At Pune’s Maharashtra Cricket Association Stadium, the fourth T20I between England and India was tainted by controversy. Harshit Rana replaced the injured Shivam Dube in the second innings of the match for those who were not familiar with the situation. The hosts eventually won the series thanks in large part to Harshit. Since that decision, there has been a palpable sense of bitterness within the English cricket community.
Sunil Gavaskar, a former cricketer from India, questioned whether Dube needed to be replaced. The Harshit should have been restricted to fielding alone, not bowling, in his opinion.
Dube was hit on the helmet earlier in the Pune game, but he batted all the way to the conclusion, demonstrating that he was not concussed. So, it was wrong to let a concussion substitute in and of itself. Indeed, if he had strained a muscle while batting, a replacement could have been found, but it would have just been for fielding; he would not have been able to bowl,” Gavaskar said in his Telegraph column.
is not dependent on its victories to be marred by such behaviour: Sunil Gavaskar
Additionally, he pointed out that the two cricket players had nothing in common other than height and fielding ability.
Nothing of the such existed between Dube and Rana, even by the most liberal interpretation of the like-for-like phrase. It is possible to claim that they are of the same height and fielding standard with a tongue firmly in cheek. From their perspective, there is nothing like-for-like otherwise. For all the right reasons, England feels defeated. It is not necessary for the victories of this Indian team to be marred by such behaviour,” Gavaskar continued.
It is noteworthy that Harshit’s T20I debut in Pune changed the course of Indian cricket history. As he proceeded to take three wickets, he let up 33 runs in his allotted four overs. The home team won by a final score of 15 runs on Friday.
Home