché to say that we shall never see someone’s like again when they retire – each cricketer, after all, is unique, and the cricket connoisseur will undoubtedly find something distinctive about each cricketer. Everyone brings their own brand of passion, their own stance, their own slightly-odd trigger movement. 

But these distinctions tend to usually be distinctions in form, not in spirit. It would take a blind man indeed to not see the direct line connecting Len Hutton to Ken Barrington to Alastair Cook, or indeed Victor Trumper to Virender Sehwag. Cook, head bent low, was the obdurate spirit of Len Hutton exemplified. Every movement Sehwag made channeled Trumper, channeled a simpler time when nobody cared about the counting stats. Each shot they played reminded the viewer that they were watching a batsman with singular gifts who cared not one whit about patience, strategy, or risk assessment. 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Except for when they don’t.

Every once in a long time comes someone that is so new, so utterly novel that he has no true spiritual predecessor. The last cricketer who made me feel this was Adam Gilchrist, who revolutionized the role of wicketkeeper so completely that every wicketkeeper that now wishes to play at a professional level likely curses him. I hold him personally responsible for sabotaging Wriddhiman Saha’s career; Saha, in a pre-Gilchrist era, is Jack Russell. 

AB de Villiers, like Gilchrist, has no spiritual successor. It is easy to pigeonhole him with the other cavaliers, the dashers, the ones people came to watch play. He was all of those things, perhaps more than anyone else has ever been. The shots that he dared to play – there is no predecessor, absolutely no one.

There were times when it felt like he was playing on a pitch different from anyone else, putting a bat to a larger ball than was being bowled to anyone else. He hit the ball to places it had never been hit before. Just as Stephen Curry redefined the geometry of the basketball court, AB redefined the geometry of the cricket field. Every batsman from KS Ranjitsinhji has played the same sport. With every yorker AB scooped over the top of the wicketkeeper’s head, you could feel cricket change a little.

I grew up trying to bat the same way my father grew up trying to bat, and my father grew up trying to bat the same way his father grew up trying to bat. My child will learn to play cricket in a post-AB world. He will grow up trying to bat differently. 

AB was also, however, a man who would face 300 balls and bat at a strike rate of 14 in the desperate hope of snatching a draw from the jaws of certain defeat. That match, of course, was finally lost, which makes the innings even more reminiscent of Gavaskar and Boycott than it anyway was. There is, in fact, a fair argument to be made that he found more success in long-form cricket than in short-form cricket. Where, then, does that leave us? 

Every generation finds its own idol. Each idol represents that generation’s aspirations, its values. Sometimes a sportswriter doesn’t need to do much work to help capture the public’s imagination – a Sourav Ganguly did that all on his own. But equally, the next generation casts down these idols and chooses its own. MS Dhoni replaced Sourav Ganguly. Virat Kohli replaced MS Dhoni. Different personalities, different fans. And while there is usually grudging respect, it is rare that someone who worships one will also pray at the altar of the other – after all, is it even possible to define one without juxtaposing them with the other?

And this brings us back to AB de Villiers. Those who left school early to watch Barry Richards’ shotmaking can see him in AB de Villiers. Those who grew up loving the defiance of Jacques Kallis can see him in AB de Villiers too. And perhaps above all else, those aesthetes who saw Brian Lara bat and swore to never love a player as they did him ever again can shift their allegiances a little. 

AB de Villiers was everything to all people. He transcended generations and gave many of us who were growing older and had less time than we used to reason to switch on the television one more time. We knew that as long as he was at the crease, there existed infinite possibilities. The match was never lost, and even if it was there was always the chance to witness moments of surpassing beauty.

After all, above all else, AB de Villiers was joy.

– By Kaustubh Chaturvedi (kaustubhchaturvedi@nls.ac.in)

Bhai, khatam ho chuka hai yeh, maan le (Brotherman, he’s finished, accept it), texted one of my old friends after Virat Kohli found a new manner to get dismissed, against the Rajasthan Royals on Tuesday (April 26) night, extending an agonising rut that has lasted for way longer than anyone could have even mildly imagined.

Much like many, I have been a Kohli admirer for a long time. But as it stands, what yours truly has also been in the last two years is a Kohli advocate. It is an admission I hate making, not because there’s anything even remotely shameful about defending arguably one of the best the sport has ever seen, but because there has arisen a need to defend that very best. Who would have thought such a time will arrive?

Until 2019, you hardly had to advocate for him. He was unstoppable. There were no arguments about or around him, or the cricket he played, or the technique and etcetera, etcetera. So, what would you have advocated for? Nothing. But it’s 2019 no more and things have changed. If every piece of literature penned about the Kohli slump since the start of the Kohli slump were to be compiled, it will defeat the thickest book in the world by some distance.

The friend abovementioned has himself been quite an admirer of the man in question. Of course, that message was a banter, a notoriously snide remark to rile his friend up, an attempt intentioned to awaken the advocate that is usually only one Kohli criticism away from being awakened.

Aware of his mischief, I held myself back fleetingly before inevitably indulging in a (healthy) debate for the nth time. In between the conversation, a striking realization was how only until two years ago, no one could have even jocularly dared to say what my friend said (back to the first line in case you need a reminder.)

A key takeaway from that armchair-expert discourse was how being Kohli is a problem for Kohli. Harsha Bhogle had once uttered for the great Sachin Tendulkar, “One of the problems you face being Tendulkar is that you are always compared with Tendulkar.” I borrow from Bhogle: one of the problems you face being Kohli is that you are always compared with Kohli.

It cannot be denied that Kohli is in the same problematic territory. Only the Tendulkars and Kohlis are ever able to charter it, and whoever does, does it only because other mortals are no match to them. But being in there is as much an honour as it is a problem, for what comes inseparably attached with all the adulation and reverence is the asphyxiating pressure, infinite expectations and the unbelievably low allowance for failure.

***

As ironic as it may sound, Kohli’s stature is stinging him. Let’s put this into perspective: unlike others, Kohli has not got the axe despite the continual lack of delivery for over two years now. Had it been anyone else, s/he would have been dropped by now, or in fact much earlier.

What is going on with Kohli is nothing unseen or unheard of. From the best to the not-so, every professional endures such a slump in their life at least once, if not more. The problem with Kohli is the unrealized blockade of not being able to level down. And maybe that is what is needed for him at the moment. No sports professional ever likes to swallow that punitive pill, but at times, doing what you don’t like opens the doors to get back to doing what you like.

