New guy
How successful has Amir been when compared to his hype many years ago? Hype based on one sole season in England? Amir had one amazing season no doubt, but he is not the first one to do great on swinging English pitches, players like RP Singh did the same
Amir was always treated as a special, special talent and he did show great glimpses of it. Even in the T20 Asia cup, we saw what he could do on swinging pitches. PCB went out of the way to help him after the spot fixing scandal, tried to rehabilitate him, brought him back immediately to the national team.  He always gets the new ball and is the leader of Pak pace attack
Do the numbers match up to the hype? Lets take a look
Amir's average currently stands at 32.49. Since his comeback, he has been averaging 38.26
Country played against, Amir averages over 35 against every single country except England (27.67) and Australia (32.3) The Australia average includes 2 matches played in the same English conditions where he averaged 22.2. In Australia he averages over 40
Career summary Grouping Span Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St Ave Diff   v Australia 2009-2016 6 171 48 19.00 0 24 5/79 32.33 1 0 0 -13.33 v England 2010-2016 8 174 39* 14.50 0 31 6/84 27.67 2 0 0 -13.17 v New Zealand 2009-2016 5 115 26 11.50 0 14 3/43 36.14 0 0 0 -24.64 v Sri Lanka 2009-2009 3 37 22* 12.33 0 6 3/38 43.50 0 0 0 -31.16 v West Indies 2016-2016 2 29 20 9.66 0 6 3/63 38.50 0 1 0 -28.83  
Amir has played in Australia, New Zealand, England, UAE and Sri Lanka. He averages over 35 in each of those countries except England and averages over 40 in both Australia and Sri Lanka while averaging over 38 in UAE
in Australia 2009-2016 4 147 48 24.50 0 13 5/79 40.84 1 0 0 -16.34 in England 2010-2016 10 198 39* 13.20 0 42 6/84 26.26 2 0 0 -13.06 in New Zealand 2009-2016 5 115 26 11.50 0 14 3/43 36.14 0 0 0 -24.64 in Sri Lanka 2009-2009 3 37 22* 12.33 0 6 3/38 43.50 0 0 0 -31.16 in U.A.E. 2016-2016 2 29 20 9.66 0 6 3/63 38.50 0 1 0 -28.83  
Year wise, even before his ban, Amir averaged 41 in 7 matches in 2009. 2010 is the only year he excelled because of one English season in amazing swinging conditions. Here is the season wise average breakup
2009 season - average 43.5
2009/10 season - average 41.9
2010 season - average 19.8
2016 season - average 42.4
2016/17 season - average 35.5
The 2010 season average seems more and more like an anomaly as time goes by. I think he still looks impressive and beats the bat. But most of his effectiveness comes from the new ball swing. His yorker and short ball seems non-existent and he has lost his in-dipper. He clocks some speed on the speed gun yet looks innocuous. Even the excuse of the 5 year delay doesn't seem to hold water considering his record before his ban outside of England. Do remember that in the period since his comeback he has played in some helpful pitches in England and New Zealand too. 
How long will talent give him a free pass considering PCB fought tooth and nail to get him back in the team? Seeing Pakistan's seam bowling options I am sure Amir might still be best for the team. However, those who saw a promising fast bowler emerge and were following his progress with interest might be disappointed with his performance so far. 
1. To fit Pandya in 11- We all want Pandya to play as we have high hopes on him. But in current scenario where our main bowlers are rested we can't play him as 5th bowler. I don't think so Pandya at this stage can give you 10 overs every match as a bowler and none of the top batsman bowl. Raina is out and Mandeep and Jadhav don't bowl as well. So basically if we play Pandya, we are risking the 5th bowler. Pandya as 5th bowler becomes more risky as our best bowlers like Shami, Ashwin, Jadeja, Bhuvi all are rested and there is huge inexperience in bowling lineup. So if anyone of main bowler have an off day and Pandya can't give us 10 over well well we are really going to struggle .
2. Raina at 6 wasn't good either in case of collapse- Another thing what worries with the idea what if top order collapses . Well when did Raina bailed us out of collapse , hardly very few instances. So even in case of collapse what better Raina would do than Pandya.
3. Responsibility makes u grow- Batting Panyda at 6 will give him more balls and responsibility to put a price on wkt. Best way to improve batting is to bat up the order. Even in case of Jadeja n Raina i always believed their batting regressed coz of batting at that spot. Pandya did show he can put a price on his wicket in Australia A tour .
4. Dew and inexperienced bowling lineup - Most matches are in north in winter so there would be dew for sure and we have extremely inexperienced bowling lineup so a 6th bowler is must in such scenario. In case of dew the spinners are almost out of the game. 
