India’s resolution to introduce Harshit Rana as a concussion substitute for Shivam Dube throughout the fourth T20I in opposition to England in Pune has sparked a significant debate within the cricketing world.
Controversy over Harshit Rana’s inclusion as a concussion substitute
The match noticed Dube taking part in a pivotal position, smashing 53 off 34 balls, as India set a aggressive complete of 181/9. Nevertheless, within the remaining over of India’s innings, Dube was struck on the helmet by a Craig Overton bouncer, forcing him to depart the sphere underneath concussion protocols. In a transfer that has since drawn heavy scrutiny, India changed him with Harshit Rana, a medium-fast bowler, as a substitute of a like-for-like all-rounder.
Rana made an immediate affect, delivering a match-winning 3 for 33 on his T20I debut. His essential breakthroughs – together with Liam Livingstone, Jacob Bethell and Craig Overton – helped India bowl England out for 166, securing a 15-run victory. With this win, India took an unassailable 3-1 lead within the sequence forward of the ultimate match in Mumbai. England captain Jos Buttler didn’t maintain again in questioning India’s transfer, overtly stating that Rana was not a like-for-like substitute for Dube.
Ravichandran Ashwin’s stance on India’s resolution
Indian spin legend Ravichandran Ashwin has now voiced his sturdy disapproval of the choice, criticizing each the match officers and the Indian staff’s dealing with of the scenario. Talking on his YouTube channel, Ashwin didn’t mince his phrases, evaluating the choice to the IPL’s Affect Participant rule moderately than a world cricket regulation.
“The sport is finished. India seize yet one more sequence at residence. T20I has been an actual juggernaut of a win. What was this recreation? It was like a reproduction of the IPL. Supersub was there, and the sport was performed with an affect participant,” Ashwin remarked, expressing his disbelief over the scenario.
He additional referenced the 2020 concussion substitution incident in Canberra, the place Yuzvendra Chahal changed Ravindra Jadeja after the latter suffered a concussion. Ashwin identified that not less than in that case, a spinner was changed by one other spinner, making it an inexpensive resolution. In distinction, bringing in a pacer for a batting all-rounder like Dube appeared utterly unjustified.
“Your complete dialogue is about how Harshit Rana got here in as a concussion substitute for Shivam Dube. Did we overlook that it was a world match and play an IPL match? I can perceive. It has occurred up to now. Ravindra Jadeja bought concussed in Canberra, and Yuzvendra Chahal got here in in its place. I don’t perceive this. At the very least beforehand, Chahal got here in for Jadeja, a spinner for a spinner,” the 38-year-old said.
Additionally READ: Did India follow ICC rules in replacing Shivam Dube with Harshit Rana during 4th T20I against England? Explained
Ashwin’s perspective on Ramandeep Singh as a potential substitute
Ashwin strongly criticized the match officers, arguing that Ramandeep Singh, a batting all-rounder, was an ideal like-for-like substitute for Dube, but was missed. Ashwin additional emphasised that this resolution set a harmful precedent, because it might permit groups to use the concussion rule in future matches.
“Right here, Harshit got here in for Shivam Dube. There isn’t a position of the Indian or England staff. If there isn’t any one within the squad, then you possibly can say that Harshit Rana can bat a bit and Shivam Dube can bowl a bit. That’s why we introduced him in. Like-for-like substitute Ramandeep Singh was sitting exterior. I don’t perceive. This can be a case of pure cricketing miscalculation, both on the a part of the umpires or the a part of the match referee. Ramandeep Singh was there, like-for-like for Shivam Dube. However not him. Harshit Rana was chosen because the concussion substitute. I feel individuals in cost ought to look into this,” Ashwin concluded.