When you fail a video game at high difficulty mode, you drop down to easy or moderate, keep at it, practice and practice more, before switching to the standard of difficulty you failed to survive earlier. After playing the game at an easier level, you realise that the top-most difficulty level does not seem as difficult as it once did, and perhaps on the next try, you cross the level irrespective of the level of difficulty.

In cricketing parlance, international cricket, or even the IPL to an extent, is the hardest level of the game, and that too with a caveat: unlike a programmed game, the qualities and skills of your adversaries in the real-life game keep evolving. You could have reached many a checkpoint, but it could occur any time that the game you mastered suddenly transforms into one that you just cannot keep up with. It is in that sense that the need to level down in the real-life game increases all the more.

What Kohli is being expected to do is to restore his prolific self while competing at the highest level, without exercising the available option of going a level down. To level down is no demotion, to step back no wrong. You don’t win chess by moving every piece only forward, and much like what is happening with Kohli is not unseen or unheard of, going a level down is not either.

Two of Kohli’s long-time teammates in the national team, Ajinkya Rahane and Cheteshwar Pujara, were asked to do exactly that not too long ago after an unreasonably long lean patch. Euphuisms aside, Rahane and Pujara were dropped indeed, but perhaps Kohli’s reputation would not let such fate befall upon him ever. Why not, then, take that decision voluntarily, go back to the domestic grind and return stronger?

At the moment, it is not working. And quite surely, everyone wants Kohli to do whatever it takes to get back to his run-scoring best. Even if it means a voluntary level down. As for the answer to my friend: nope, he is far from over.

Sports is a great leveler and nothing is more powerful than time! Virat Kohli’s lean patch has certainly taught the world these two things. The man, who notched up four centuries in IPL 2016, has bagged two successive golden ducks in the ongoing 2022 edition. The man, who smashed 36 international centuries between 2016 and 2019, hasn’t touched the three-figure mark since 2.5 years. While many are waiting for the dawn, several are afraid it’s the dusk.

Now, what’s the reason behind this? Virat Kohli’s vulnerability outside the off-stump, his inability to get starts or the lack of hunger? The hunger to thrive, the hunger to demolish oppositions, and the massive appetite for runs. Where are these things that made Kohli a force to reckon with and a nightmare for bowlers? Remember when Kohli said he would leave cricket the time his zeal for the game is over.

“The motivation is just about winning. The day the passion ends, I will stop playing. I’ll never want to drag myself for more than my body can take,” Virat Kohli told Gaurav Kapur in an episode of Breakfast with Champions, which aired in 2017. Back then, the right-handed batter was in sensational form and was scoring runs for fun. However, runs have dried up now and what exists are questions, worries, and concerns.

Where did it start?

As mentioned above, Kohli’s last international century was recorded in November 2019. Three months later, the COVID-19 virus came in the picture, which brought the entire world to a standstill. Terms like isolation and quarantine gained popularity and even the perspective towards life was changed. After all, a pandemic wreaking havoc was a thing of new.

With prominent series and tournaments being cancelled, Virat Kohli, like most of the cricketers, was enjoying the off-time with his family. This was the longest he had been away from the on-field action after making his international debut. The 33-year-old had said that the off-time was a revelation for him as he discovered many things about himself.

“Honestly I didn’t miss the game as much as I thought I might. Maybe because I had been going on for 9-10 years before that, and this was the only break I was going to get. It was a revelation for me as well. It was surprising that my focus was not solely on how I’m missing the game all the time and just carrying on with life, and doing other things, and understanding this is just a part of life,” Kohli had said.

While Kohli returned to the field in September 2020 after the COVID hiatus, things haven’t fallen in place for him since then. The talismanic batter didn’t look at his usual best after returning, though he was playing handy knocks every now and then. He even led India to the 2021 World Test Championship final, where his side lost to New Zealand.

The Captaincy Saga

Kohli’s batting form garnered limelight during the Test series in England last year, where his old tendency of edging the ball outside the off-stump haunted him once again. Although India finished the inconclusive series with a 2-1 lead, Kohli slammed just 218 runs in seven outings with his average being just above 30. The Delhi-born batter was evidently getting affected by the workload and hence, he decided to shrug off some responsibilities from his shoulders.

He dropped a bombshell ahead of the second leg of IPL 2021, announcing he would step down as India’s T20I and RCB skipper to manage his workload. It was later known that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) wasn’t on the same page with Kohli’s decision as the talismanic batter was shockingly sacked as ODI captain as well. The saga doesn’t end here. Following a 1-2 defeat in the series against South Africa, Kohli even stepped down as India’s Test captain.

It was the end of the era and the cricket world couldn’t digest the series of events within a span of a few months. It must be noted that Kohli, while relinquishing T20I captaincy in September 2021, made it crystal clear that he would continue leading the team in the other two formats. However, he took a U-turn on his decision a few months later and handed over the reins to Rohit Sharma across all formats.

Although Kohli didn’t come out and open up about his state of mind, it’s pretty understood that all these things have taken a toll on him. His performance has been affected by the same as well. Kohli’s tally of 119 runs is his lowest after the first eight games in an IPL season. The veteran’s disappointment was visible every time he endured a failure this season.

In fact, his walk back to the pavilion after his duck against Sunrisers Hyderabad was nothing but heartbreaking for the fans. His head was down as he walked in dismay.

Virat Kohli’s contribution to the game is beyond scoring runs

Yes, Kohli is going through a rough patch. Yes, runs have dried up for him and his criticism is justified as well. Any further failures can also see which fans have feared all this while, his ouster from the playing XI. Hence, this is a serious test of Kohli’s character and there’s a serious need for him to thrive this challenge. Not for just RCB, not just for Team India, but for the sake of the game.

Over the years, many batters have mustered a plethora of runs and walked away with accolades. However, not everyone brought revolution. This Delhi-born lad has inspired cricketers to hit the gym hard and there was a change in culture in the Indian team. He instilled confidence and fearlessness in the side as India became a formidable force in overseas Tests as well.

When Virat Kohli showed he can’t be messed with

Speaking of Kohli’s mental grit, remember his first match as India’s Test captain? As MS Dhoni was injured, he led the troop in the opening Test of India’s 2014/15 tour of Australia. Notably, Kohli’s previous assignment in the longest format of the game was the disastrous tour of England, which exposed his vulnerability against the moving ball. Hence, all eyes were on him.