5. Adding Jadhav would solve no purpose- We already have Mishra and Bumrah who are liabilities in field and minus 2 assets like Jadeja and Raina in field . That bowling lineup needs to to be backed by fielding so Adding pandya to field makes more sense than Jadhav. Also do we see Jadhav playing in 2019,well no way. These days we can't have so many liabilities in field. 
6. Pandya, Axar, Yadav, Mishra- well the tail doesn't look that week, all these guys can bat and certainly all can make 50s for sure. 
7. Pandya being looked on as test all rounder- well if we are looking to make Pandya as test all rounder and make him bat at 6, well we have to trust him at 6 in ODIs to then.
The BCCI vs The Lodha Committee: A Fan’s Perspective
Over the last year, one issue, outside of the cricket being played, has been on the minds of the Indian cricket fandom: the question of the BCCI and the Lodha Committee. India fans, from Mumbai to Kolkata, Indian residents to NRIs/PIOs, have undertaken numerous, vigorous debates on a subject close to their hearts: the state of Indian Cricket and its administration. In this article, I will be writing from my own perspective on this emotional subject on why, for the interest of Indian Cricket, and indeed India at large, these decisions could have a deleterious effect.  
The Constitution of India is based on two earlier constitutions: the constitution of the United Kingdom (the nation we inherited our democratic system from) and the constitution of the United States, which served as a philosophical guideline for Dr. Ambedkar, the chief architect for India’s own constitution. These two constitutions have an underlying legal philosophy that is meant to be protected and respected by both the Indian justices and people. By the spirit of the constitution, the power of government is divided into three separate branches, each intended to have checks and balances on each other, and each, to a degree, having a separation of powers. The Indian Supreme Court is the apex body of one of the branches, the Judiciary. By design, the Judiciary is meant to have an important but limited power: to determine the constitutionality of a law and to interpret the scope of a law when there is sufficient ambiguity relating to a law’s application to a particular issue.
Currently, the issue with the BCCI is that many fans, in particular the domiciles of India, view the BCCI and its dealings with a strong feelings of doubt. I am arguing in this article that, while there is and should be healthy skepticism regarding how the BCCI functions, shooting off the shoulders of the Supreme Court (SC), is both lazy and dangerous. 
The concepts of judicial restraint, activism, and overreach are basic, but crucial legal concepts. Judicial activism and overreach have a distinction, but in reality it is a distinction without a difference. A court that indulges in activism will almost certainly get to the point of overreach. A simple way to think about it is that a court does things it doesn’t have an explicit constitutional right to or is against the spirit of the constitution they are supposed to protect, such as: encroaching on executive/legislative power, independent policy making, and proactively reinterpreting the law (usually based on political bias/personal whim). Judicial overreach occurs when there is a gray area in a society, and the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, assigns itself jurisdiction on the area in question. In India, the phenomenon can be seen most blatantly via the proliferation of Public Interest Litigations (PIL). The most recent example of Judicial overreach is related to the famous Dahi Handi. Here, the Indian courts, sparked by a PIL filed, declared the participation of youth under the age of 18 illegal, while also limiting the height of the pyramids to 20ft. Here is a tradition millennia old, tied to the very culture of Maharashtra, being judged by an unelected body, younger than 80 years. On what basis? Safety? Do common Indians not understand what is safe or unsafe for them and their children? On what philosophical grounds can a court, made up of unelected judges, regulate a harmless tradition? Are our judges so arrogant that they can believe they can tell common people how to celebrate? 
It is here that we get to the crux of the issue: judicial precedent. The actions of the court, particularly the apex court, have the potential to set a precedent, either soft or hard. The fans’ wanting the BCCI to be clean should not be the basis of supporting either side in this case. Through judicial overreach, the SC could set a precedent and thus open the floodgates of over-regulation. 
The BCCI is an autonomous organization, meaning private entity. It is not a government body, owned by the citizens of India. It was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act in 1928. The law was basically designed for organizations that work for the benefit of society, such as health organizations. These organizations are not government bodies, but they are private entities which are allowed to operate within the purview of the law. 

