India’s team management, led by captain Shubman Gill and head coach Gautam Gambhir, has come under heavy scrutiny following their handling of all-rounder Shardul Thakur in the ongoing Headingley Test against England. Cricket pundits and fans alike are questioning the decision to include Thakur in the playing XI if there was no clear plan to utilize his bowling abilities, especially when other bowlers were struggling.
Under-utilization of Shardul Thakur Raises Eyebrows
Shardul Thakur, known for his knack of picking up crucial wickets, bowled a mere six overs in England’s first innings, conceding 38 runs.
This limited spell stood in stark contrast to the workloads of other Indian pacers like Jasprit Bumrah, Mohammed Siraj, and Prasidh Krishna, all of whom bowled significantly more overs. His introduction into the attack well after the 40-over mark further fueled the criticism, leading many to wonder about the team’s tactical approach.
Pundits Question the Decision
Former India wicketkeeper-batter Dinesh Karthik was among the most vocal critics, stating, “If they are not going to trust his bowling, why are they playing him? That is definitely an issue.” He highlighted the anomaly of playing a bowling all-rounder and then not utilizing his primary skill, even when other bowlers were proving expensive.
Aakash Chopra, another former India batter, echoed similar sentiments on his YouTube channel. He pointed out that while Thakur was selected, the team management didn’t show faith in him. Chopra questioned the rationale behind playing him if there was no intention to give him substantial spells, especially when the first and second new balls came and went without much involvement from Thakur.
Tactical Rigidity Under the Scanner
The collective sentiment among critics is that India’s leadership displayed a lack of adaptability and rigid planning. With Jasprit Bumrah being the only Indian bowler to consistently trouble the English batsmen, the under-utilization of a proven wicket-taker like Shardul Thakur seemed baffling. Questions are being raised about the decision to pick Thakur over other options like Nitish Kumar Reddy or Kuldeep Yadav, especially if he wasn’t going to be trusted with the ball.
A Contradiction in Selection Policy?
Some commentators have also highlighted a potential contradiction in India’s selection policy. Head coach Gautam Gambhir had previously indicated a move towards younger players, yet the inclusion of the 33-year-old Thakur is seen by some as a pragmatic, rather than forward-looking, decision – perhaps influenced by his past successes in English conditions. However, his limited involvement in the Headingley Test has only amplified the debate around his selection and the team’s trust in his skills.