In such a high-pressure game, the lethal Mitchell Johnson welcomed the Indian skipper with a bouncer which smashed his helmet. A few days before this game, Australian batter Phillip Hughes had passed away after a bouncer smashed his head. Hence, this welcome from Johnson would have taken aback many players. However, Kohli decided to match fire with fire.

He smashed not one but two centuries in the game as India came close to recording a historic win. Few years later, when India toured Australia, several former Aussie cricketers advised their countrymen to not sledge Kohli. Now, what can be a bigger irony than this! This shows what Virat Kohli has been over the years and why the game needs him.

Conclusion

The entire world has an opinion on Kohli’s form. While some reckon he needs a break, many believe a change in batting position might help him. However, out of all these experts, how many have 20,000 runs and 70 centuries in international cricket? It’s Kohli who has done all these wonders on the field and that too with astonishing consistency.

The point is we must let Virat Kohli be Virat Kohli and allow him to unleash the best out of him. It was his decision to drive a fitness revolution, not that someone forced him. No one forced him to break records for fun, no one forced him to score one century after another. Hence, as the great man is going through a rough patch, let’s allow him to introspect and understand what’s the best for him!

The cricketing world is in profound grief on this woeful Saturday and as much one we all wished it was just a dreadful dream, it isn’t. Shane Keith Warne, fondly recognized and revered as “Warnie” by friends, teammates, and fans, is no longer among us. A slap of reality, as if we really needed one with all that’s happening in the world.

More than what he did, how he did and the things he accomplished, it is how he made people feel that perpetrated such an enormous reaction yesterday. Shane Warne was cricket’s ultimate showman, he demanded limelight and was often the one who captured all eyes, let it be on the ground or outside.

The enormity of a great writer isn’t measured by the number of words, it’s not just their melodious voice that makes a musician iconic, and those 1,001 wickets at the international level (1,862 in professional cricket) is at best an icing. The magic was elsewhere, in his wrists.

Those wild, soaring leg-breaks encapsulated a generation of cricket audience so much, every time he rolled his arm over, the crowd swiftly leaned forward or got on their feet. He bowled over 50,000 deliveries in international cricket and tried to make each one of them an event within itself.

Fear of consequence stops us from doing plenty of things, we also imagine the utopian joy of doing something brilliant. We’d never know what went in his head, but clearly, he loved living in the moment by soaking in the adulation, and from there he would get the energy to stride in the next delivery. Then came those pirouettes with his tongue smacking his upper lip.

A lot of times Shane Warne didn’t even get a wicket, but it garnered cheers and smiles

His control was exceptional and all those eye-popping wickets are indeed great memories, but the gargantuan turn he achieved many a million times was a source of joy in itself. It was as shocking as it was entertaining. From over the wicket, he would pitch it along the leg-stump line and spin it so much, the batter would be found stretching every muscle just to reach it. A lot of times he didn’t even get a wicket, but it garnered cheers and smiles.

That was Shane Warne, a presence that quite often shadowed the cricket match he was supposed to be just a part of. The bigger the moment, the bigger he got.

The only cricketer to have picked up a player of the match award in both semi-final and final of a World Cup (1999), the only cricketer to pick up a hat-trick in a Boxing Day Test, the first man on the planet to reach 700 wickets (and he did so in some style, at the MCG), the first name to be drafted in the history of IPL auctions, and the captained Rajasthan Royals to the inaugural title in 2008 – If only we could keep a count of the facts and stats exclusive to the man.

But above all, his greatest contribution to the game was how much he loved it and by doing so, he made so many of us watching him envy his artistry. Wrist spin became cool and kids wanted to turn it the way he did, going as far as imitating every little nuance of his action.

From Alfred Shaw (categorized as right-arm slow by ESPN Cricinfo), the man who bowled the first-ever ball in Test cricket back in 1877, to Lasith Embuldeniya and Nathan Lyon who are in action today, so many spinners came and went in these 145 years, but how many actually mastered the art? A handful, especially the art of leg-spin.

Richie Benaud and Abdul Qadir were the early pioneers and two immortals in their own respects. To turn the ball with your wrist requires an outrageous amount of control, a little lapse in concentration and you’d deliver a dreadful ball. It was a picture so difficult to paint, or it seemed so, that you saw very few people take it up seriously.

But when the Victorian came into the fray, he mesmerized an entire generation to not just take up spin seriously, also turning it into a box-office affair. So many established batters who played actively post 2010 started their careers as leg-spinners – Steve Smith, Faf du Plessis, Liam Livingstone, Marnus Labuschagne to name a few.

While a couple of them are actively pursuing that interest to this date, a few others realized it was no walk in the park. All of those individuals at some point in their career credited Warne as their inspiration to do so.

Shane Warne’s passing resulted in an outpour of grief, which is a direct reflection of his stature. The news, nearly a day after it broke, is yet to sink in the hearts and will take a lot longer.

It is unfortunate that we don’t often look back and celebrate the life and times of individuals who are around us, and when we do it after their departure, it weighs heavy on the heart. The tributes that have flown in since the news broke out show us what he meant to his friends, and to those he never met but loved his as one of their own.

The many times he left us bewildered and shocked, we derived joy, but not this time. Cricket’s most enigmatic showman fades away, but only in flesh and blood. His aura will continue to live on in the fingers and wrists of the established and aspiring spinners because you can neither take cricket out of Warne nor Warne out of cricket.

Farewell to a legend!

-Anuraag Peesara

Any team in international cricket needs players who can contribute on multiple fronts. However, cricket in general always had a dearth of quality all-rounders. Among the current generation, all-rounders like Ben Stokes, Shakib Al Hasan, and Ravindra Jadeja have been performing well in all three formats. In this article, we are going to compare the stats of Ben Stokes and Ravindra Jadeja on various parameters.

Ben Stokes has risen to occasions many times for England in recent years. He played the most vital innings for England in the final of Cricket World Cup 2019. Later on, Stokes played one of the best innings of Test cricket history in the Headingley Test during Ashes 2019. Stokes made his international debut in 2011 in an ODI match against Ireland.

For India, Ravindra Jadeja has been one of their first-choice players in playing XI in recent times. He has proven his worth as a batsman, bowler, and fielder on a number of occasions. Jadeja made his international debut in an ODI match against Sri Lanka in 2009. He smashed an unbeaten 175, the highest score by an Indian at no.7 in Tests, against Sri Lanka in the ongoing 2022 series in India.