A copy of the law:
The BCCI is providing Indians with the service of cricket, but it doesn’t have exclusive rights to represent India in cricket. The Indian government, since the time of independence in 1947, has allowed the BCCI to be the administrator of Indian cricket. The ICC, on its part, has also recognized the BCCI as the representative of Indian cricket. This does not change the fact that, while the board may represent India, it does not legally belong to India. As a private, autonomous organization, the BCCI has certain rights/privileges that other private businesses have and that other sporting bodies in India do not. The zeal with which certain fans want to interfere in the BCCI betrays both their shortsightedness and misunderstanding. 
The common refrain is that the BCCI is corrupt and needs to be cleaned. This is only partially true. While we can agree that the BCCI isn’t the most transparent organization, the allegations of corruption are mostly hollow. The major issue that comes to a fan mind is the IPL fixing scandal involving the Chennai Superkings and Rajastan Royals. The issue is fought with the picture of Srinivasan, former head of the BCCI and owner of the SuperKings, in mind. Through the information that is publically available, we know that there was indeed some issue going on in regards to the IPL. 
Yes Srinivasan and the Rajasthan Royals owner Raj Kundra, definitely brought shame to the IPL/BCCI/India. There possibly could have also been fixing, although we do not know either way. However, these issues stemmed from the idea of the integrity of the game. They put the doubt in people’s heads that there were pre-determined matches, rather than actual competition. However, ultimately, that is just conjecture as well. We just know that there were shady things going on. We do not know how deep it went. To assume rampant fixing is jumping to conclusions. The two owners lost their teams, at least for 2 years, and a number of players were prosecuted. The court may have punished two innocent cities as well, as we don't know for sure if Chennai or Jaipur will even get another IPL team, as the BCCI will likely have another bidding process after the coming season to see who gets the IPL franchises. 
However, corruption is a different question. As an autonomous body, as long as the BCCI pays the required taxes/fees and follow the required laws, the money they make belongs to them. The money is not ours, as citizens, as we do not pay the Indian government for it. They are not stealing from us, as we pay the BCCI for the service they provide: cricket. Morally, if we do not like how the BCCI operates, we do not have to pay them or watch the team.
Therefore, I am not sure you can say they are corrupt. Think about it like this: if a buyer purchases a house from a seller, and the seller used all the money the buyer paid him to buy liquor,  that is ultimately the seller’s loss. The buyer got what they wanted from the deal, the house. If the seller is foolish enough to buy that much liquor, one can look down on them for being foolish, but they are not committing a crime or being unethical. This analogy applies for the fans and the BCCI as well. We may not like how they spend money, but, it is their money, and, so long as they do not break laws, they can do with it what they please.
By supporting the Lodha Committee, and the SC, in this case, fans are essentially favoring interference in private business. The SC would be setting a precedent by which they could actively interfere in a range of private enterprise and society, by way of “public interest,” determined by them, through power they assigned to themselves. This is the kind of step that could torpedo the great economic progress made due to PMs Rao and Vajpayee and sink the Indian story back into the economic depths of the Nehruvian era.
Now let us look at some of the main “reforms” that the Lodha committee has ordered the BCCI to make. The full report can be found here (  The reform is in bold with my comments following underneath. 
— No BCCI office-bearer can have more than two consecutive terms.
This is an arbitrary time limit. What is the reason that it is not one or three terms? The job of a BCCI office-bearer is to perform the function assigned to them by the BCCI’s internal rules/law/constitution. For example, a treasurer is to maintain/manage the board’s finances. Why would having five consecutive terms affect a treasurer’s ability to manage finances? Could you imagine an American court limiting Tim Cook to two terms as CEO of Apple? 
— No BCCI office-bearer can hold office for more than 3 terms with the rider that there will be a cooling off after each term.
Similar to the earlier limit of two consecutive terms, why should a potentially great administrator be limited to three lifetime terms in office? Should the SC also limit the number of times our career politicians, like the Gandhi family, hold their MP seats. Considering the conditions of Amethi or Rae Bareli, that would seem something more in line with “public interest.”
— No BCCI office-bearer can hold two posts at the same time.
This is another pointless regulation.  There is no rhyme or reason that a private entity can’t have multiple functions assigned to a single individual. The ministers,  Goyal and Gadkari, in the current government, have shown phenomenal ability to handle multiple portfolios relating to energy and infrastructure. Are we to assume that running cricket is more complex than running the country itself? 
— Separate governing bodies for IPL and BCCI.
What is the reason for this? The IPL is a BCCI product. This is the equivalent of saying the CEO of Microsoft should not interfere in the running of the Xbox division of Microsoft. This is both laughable and foolish. 
— Limited autonomy for IPL governing council.
Please read this recommendation and the previous one. The BCCI should not control the IPL, but it should? This is bordering on cognitive dissonance. How can the SC tell the BCCI to create an entirely separate body to govern the IPL, while at the same time limiting the power of said body? The SC doesn’t seem to realize that the remaining powers would be with the BCCI governing body, so what is the point in making a new governing body with only a limited subset of powers?
— Formation of a steering committee headed by former home secretary G.K. Pillai with Mohinder Amarnath, Diana Eduljee and Anil Kumble as members.
On what grounds are these names selected? Why is the committee not comprised of, say, Dravid, Ganguly, Dhoni? 
— Ethics officer to decide on conflict of interest.
