I came across a couple of articles in www.wisden.com that got me thinking. One is about the latest Indian talent, Shubnam Gill where the author writes that Gill’s best format is ODI and the other is not about someone but from a former English opener and an extraordinary commentator, Sir Geoffrey Boycott. I would like to offer my two cents on both those articles because I feel that atleast one of them is half true. In this blog, I will address the article about Gill only.
Let me start with Shubnam Gill with a little background of him
India had gotten off to the worst possible start on the Australian tour. 36 all-out. His predecessor and slight more experienced opener, Prithvi Shaw, was all at sea against the Australian attack. Gill made his debut under such circumstances and immediately foundhimself at ease. Though he didn’t go onto achieve huge scores, the shots that he played, showed everyone that they were witnessing a rare talent. The author has correctly recognised this. He has also highlighted the fact that if not for Gill’s innings at the Gabba, perhaps, Pant would not have won that game because the Gill made India believe that a win was afterall, possible. The pace of Gill’s run-scoring ensured that India had enough overs to win.
“He instantly looked the part during that Border-Gavaskar series, producing a string of impressive knocks. His most important innings came at the Gabba as India defied the odds to register an unprecedented triumph. Rishabh Pant, quite understandably, hogged the headlines but Gill was just as much an architect of that win as the wicketkeeper. Not only did his 91-run knock come at a pace which kept India in the hunt, it changed the tone of the occasion; Gill made India believe that victory was possible.”
I have to agree that Gill hasn’t utilised his opportunities
He further writes that Gill’s test fortunes plummeted after that tour of Australia. I do agree with that assessment. Yes, Gill did not make use of the multiple opportunities that came his way. It was Gill’s injury that paved the way for Rahul to come into contention in England. Initially, Rahul was not even considered to open the innings. The same Gill, when given a chance to open the innings in Rahul’s absence at Edgbaston in 2022, was unable to make much inroads and as a result, he has already given back the position to Rahul or whomever replaces him. If only he had scored a hundred or atleast above 80, he may have helped India win the series and thereby made himself irreplaceable or at the least, provided the selectors and the team management with a headache.
This is the biggest disappointment of Gill’s career so far. Lack of compelling innings after the Gabba brilliance. I must also mention that in the 15 innings that he has played since then, around 7 were played on tracks that were impossible to survive even for an experienced batsman let alone a rookie during England’s tour of India. Nonetheless, having played on tracks closely resembling those pitches, he must have scored few runs. He cannot escape blame in the 3rd test at Ahmedabad where Rohit scored a sublime hundred when the pitch was at its best.
Gill not good for T20
I do agree with the author on one point. He is ill-equipped for T20. His game does not suit the demands of the shortest format where a batsman, that too an opener will have to start scoring right from the beginning. The powerplay is 6 overs only and an opener will not have the time to play himself in. Gill is somewhat handicapped on that front. He needs time to get going which is not possible in T20. If he stops playing IPL, it will really be wonderful but I do not think that that decision rests with him.
Where do I differ from the writer?
The author further talks about technical shortcomings in Gill’s game. He leaves a huge gap between the bat and the pad while pursuing balls outside the off-stump. This glaring problem was exploited well by Anderson and Jamieson. This the author writes is the reason he is not a natural Test player and that he is more suited for ODI cricket. Maybe he is maybe he is not. This is where I differ greatly from the author. Gill has age and time on his side. Yes, he has technical issues but it is something that can be corrected. He is not like Shreyas with serious problem against a particular delivery. Most of the batsmen have technical issues.
Kane Williamson, considered a modern day great, has serious problems facing English bowlers in England. His record against spin in the subcontinent is not that great either. For that matter, Kohli had a poor tour of England but was brilliant the next time around. Rohit Sharma, who took a very longtime to learn the game, has finally come good.
The point is, Gill is a seriously talented cricketer. He has got all the shots in the book and is good against both spin and pace. He is strong off the front foot and the backfoot. It is too early to mark him as someone who will not be good in Test cricket. Afterall, I have never seen an Indian batsman, making his debut in Australia, play such confident strokes. Gill showcased serious ability with the bat on that tour.
From what I have seen, he will be successful in Tests. There is a team management with a specialist batting coach and there is also the so-called NCA. If such a talent is let go off, it is a failure of the Indian board.
Wrapping up is Gill only good for ODIs?
A batsman with Gill’s brilliance must be wasted. He is a precious jewel who if trained properly, will return the efforts with loads of runs. Perhaps, a stint in the middle order will do him good. Afterall, India are searching for good and solid middle order batsmen after the sacking of Rahane and Pujara. Gill might just fit that bill.
Other blogs
Other Asia Cup blogs