Batting comparison in international cricket

As far as batting is concerned, Ben Stokes is ahead of Ravindra Jadeja in the overall record in international cricket. Ben Stokes has scored 8180 runs in 254 innings at an average of 35.87. This includes 13 centuries and 47 half-centuries.

On the other hand, Ravindra Jadeja has made 5107 runs in 227 innings he has batted in international cricket at an average of 33.16. He has hit 2 centuries and 30 half-centuries in his international career. 

Bowling comparison in international cricket

While comparing the data for bowling in international cricket for both players, Ravindra Jadeja is ahead of Ben Stokes. Jadeja has taken 469 wickets in 329 innings at an impressive average of 30.14. This also includes 10 five-wicket hauls. 

Ben Stokes has picked up 260 wickets from 234 innings he has bowled in, at an average of 35.36. He has taken five five-wicket hauls.

Ravindra Jadeja vs Ben Stokes in International cricket:

Batting comparison since 2018

Ravindra Jadeja has massively improved his batting in the last 2-3 years. Since 2018, He has scored 1901 runs in international cricket at an average of 46.36 with two centuries and 12 fifties. During the same tenure, Ben Stokes has scored 3909 runs at an average of 39.09 including four centuries and 25 half-centuries.

Ravindra Jadeja vs Ben Stokes in International cricket:

ICC all-rounders’ rankings

In the latest ICC rankings, Ravindra Jadeja is currently at the third spot among the Test cricket all-rounders and Ben Stokes is on sixth. Speaking of their position in ODI cricket, Ben Stokes is currently placed at number-6 while Jadeja is at 9th position. 

Fielding comparison

Ravindra Jadeja has been a gun-fielder for India, and he has proven his worth as a fielder from time to time in international cricket. In June 2020, former Indian opener Gautam Gambhir was quoted saying “I think, in world cricket, there is no better fielder than Jadeja, an overall fielder. Maybe he doesn’t field at slip and gully, but no one is better than him in throwing.”

At the same time, Australia’s Steve Smith also rated Jadeja as the best fielder of the current time. English cricketer Ben Stokes too has been very acrobatic on the field and has a safe pair of hands as well.

Ace India batter Virat Kohli will make history in India’s next Test match starting against Sri Lanka in Mohali on Friday, March 4, as it will be his 100th in the long format. He will become the 12th Indian to enter the three-figure club. The 33-year-old could already have achieved the milestone earlier this year had he not missed the second Test match in South Africa due to an injury.

He stepped down from the leadership role after the third match against the Proteas and the upcoming Test series will be the first without him at the helm. However, the absence of Kohli at the toss will still make the match one centered around him, thanks to his 100th cap in the red-ball format.

For a batter, playing 100 Tests for the country is something extraordinarily special. To be able to play the game at the highest order for 500 days is a prized possession for every cricketer. It indeed is an identity of survival, a victory against the odds that a Test match throws at one. Lasting 100 Test matches in the circuit automatically gives a cricketer an identity of an achiever, something that 100 one-day or T20I matches would still not.

Virat Kohli’s milestone is more special. He has not only been a batter who has excelled (batting average of 50.39) since making his Test debut in the West Indies in 2011. He has also been a captain who has delivered (40 wins in 68 Tests at 58.82 winning percentage). To be India’s best-ever captain in Tests by far and maintaining a 50-plus average in the format is a rare combination that Kohli has and which will put even some of the icons of the country second best to him by some distance.

Big Indian batting names do not match Kohli as captain

If some other big names in Indian cricket that have gone on to play 100 Tests besides captaining the country are seen, Virat Kohli doesn’t have much of a competition. Of the 11 other Indian cricketers who have played 100 Tests, Sachin Tendulkar (200), Rahul Dravid (163), Anil Kumble (132), Kapil Dev (131), Sunil Gavaskar (125), Dilip Vengsarkar (116), Sourav Ganguly (113) and Virender Sehwag (103) have also been captains in the same format.

But when we look at their captaincy, only Ganguly has a record which seems comparable with that of Kohli. In 49 matches, he led India to 21 victories at a win percentage of 42.85. He lost 13 matches while 15 were drawn and his batting average in Tests is 42.17.

Tendulkar (batting average 53 plus) could give India only four wins in 25 games, Dravid (batting average 52 plus) eight out of 25, Kumble (bowling average 29.65) three out of 14, Kapil Dev four out of 34 (batting average 31 plus and bowling average 29.64), Gavaskar nine out of 47 (batting average 51.12), Vengsarkar two out of 10 (batting average 42.13) and Sehwag (batting average 49.43) two out of four.

The above names are some of the biggest that Indian cricket has produced but they are remembered more for their batting or bowling prowess. Virat Kohli remains an exception as he makes a mark both for his individual feat and captaincy.

In world cricket, there are captains who challenge Kohli as a batter too

But Kohli’s record as a batter-captain has some worthy challengers beyond the Indian shores. Only five captains in the world have led their sides more than the Indian and of them, only two have won more matches than him.

South Africa’s Graeme Smith (captained in 109 Tests), Australia’s Allan Border (93 matches), New Zealand’s Stephen Fleming (80 matches), Australia’s Ricky Ponting (77 matches) and the West Indies’ Clive Lloyd (74 matches) have led their respective sides more than Kohli. Of them, only Smith (53 Tests) and Ponting (48 Tests) have registered more wins than their Indian counterpart while only Ponting has a better winning percentage (62.33) than Kohli.

But do any of these former captains match Kohli as Test batter?

Smith played 117 Tests in which he scored 9,265 runs at an average of 48.25. Fleming played 111 Tests amassing 7,172 runs at little over than 40. Lloyd played 110 Tests in which he made 7,515 runs at an average of 46.67. However, it is the two Australian players – Border and Ponting – who came closest to Kohli by matching their captaincy records with the 50-above batting average in Tests.

Border, for instance, played 156 matches scoring 11,174 runs at an average of 50.56. His successor Ponting appeared in 167 Tests and scored 13,378 runs at an average of 51.85. Virat Kohli is also nearing the 8,000-club in the long format and he can make the history sweeter in Mohali by knocking off the 38 runs he needs to become a member of the elite club.