Who is going to appoint this ethics officer? If it is the BCCI, what is the point of the reform? If it is the court, what is the knowledge of the court in such matters?
— In no case President will hold post for more than 2 years
The SC is telling a private body how long someone should hold office. I’m sure the irony is not lost on them. Then again, reading the recommendations, it may be.
—  Lodha panel wants BCCI to come under RTI Act
Finally, we have a good idea. The problem is that bodies registered under the TNSRA were already determined to come under RTI.   
— Only one association of each state will be full member and have the right to vote.
This is blatant discrimination based on an arbitrary criterion, namely state, which are unrelated to actual playing of cricket. A cricketer doesn’t need to reside in a state to play for one of the teams, unlike voting in an election. The idea that Maharashtra or Gujarat is getting some unfair advantage is laughable and bordering on a conspiracy theory. The BCCI has set standards that a board must meet before they are eligible to become a member. Boards like Baroda and Mumbai meet the standard. Why persecute them based on non-cricketing issues? If a state like TN or Bihar wants more boards, then they need someone to set one up and meet the set standards.   
— Relegation of railways, services and universities as associate members. This makes them lose their voting rights.
Why does the SC seem to think that it knows how cricket needs to be organized? Why does it need to be organized on the basis of state? What exactly is wrong with the Railways or Services?
— Constitution and establishment of a players’ association.
Unions are a hindrance on economic progress. They introduce inefficiencies, most of which are avoidable. The SC doesn’t know how business works, so why are they interfering? 
— Age Limit of 70 for BCCI office bearers
The SC seems to be in favor of introducing blatant age discrimination into the BCCI. Why do they not reform themselves and say that anyone over the age of 50 should not be a member of the SC?
— No ads between overs
The SC has now decided that a business that makes most of its money from TV viewership, should limit how much money they should make. If this isn’t the most backwards thought process, then I don’t know what is. 
 — No BCCI office-bearer can be minister or government servant.
I saved the best one for last. Here the SC thinks it is their responsibility to tell a private entity who it can or cannot hire. If this doesn’t make the reader realize what type of precedent the SC is trying to set, I am not sure what else will. 
The question the reader must ask themselves is:  if the court put similar regulations on another business, hypothetically one that you own, would you be okay with this? 
Now coming to common criticisms of the BCCI made by some India fans.
The BCCI is money obsessed
Any business is established in order to make money. As long as said business doesn’t commit a crime, they are free to make whatever amount of money they want. Even when a business does commit a crime, it is the right of the court to punish said business on the crime which it committed and not on hypothetical/potential crimes. This is outside the mandate of the court and is blatant judicial overreach. 
The BCCI has a right to make money. They employ thousands upon thousands of Indians either directly or indirectly. Not only that, they effectively subsidize much of the ICC. They need to make the money, especially if they continue to give away money to other countries’ cricket boards. The BCCI  alone generates over 70% of the revenue in the cricketing world, yet they take back only a fraction of it, below 25%.  That is their money, yet they share it with the other boards, some in hostile countries. Many of the fans of said boards feel they have a right to money generated by India. This is not the case. The supposedly greedy BCCI, subsidizes loss making cricket boards.  
To add to this, the BCCI allows member boards to keep ticket collection profits. Thus, a regional cricket board which has high fan turn out can directly profit and improve its own infrastructure. The BCCI also wants more boards to become members, as that could potentially increase revenues through increased competition. They simply require a set standard to be met.  
Coming to ads, I hate commercials as well, but we have the mute button, I use it liberally. The worst thing is when they cut back late to the game, but all that is ever missed is the beginning of a bowler's run up. Nothing much happens between overs in the first place. The commentators are usually talking off mike, but we would only hear silence/the crowd.
The best way to solve any monetary issues would be for the BCCI to stop subsidizing world cricket. Indian money should be used for Indian cricket. The cost is, however, some of the countries will not be able to afford many of the costs of cricket, particularly Test cricket. Only 3 countries, Eng/Aus/India consistently generate profits from Test cricket. If the fans want test cricket to be reduced to being played by these three countries, they should let the BCCI know. However, the idea that BCCI should make no money and subsidize other countries cricket is both backwards and immoral in relation to an autonomous body.  
The BCCI doesn’t respect Test cricket
Over the last three years India has played the fourth most tests, tied with Lanka. Aus/Eng/NZ have played more tests than. However, India would be at number 3 on the list if the Haroon Lorgat issue did not take place. Thus, India does play plenty of Test cricket. When one factors in that our players are the busiest in the world, with ODIs, T20Is, and IPL, it is more appropriate to praise the BCCI for its servicing of fans needs regardless of format.
As I mentioned earlier, the BCCI subsidizes the test cricket in other countries. Most countries likely lose money or at best break even from test matches played. They likely don't want to play long series against us in the first place. However, we always play at least 4 test series with England/Australia. On the other hand, ODIs/T20s are very profitable. India’s frequent ODI bilateral series with Sri Lanka were related to the later board’s financial troubles.  
Also, don't forget that just now, the BCCI has increased the pay for test cricketers. They are trying to encourage our players to dedicate themselves to the format. With the increase in pay, players like Pujara can potentially forego trying for the IPL and try for a stint in county cricket this season.

