India opted for a six-bowler strategy and placed Washington Sundar and Harshit Rana at the top of their batting lineup, but they were still concerned about who would provide reliability in the middle order. There seemed to be less of a thought process behind this selection and more of a puzzle without the last piece that had been there all along. Nitish’s ODI debut against Australia provided some good signs; he scored an unscathed cameo in Perth and showed he could bowl reliably through his over, and he has the temperament for chaotic cricket games. However, in Ranchi, he didn’t even get a ride on the team bus.
Ashwin didn’t whisper, he warned: if a Hardik replacement can’t play when Hardik himself is absent, what are we even doing?
Balance Misread at the Selection Table
India chose to play Arshdeep, Prasidh Krishna, Harshit Rana, Jadeja, Kuldeep, and Washington Sundar; all six of India’s bowlers. The six bowlers were more than needed on the ODI pitch that rewards control over personnel and was likely to favor a team with a long batting order. But it would have been better if India had a fast bowler who could provide a bowling option in their middle order to replace Nitish.
The Hardik Vacuum and a Missed Opportunity
Hardik Pandya’s injury created a structural void: middle-order muscle + seam overs + tactical flexibility. Nitish Kumar Reddy was groomed for this very contingency through Australia ODIs, in the Test squad, then redirected to the SA ‘A’ series. Yet when the opportunity arrived, India chose to patch the middle order with extra bowlers instead of the designated all-rounder.
The Gaikwad No.4 Gamble and Its Ripple Effect
With Shreyas Iyer injured, India opened a new conundrum: Who takes over No.4? Pant? Tilak? Maybe even a floating role? No. They handed it to Ruturaj Gaikwad a logical experiment, but one with consequences. By moving Gaikwad into the middle order, India locked a top-order batter into a role that needs acceleration and seam-handling skill.
Ruturaj’s 8 off 14 wasn’t the issue; the lack of intent around the selection was. And once Gaikwad was locked at No.4, the lower middle order became crowded with sideways picks, not specialist fits.
India Has Seen This Mistake Before
In India’s history of playing around with “all-around” players too early (Vijay Shankar was a prime example from 2017-2019, with his role being constantly shifted due to Hardik Pandya’s unavailability; before that, 2012-2014, India went through some different seam bowlers as an all-around option but never found a consistent one) is still a lesson: When you find your role specific player, you must give him game experience at times of crisis for that role not sit on the sidelines because other players are competing for a spot. Nitish’s omission feels like another repeat of this old loop.
India has the players. What they need now is conviction in how they use them. And as Ashwin hinted, conviction begins at the selection table long before the toss.
Key Takeaway
India didn’t lack options in Ranchi; they lacked clarity about which options actually mattered.
FAQs
- What role is Nitish Kumar Reddy expected to fill in the Indian ODI team?
A Hardik-like pace-bowling all-rounder who stabilizes the middle order and adds seam overs.
- Why did Ashwin criticise the Ranchi selection?
Because Nitish was picked as Hardik’s backup wasn’t selected even when Hardik was absent.
- How does Ruturaj Gaikwad fit into the No.4 role?
He’s being trialed there, and Ashwin believes he deserves a longer run before India makes a final call.
Disclaimer: This blog post reflects the author’s personal insights and analysis. Readers are encouraged to consider the perspectives shared and draw their own conclusions.
Step into the world of cricket with JeetBuzz News—where expert opinions, trending Blogs, and behind-the-scenes insights meet all your favorite topics. Stay informed, stay entertained, and never miss the stories shaping the cricketing world—only on JeetBuzz News!