Only five Indians have made 8,000 or more runs so far in Tests and despite his bat making little talking over the last two years, Kohli looks strong to overtake some of them in quick time to add more feathers to his crown.

The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interesting, but a highly debated concept in quantum mechanics. MWI proponents essentially assert that while one outcome of an event happens in the universe we all see and feel, the others, too, take place, albeit in parallel universes (e.g. when a coin is tossed and head is the outcome, in another universe the other possibility of obtaining a tail is also realized).

Absurd, counterintuitive, puzzling, refreshing, be that as it may, in the context of the Indian Premier League’s (IPL) 2021 edition, it certainly offers curious insights. Going by it, in some parallel universe, Venkatesh Iyer makes his debut in the first game; Nicholas Pooran is dropped after failing in, let’s say, two games; Jagadeesha Suchith gets a run of games after almost clinching a win for his team against the Delhi Capitals. Just some possibilities in a large sample set of events.

In this practical universe in which we live, however, the outcome is that Iyer has to wait till the United Arab Emirates (UAE) leg to make his debut; Pooran manages to retain his place for all but one game; and Suchith gets just one more game and is shunted to the bench for the remainder of the tournament.

IPL this time seems to be a place where reputations and auction pricetags of players play a key role in determining their selection into the team. Take, for example, the case of Steve Smith, who has looked painfully labored almost every time he has walked out to bat. On the other extreme, playing for the same team, is Lukman Meriwala. Meriwala was given his debut against Punjab Kings, and did decently well on the night, putting up a good comeback after being hit for 20 runs in his first over. While Smith has been given chance upon chance to rediscover his touch, Meriwala is yet to feature again.

This is not intended by any means to be a comparison of talent or ability – the Australian batsman is one of the best in the world at what he does and hardly anyone would argue otherwise. It is a question, however, of form. Meriwala got picked in the auction, for the first time, due to his excellent showing in the 2020 Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy (SMAT) where he was the highest wicket-taking pace bowler, ahead of Chetan Sakariya, who was picked by the Rajasthan Royals owing to his strong performances in the same tournament.

Meriwala was not the only one making a debut that night at Wankhede, Jalaj Saxena did too, albeit he had to wait much longer, for a span of 9 years since the time he was first picked in the IPL. Statistics indicate that Saxena was on par with Rahul Chahar and Ravi Bishnoi as the best wicket-taking spinner in the SMAT. While Chahar emerged as a matchwinner from the word go due to the backing of the team management, Bishnoi, too, showed his prowess when he was handed opportunities off late.

Saxena, though, was given one match on a flat, batting-friendly pitch and despite emerging with reasonable numbers on a night when others from his team fared much worse, he was dropped for the next game on a spin-friendly Chennai track and hasn’t featured ever since. Factoring in the expected nerves and given the weight of his form, there should have been another chance when favorable conditions arrived. There came none.

It can, of course, be argued that form in an Indian domestic tournament cannot be utilized to make inferences when there are opponents of a higher quality that one must face in the IPL. More so, the team management is privy to first-hand information from training sessions, which, the outsiders casting their opinions by the drop of the hat, often do not have access to. However, even here, the odds seem to be stacked against these cricketers.

For example, Sheldon Jackson seemed to be the standout player in the practice games for KKR before they kickstarted their campaign in the UAE, yet, even when the established batsman were struggling time and again to get going in what has been a rather up-and-down campaign for the team, he never once got an opportunity to show what he could do.

At a time when India can field three teams worthy of truly competing on the international scene due to the talent available in the domestic ranks, it seems a stretch that these in-form players would fare grossly wrong if they are sufficiently backed. It is indeed unfair that they get at most one chance, if at all, and are then discarded, when the franchises are seemingly none the better by going ahead with their current approach of opting for the known names.

With a change in approach, we might just have a Venkatesh Iyer or Harshal Patel on our hands much earlier, rather than waiting so long to see them bloom to their potential.

England all-rounder Ben Stokes’ indefinite break from all forms of cricket raises plenty of oft-ignored but pertinent questions. Stokes, a premier all-rounder and England’s all-format player, is not the first player to have faced these issues, and would not be the last either. Even as England and Wales Cricket Board’s support for arguably one of their most precious possessions is heartening to see, it does not quite answer every question that surely needs answers.

Stokes’ exit was a notable fourth in recent times after Women’s Tennis World No. 2 Naomi Osaka pulled out of the Wimbledon citing mental health issues, while US gymnast Simone Biles pulled the plugs on Tokyo Olympics 2020. Also, within a week of Stokes’ call, came New Zealand women team all-rounder Amelia Kerr’s withdrawal from the Whtie Ferns’ upcoming England tour owing to the same reason. Mental health issues are a serious challenge in today’s world, and living life in the midst of a global pandemic has only exacerbated that.

“Spending significant amounts of time away from family, with minimal freedoms, is extremely challenging. The cumulative effect of operating almost continuously in these environments over the last 16 months has had a major impact on everyone’s wellbeing,” Ashley Giles, England’s director of men’s cricket, said while addressing Stokes’s exit.

That, however, does not imply that issues of the mind were non-existent earlier. From Marcus Trescothick to Jonathan Trott, Glenn Maxwell to Will Pucovski, players of different ages and nationalities have encountered such problems. The origin of the current concept of mental health cannot be precisely ascertained, although assuming that its existence is as old as the existence of humanity might not be an unsafe one.

Despite that, it continues to be an issue that is not given the importance it deserves. The parochial understanding of it, in fact, intensifies the issue to a greater extent. A mistaken belief, especially in some Asian counties, is that ones with successful careers or handsome remunerations can never face mental health issues. By that grotesquely flawed logic, a player of Stokes’ stature mustn’t have ever even come close to doing what he did. However, Stokes is only one of a larger lot.

Many have been there

February 2006. England’s prolific opener Marcus Trescothick returned to his country in the middle of the India tour citing personal reasons, which were later found to be issues related to mental health. “I didn’t have a clue what was happening. I wasn’t aware of depression but whatever was going on, I didn’t want to have to say anything about it on TV,” Trescothick told Men’s Health magazine in 2016. “There was a lot of naivety and ignorance. People would say ‘What do you have to be depressed about? You play cricket for England. You travel the world. You get paid well.’ To try and experience the dark place when you’ve never experienced it is very tough,” Trescothick startlingly revealed, highlighting the manner in which such issues are perceived in society.