Finally, it is important to remember that the BCCI is an autonomous body/private business. Economic growth and success, the kind the BCCI has experienced, comes from the limited regulation it undergoes. This is in comparison to other Indian sporting bodies which are ripe with government interference and experience a dearth of tangible results. The idea that economic freedom leads to prosperity and success is an unalienable fact, on the lines of evolution. It is important to consider this when thinking about interfering in the BCCI’s functioning. 
Why do business people or politicians have to get involved in cricket administration?
This is the wrong question. The questions are who should run the BCCI and what are the consequences of the SC decision? 
The BCCI should be run by whomever its members decide should run it. Whether one likes it or not, a private body must retain this right. The questioning of administering cricket is different. However, the skillset(s) needed to effectively manage a sporting body are more similar to those skills that a great businessman or a good minister would possess. A cricketer, whether Sachin or a lower-level Ranji player, is only known for their cricketing skill. That skill doesn’t necessarily translate to administering an organization. The results also speak for themselves. The Indian cricket team is consistently among the top of the rankings across all three formats. There is room for improvement, but the administration has been on point. 
I will use American sporting leagues as an example. The NFL, NBA, and MLB are all three run by non-sportsmen. The skills for a role as head of an organization overlap far better with business acumen, like Srinivasan's, than other skill sets. Not to mention, that sports is a business as well. It has to be profitable, otherwise it will collapse. You have to remember, before players like Gavaskar, had to work jobs on the side, even though he was the country's biggest sports star at the time. Now, even Ranji players can make a career out of cricket. 
Why does the Indian government, something that historically can't keep its "hand" out of anything, allow something from which they can profit to run by itself.  In my opinion, this is because the politicians apolitically get involved in cricket, and therefore they don’t destroy it. In any given cricket board across the country, one will find both Congress and BJP, along with relevant regional parties involved. As long as they all profit, they will let the cricket boards have some autonomy. Once cricket becomes the charge of the government, all the "colorfulness" of Indian politics will get involved. That would be much worse than it is now. Imagine Indian style selection quotas; we would make the South Africans look like they are running a meritocracy.
The SC thinks that it can remove politicians from cricket administration this way. However, nothing prevents the government of India derecognizing the BCCI as the body representing India in cricket. The government can then set up a new board, fill it with the ruling party politicians, and continue to profit. Except now, the new board could be completely owned by the government. This opens cricket up to the more “colorful” aspects of Indian politics, namely quota and reservation. Indian politicians have traditionally patronized those who vote for them. With the Indian cricket board becoming a direct government body, the political compulsions of every five years, which the average citizens hate, may become part of the game they love.
Rational Solutions for Concerned Fans
There is not an easy solution to this. I will say that an easy solution is not usually the best one. Everyone wants cricket to be clean and efficient, but the change cannot be imposed by the SC. Cricket is fun, but, when the court gets involved, intentionally/unintentionally they do set a judicial precedence. Once they interfere in an autonomous body, one that is not connected to the government of India, the barrier to repeat the behavior is lowered. This could have disastrous consequences for the Indian economic environment. Cricket isn't worth that much.
There are two solutions to the problem that come to mind, but neither is easy:
Start a rival cricket board. This would be hard to do, even next to impossible, but this is the market based way to fight the BCCI. The BCCI, doesn't own all the cricketers in India. If someone could successfully harness the untapped parts of the country, such as Bihar and the NE, and make a somewhat viable competitor for the BCCI, there are chances, however slim, that cricket boards that have a strained relationship with the BCCI could flip to the new board. Think about how when Srinivasan was in charge and his BCCI had some issues with the Rajasthan cricket board. If there was a competent rival at that point, Rajasthan could have switched allegiance. 
 If fans are concerned about their state cricket board's corruption, then it should be much easier, although still difficult, to set up a rival cricket board on a state or even city level, than on the national level. 
If someone really wanted to get the government involvement in the issue, the best way to do so would be through elected politicians. One of the problems with the Indian judiciary is that they are not accountable, democratically, in any way. This makes their interference in matters much more dangerous (judicial overreach ). They would be the equivalent of the new Viceroys of India.
On the other hand, since India is a democracy, you have multiple levels of representation where concerned fans, and like-minded people, can make your voices heard on issues that they care about. Get other people who think like you together and make it known to your local MLAs or even your MPs, that this is an issue that enough of you care about and that you are willing to give your vote to someone who will handle your issue and rescind your vote from someone who doesn’t.  
In Conclusion
While all fans can agree that cricket should be clean, the methods taken by the Lodha Committee, and the fans supporting it, are both shortsighted and potentially disastrous. Once the government gets involved in directly regulating private, autonomous bodies, through judicial overreach, a dangerous precedent could be set. This precedent could have wide ranging consequences not limited to cricket. Once the floodgates are open, it will be almost impossible to stop the water from flowing. 
New guy

