Galle: Do batters have to play according to the situation, or always stick to their natural game, irrespective of what the state of the game demands?
The question is perhaps as old as cricket itself, and opinions remain divided. A definitive answer, perhaps, is impossible.
Few batters have reignited this debate in recent months more than Rishabh Pant. The maverick left-hander has copped criticism from pundits and coaches alike, even while continuing to score runs and produce match-changing performances.
His reverse sweep off Nathan Lyon in the Melbourne Test against Australia in January 2025 remains a case in point. Pant’s dismissal after attempting the shot, followed by India’s eventual series defeat after being in a position to salvage a draw, attracted plenty of criticism. Sunil Gavaskar’s viral “stupid, stupid, stupid” remark from the commentary box perhaps best captured the frustration of the batting legend.
A similar episode unfolded during the home series against South Africa last November. Pant, the stand-in skipper for the second Test in Guwahati, got out in much the same fashion with India staring at a series defeat. Gautam Gambhir was visibly livid. The Indian head coach, while stressing the importance of playing according to the situation, made little effort to hide his disappointment in the press conference.
Gambhir was not entirely wrong: adaptability is an essential part of international cricket. But so is getting the messaging right. The last thing a batter needs is to walk out to the middle wondering whether every shot fits the situation, or whether he is being asked to abandon the instincts that have made him successful in the first place.
Ahead of the one-off Test against Afghanistan in June at the Mullanpur Stadium, Gambhir was asked about his expectations from Pant. This time, the former India opener struck a more measured note. He wanted the wicketkeeper, who had since been removed as vice-captain, “to be the way he is”, while also stressing the need to “play according to the situation in international cricket.”
“It’s not like we will tell him you have to change your game,” he had said. “But, it is important to create situations. Thinking what the team needs in a certain situation and playing your shots accordingly. But no player has been told to abandon their natural game and play differently. Whether it be Tests or ODIs or T20Is. Ultimately it is about making runs and taking wickets. Make runs whichever way you want, but it is very important to read the situation of the game,” he had further observed.
So, has Pant found that balance between his natural game and the team’s requirements? It’s hard to say, because batting is as much about perception as it is about numbers. But we got a glimpse of both versions of Pant in the first Test against Sri Lanka in Galle.
Which one was more impactful?
There was the relatively restrained 62-ball 39 in the first innings, when India were comfortably placed at 236/2. And then there was the swashbuckling 69-ball 66 in the second innings, when India were in trouble at 120/5.
The numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. Without Pant’s second-innings counterattack, there was hardly any substance to India’s innings, and the eventual target would have appeared far less daunting.
Devdutt Padikkal, who batted alongside Pant in both innings in Galle, was perhaps best placed to describe what made that knock so special.
“He really took the game to them and put them under a lot of pressure,” Padikkal noted. “I think that’s the ability that he has. He can win games on his own. And when something like that comes off, it’s always great to watch. I think everyone is really happy to have a player like him in our side,” he said.
That is Pant in a nutshell.
He is a generational talent who doesn’t conform to the traditional batting manual. Much like his Delhi predecessor Virender Sehwag, the southpaw has carved out his own method of scoring runs, one built around aggression and the ability to unsettle the opposition.
The numbers back him up too. Pant already has the second-best career batting average, 43.59, among designated wicketkeepers, behind only the Australian great Adam Gilchrist, who averaged 47.61.
The answer, perhaps, isn’t to ask Pant to play the situation. Rather, it is to give him the freedom to change it.