Mike Yardley, who left the 2011 World Cup midway through, and Steve Harmison, who feared never returning to the national team again as he went down from being the No. 1 bowler to being termed good for nothing, have also opened about facing problems in the past, apart from Kevin Pietersen, who blamed packed schedules pushing players into such territories.

Jonathan Trott, star England batsman and ex-captain, called quits on his Test career just one match into the 2013 Ashes series. Suffering from anxiety, Trott’s mental health deteriorated, and that was when he was averaging an excellent 86.42 against Australia. Trott, in his autobiography “Unguarded”, admitted that he “considered driving” his “car into the Thames or into a tree. That way I could get out of the ordeal.”

Trott was not the only one who had suicidal thoughts. Indian pacer Praveen Kumar, dejected for being forgotten so easily, nearly shot himself in 2019. “I told myself, ‘Kya hai yeh sab? Bas khatam karte hain,'” [What’s all this? Let me just end it] Kumar told the Indian Express last year. Had it not been for a photo of his smiling children that he stumbled upon before pulling the trigger, he might not have been amongst the world today.

Much like Indian pacer Mohammed Shami, who revealed that he thought of committing suicide three times due to stress and personal problems. “I thought of committing suicide three times during that period due to severe stress and personal problems. I was not thinking about cricket at all. We were living on the 24th floor. They (family) were scared I might jump from the balcony,” Shami revealed in an Instagram live with Rohit Sharma

Australian all-rounder Moises Henriques admitted having similar thoughts in 2017: “I remember driving down the M5 back home, doing 110 km/h, and I remember thinking to myself in the car, ‘If I just ran straight into this pole here, what would happen?” Henriques said and revealed he stopped himself, thinking about the injustice he would do to his partner and team members by taking such a step.

Indian skipper Virat Kohli had admitted he felt it was the end of the world for him when he endured a slump during the England tour in 2014. He had a disastrous tour, registering scores of 1, 8, 25, 0, 39, 28, 0,7, 6 and 20 in five Tests, averaging 13.50 in his 10 innings. He admitted to suffering from depression at that time. “Yes, I did [suffer from depression]. You just don’t understand how to get over it. That was a phase when I literally couldn’t do anything to overturn things…I felt like I was the loneliest guy in the world. And to be honest, I couldn’t have said ‘I’m not feeling great mentally and I need to get away from the game.’ Because you never know how that’s taken.”

Loneliness is often perceived by most in terms of the absence or presence of physical beings in the surroundings, but what about mental loneliness? Kohli had an answer: “Personally, for me, that was a revelation that you could feel that lonely even though you are a part of a big group”. It was, therefore, not surprising to see him publicly laud Glenn Maxwell for his “remarkable decision” to step away from the game, which, as per Kohli, was an example-setting move.

Issues like these have not been uncommon at the domestic level or players young into their international careers. Saurashtra’s senior batter Sheldon Jackson told CricTracker how he nearly gave up on the game due to “not being in the correct mental space”.

Queensland batter Luke Pomerbasch had quit cricket in 2014 after not being able to cope up with the rigours of professional cricket, whereas only weeks after Maxwell’s decision in 2019, Nic Maddinson withdrew from Australia A team, which was his second time taking a leave from the game on these accounts, the first being in 2017 soon after he made Test debut and then got dropped merely after three Tests. Then uncapped Will Pucovski opted out on two different occasions despite being on the verge of his Test debut: ahead of the Sri Lanka series, followed by Pakistan in 2019.

The list is long, and remember, these are only the instances known or brought by the sufferers into the public domain. How long this list precisely is, is as unascertainable as it gets.

Dealing with the mental demons

From backbreaking training to performance demands, self-doubt to insecurities, fear of failure to endless competition, sportspersons have not one but multiple reasons to fall prey to mental illnesses. Add to this the relentless public scrutiny thanks to the advent of social media, and the recipe of disaster gets complete. All it takes is perhaps one failure, and even the finest could be bashed in these times as people are becoming increasingly impatient.

The public-bashing phenomenon is rampant in India, where the unreasonably large pool of talent anyway does not make an elite athlete’s life easy. Neither do jam-packed cricket calendars. The booming growth in the frequency of cricket and the mushrooming of T20 leagues have left players with little to no wriggle room, which applies to both international and domestic cricketers.

For instance, the BCCI is set to conduct a whopping 2127 games in the 2021-22 season, while the ICC FTP’s have hardly any blank columns either. With ICC’s plans to have more multi-team events each year, the workload on each of the international teams will only multiply.

Notably, the is apex board has plans in place to host an event each year from 2023 onwards until 2031, a period which will have eight men’s ODI and T20 events, comprising three men’s ODI World Cups (2023, 2027, 2031), four ICC Men’s T20 World Cups (every even year), two ICC Men’s Champions Trophies (2025, 2029), apart from the World Test Championship running parallelly all this while, with finals to be played every odd year.

Not to mention that the years 2021 and 2022 are back-to-back Men’s T20 World Cup years, thanks to an invisible pathogen that keeps messing up the cricket calendars even more through constant rescheduling and postponements, alongside adding more logistical challenges.

The novel concept of bio-bubbles, social distancing and a host of protocols have multiplied these challenges as the players need to stay away from family and spend an unreasonable amount of time in isolated bubbles, which includes situations where they are not even allowed to step out of their rooms and mingle with each other.

Nevertheless, psychological problems can be prevented and cured provided they are identified and the remedies are initiated quickly. However, research shows that athletes have a poor understanding of mental health issues and are often unsure about where to seek support. There is little to no evidence that shows people involved in professional sports experience mental health issues more than others, however, as per the views of distinguished sports psychologists, the athletes are certainly not immune to such issues.

Further that Covid-19 has added mental misery into the sport is a fact attested by tons of cricketers, and there is sufficient literature and empirical research to establish the claim. As per a study issued by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, “mental health problems caused by the Covid-19 pandemic crisis will be the next pandemic.” Dealing with these issues, therefore, becomes all the more crucial considering the times we live in. But it is not easy.

The taboos and stereotypes

Not that this requires any establishing, but mental health issues can be faced by anyone regardless of colour, class, sex, occupation, status or whatchamacallit. Despite that, the stigma due to negative stereotypes and ill notions around issues of the mind are aplenty. Especially in elite sports, where the players are revered and deified.