By New guy, in Articles,

The untold story of BCCI's top secret project to rule the world
Many people today are baffled by the affinity shown by BCCI, the captain, the coach, ex players, current players and many others seemingly sane people, towards Rohit Sharma. Those in the know reveal this exclusive, never told before story

BCCI's goal plans
Phase 1 - Include Rohit Sharma in the team
Phase 2 - ?????
Phase 3 - Profit!!!!
So why is Rohit Sharma included in the team? Here are some reasons experts tell us
1) Rohit Sharma is like the chaff air-force planes deployed during world war 2 to distract heat seeking missiles from other planes

So while the opposition is baffled and focused on Sharma(he seems useless but is selected every time, why? There is some secret, some strategy, we need to find out. Let focus on Rohit Sharma) , other batsmen like Rahane can slip through the radar. The opposition thinks Sharma might be important and targets him and neglects other batsmen
2) Rohit Sharma is the next level evolution of a "batsman"

Cricket has often been called the "batsman's game". And modern cricket is even more so. So what did scientists do to counter this dis-balance? They genetically engineered the batsmen who always loses to bowlers. It doesn't matter what kind of bowler it is. Pace bowlers. Swing bowlers. China-man. Part time bowlers. This batsman is designed to fail. To prevent bowlers from going extinct, scientists have designed the batsman who boosts bowler's confidence
3) Rohit Sharma is the "Judas goat" of batsmen who leads other FTB batsmen to their doom

A judas goat is basically a trained goat (or other animal) which will lead the hunter to other members of his species. So the other animals get killed and the judas goat is rewarded. Rohit Sharma is the epitome and the prototype of the FTB who fails everywhere. So any batsman who follows him or bats like him can be identified and immediately terminated
4) Rohit Sharma is a trained commando on the field to protect other players

This is self explanatory. Rohit Sharma is obviously not a cricket player. Then why is he on the field? Well considering that India is the richest cricketing country and the super star cricketers always a target of criminals or terrorists, we need extra protection for all the players. What better protection than a super commando, disguised as a player, who is on the field at all times? Rohit Sharma might not score many runs, but if any terrorist attempts to harm any player on the field, he can take them out with his bare hands
5) Rohit Sharma is an advertisement come to life
This is the most likely explanation according to experts. Big companies first advertised on the radio. Then they advertised with flyers. Then they advertised on bill boards. Then they moved to TV. They finally created an artificial life which can go on the field and pretend to be a player. So Rohit Sharma is just an AI actor who needs to be on the field at all times displaying sponsor logos. He is just like the advertisement logos you see on the ground after each over
They started with this

And have now gone on to this 

Has technology and advertisement gone too far? Can ad-blocks block Rohit Sharma from showing up on my TV? Will more genuine players be replaced by walking advertisements? Only time will tell!