“Ben [Stokes] has shown tremendous courage to open up about his feelings and wellbeing,” Giles said on July 30. As much as Stokes’s “courage” must be lauded, we need to ask ourselves: why do sportspersons – or anyone for that matter – need to have “courage” to accept a mental health issue? That in itself highlights a part of the problem. Courage should not even be the last attribute required for letting the world know the issues of the mind. But that seems wishful thinking.

Then, a clichéd view is that men can’t be depressed and those who are, are weak. It is stereotypes like these that force the sufferers to go into a cocoon and eschew from making confessions, which further aggravates their problems. To answer what precisely was so courageous about Stokes’s admission, it was the courage of not worrying about being branded “weak” or “unmanly”: a fear that is often the primary reason behind the hesitancy of players from confessing such issues.

Many from the yesteryears have stated that they suffered from stress and anxiety issues but did not open up due to the fear of being labelled names. There is also fear in the minds of those in trouble about not being able to restore themselves to the positions they were in. If Virat Kohli, the captain of the nation with unarguably the mightiest cricket board, was unsure about how his admissions would be perceived, it simply illustrates the dire state of affairs.

Calls for professional help and lessons from the past

Indian cricketer Veda Krishnamurthy, who revealed that she has dealt with mental health issues in the past, called for a structured support system. “A lot of people who are playing cricket currently know what mental health is, but it is also important to accept that if the system is not doing anything to offer you mental-health assistance, you can and must find the support for yourself if you can afford it. I’ve had mental health issues and I’ve sought support to resolve them myself.”

On former England cricketer Mark Nicholas’ podcast ‘Not Just Cricket’, Kohli stated that he “strongly feel the need for professional help”. “…someone whom you can go to at any stage, have a conversation around and say ‘Listen this is what I am feeling, I am finding it hard to even go to sleep, I feel like I don’t want to wake up in the morning. I have no confidence in myself, what do I do?’ A lot of people suffer from that feeling for longer periods of time, it carries on for months, it carries on for a whole cricket season, people are not able to get out of it,” Kohli said.

“We have requested the BCCI for someone like a sports psychologist, who can travel with us. We have spoken to the coach as well. Nowadays, the pressure is high. You need someone to discuss things when they are not fine”, is what Indian cricketer Harmanpreet Kaur said after Sarah Taylor, one of the finest in the history of the game, announced her international retirement, having struggled with long-term anxiety.

While the issue still largely remains unaddressed in cricket-playing Asian and African countries and West Indies and New Zealand, two nations in England and Australia have rightly prioritized player welfare and have taken tiny but effective steps in the right direction, which includes the highly-controversial and debatable ECB policy of rest and rotation to ensure both the physical and mental well-being of England’s all-format players. While the views on that policy are divided, not least because of some evident drawbacks – a debate for another day – the intention behind it remains unquestionably bonafide.

The way forward

While social media and relentless competition have added a new dimension to cricketers’ vulnerabilities, the governing bodies of the game cannot be completely absolved. As far as efforts should be made to ensure that the cricketing system does not become a reason for a player to fall mentally ill, each board must prepare a plan for such crises. Whether true or not, let’s assume everyone is vulnerable.

For far too long such issues have been swept under the carpet, but discussions and awareness around mental health are at an all-time high ever since the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic, which may have brought with it countless disadvantages, but a collateral advantage has been a welcoming sense of normality around the issues of the mind.

Physical fitness in sports is paramount, but what is a fit body with an unfit mind? The stories above are only a few examples to realize it is high time mental health is given the importance it deserves. And as individuals, let’s vow to never hesitate from lending an ear to the ones in need. Right now, we are far from there.

In the ninth over of the Sri Lanka-India first ODI in Colombo, Hardik Pandya was brought into the attack as a first-change bowler. As soon as he was done bowling a couple of deliveries, Sanjay Manjrekar said on air, “these are great signs for Indian cricket.” Seconds later, Pandya’s career bowling numbers were shown. A bowling average of 41.08, a strike rate of 44.20, and an economy of 5.57. 

Now, if you are an expert like Manjrekar, it won’t take too much time to realize that these numbers are not that great. To put into perspective, Ravindra Jadeja, who has been playing the role of India’s fifth bowler in the absence of Pandya, has an ODI bowling average of 37.36, a strike rate of 45.52, and an economy of 4.93. 

Even then, Manjrekar believes that Jadeja is a bits and pieces player in ODI cricket while his views on Hardik Pandya returning to bowling again is extremely different. Why, though? Why is Hardik Pandya’s bowling such an essential aspect and why is there so much talk and hype to bring him back to bowling, despite his numbers suggesting that he is sort of an average seamer. Now that I have established a conflict, let’s take a deep look at how ODI cricket works and how it has been played over the years. 

Evolution of the use of the fifth bowler in ODIs

Back in the day, when India won the 1983 World Cup under Kapil Dev, there was an attempt to do away with classical one-dimensional players and bring in players who could do a bit of both. ‘Utility players’ was the term used by the selectors then, which evolved and became three-dimensional players by the time 2019 came. Kapil Dev, Roger Binny, Mohinder Amarnath, and a few more played the game. Saying these players did a bit of both is quite absurd and an insult to them and perhaps they would still make it to the team based on one skill, but they would not have been valuable for the team completely.

20 years later, Sourav Ganguly led India to the World Cup 2003 final against Australia. Through the tournament, the Indian skipper went in with four frontline bowlers and a bunch of part-timers to bowl the 10 most important overs of a match. In the final alone, India used eight bowlers and that is without India’s most hostile seam bowling all-rounder of that era and the captain, Ganguly. 

A search for a proper No. 7 and the mistakes

Cut to the 2019 World Cup, India is trying to fit in Kedar Jadhav and Vijay Shankar, because of their ability to bowl and bat in the top six. By no degree or measure, Jadhav was a sixth bowling option. But what do you do when none of your top six batters want to bowl or even have a history of throwdowns? The answer was never Hardik Pandya at no. 7. 

Ever since the younger Pandya made his international debut in 2016, he was the fifth bowler for India. He made his T20I debut at the time when Ravindra Jadeja was an average T20 batter and was not scoring 30 runs in the last over. For most of his career, Jadeja was a dedicated no. 7, batting at that position for 82 of the 113 innings he has played in ODI cricket for India.

But, India’s faith in Jadeja to continue as a no. 7 batter decreased with time, and the thought of having a seaming all-rounder at no. 7 was just too interesting for the Indian team management. Hence, after the 2017 Champions Trophy, where India did in fact walk into the final with not an ideal bowling attack and suffered, Hardik Pandya became the bridge between the batters and the bowlers. 

But, just going back, Pandya wasn’t even a specialist seamer two years before he made his debut for India, but somehow, just somehow by God’s grace and India’s history of not being able to develop seam-bowling all-rounders, Hardik became the fifth bowler. And then, he matched up to the talents of Kapil Dev, became the greatest all-rounder ever, and everyone lived up happily ever after. But, of course, that is not what happened. 

The problem of playing only five bowlers

In an attempt to make Pandya their third seam bowling option and play two leggies, India found themselves at a place where they were in search of a sixth bowler every time Kuldeep’s first over was smashed for 15 runs or Hardik Pandya was being attacked by the opposition batters. And, obviously, sometimes Kedar Jadhav can be the answer but not every day. And the huge problem is that, after the powerplay overs, it is the job of the fifth bowler to come into the attack and carry on with the momentum and pressure built by the opening spells. But, what can a captain do if his fifth bowler is bowling poorly for 10 overs in the middle phase (overs 10-40) and his other option is a leg-spinner, who is inconsistent? Not much. 

Now that we have established that Hardik Pandya is not a fifth bowler in ODI cricket by any chance, let’s see what he adds. Yes, he is a terrific batter and can score runs freely. That was one of the reasons why he was chosen to play at no. 7. But, is he the worst no. 7, just purely in terms of bowling? Well, no. 

The world is full of ‘bits and pieces’ players

Moeen Ali has a bowling average of 50 in ODI and a strike rate of 58. That means he picks up a wicket every 58 balls. And looking deep into his numbers, it showed that he bowls only about 8 overs each in ODI innings. So, he is essentially not even picking up a single wicket in every match and is obviously going for more than 5 runs per over. 

At this point, I couldn’t help but wonder what all the other no. 7s in ODI cricket are doing. Turns out, they are doing what Sanjay Manjrekar would call, ‘bits and pieces.’ Pakistan’s Imad Wasim has an ODI bowling average of 45 and doesn’t pick a wicket each innings. New Zealand’s Colin de Grandhomme has 27 wickets in 42 ODIs. Andile Phehlukwayo picks up wickets, but has an economy of 5.7 and can hardly ever be called a serious batter. And Bangladesh doesn’t know what no. 7s in ODI cricket is for because they have Shakib Al Hasan. 

This is exactly where all of this becomes interesting. England is an extremely successful ODI team and so is New Zealand to an extent (we will let you decide who is the World Champions). Then how does the plan of Moeen Ali and Colin de Grandhomme, below average bowling choices at no. 7 work for them? And the answer is simply, Ben Stokes and James Neesham. 

Both New Zealand and England don’t just depend on their fifth bowler. They have a reserve sixth bowler. So does Bangladesh. Australia has had multiple part-timers and Marcus Stoinis do the bulk of bowling to get 10 overs done from their fifth bowler. But what Stokes, Neesham, and Maxwells of this era do is add depth and variety to the attack. They don’t need to bowl more than five or six overs on a regular basis, but it depends on the condition, situations, and opposition. 

Despite seeing these selections across the globe, the Indian team was majorly in favor of playing an extra batter at no. 6 and using no. 7 solely to house a bits and pieces all-rounder. There, I just said it. Both, Ravindra Jadeja and Hardik Pandya are bits and pieces in ODI cricket. Their numbers suggest so. You can be scoring a quickfire 30 off 20 balls, but you can still lose a match by bowling 10 overs of underwhelming throwdowns which can help the opposition to take the match away from you. 

Why Hardik Pandya and Ravindra Jadeja together can work for the best

So, at this point, you would expect me to be like a proper salesman by giving a solution to the conflict which I just raised. But the solution has always been there in front of the Indian management, it’s just that they have been a bit too conservative to go for that approach. For the longest time, India felt batting Hardik permanently in the top six in the ODI team was a bit too risky, even though, our ‘Baroda ka rockstar’ has batted in the top six 25 times in his career but only 16 times at no. 7. 

Hardik’s numbers at six in ODIs are just too good to ignore. He strikes at 111.92 and averages 45. Though the sample size of these innings is just about 10 knocks, it is enough to state that Hardik is capable enough to take a position in the top six. In the first ODI in Colombo, his brother, who is as good a replacement you can have for Jadeja bowled nine overs, while he bowled five. But this is exactly what India should do. 

Hardik was never our 10-overs man in ODI cricket. But, still did it. Underwhelming at times but sometimes to great effect. On those occasions, he did it because the wicket helped him or the batter struggled to pick his variations, as it happened with his brother, Krunal in Colombo in the first ODI. Going into the 2023 World Cup, it is quintessential for India to realize even if Pandya returns to bowling 10-over spells in ODI cricket, he should not be used for that.

He is at best your four or five-overs bowler. Jadeja is better than that, but so is his batting now. After years of grinding under MS Dhoni, Jadeja is a much-improved batter and it shows that Manjrekar’s comment has actually changed his career massively. Basically, India shouldn’t replace Hardik Pandya at No. 7 and drop Jadeja once the former returns to bowling a lot of overs. 

Ravindra Jadeja’s ODI numbers before and since Sanjay Manjrekar’s ‘bit & pieces’ comment

Bits and pieces might have been a comment which Ravindra Jadeja did not like, but we need bits and pieces players. We need more variations in the Indian team. We need options for Virat Kohli on the field when he is leading the team. Jadeja at no. 7 and Pandya at no. 6 works brilliantly in the long run. It allows India to play ‘Kul-Cha’ if the conditions are suitable and it also allows Mohammad Shami not to get dropped from the World Cup semi-final after picking 14 wickets in four matches. 

What people usually don’t get is that cricket is a team sport. It is not an individual sport or a sport that is run by one man on the field. Cricket is probably one of those sports where team planning and the game needs to work efficiently, in sync as some may say. In cricket, there is no point in which a player has to do everything on his own. So, one ‘bits and pieces’ player can cause issues for a team but two or three players of that kind, who can seemingly add variety to the combination and are capable of making up a strong team. For now, let Hardik Pandya come back to bowling but don’t make him the no. 7 India never had, make him and Ravindra Jadeja, the best ‘bits and pieces’ combination the world has ever seen.