Not sold on Jitesh Sharma’s quality.

[vvvslaxman]

6 hours ago, Gollum said:

Talks too much. 

His prayers answered twice lol

 

 

Edited April 18 by vvvslaxman

[Lord]

Terrible player. Should be end of his India ambitions atleast.

 

Prabhsimran is outperforming him now

[vvvslaxman]

27 minutes ago, Lord said:

Terrible player. Should be end of his India ambitions atleast.

 

Prabhsimran is outperforming him now

It is an insult to prabh to be compared with jitesh

[Suhaan]

8 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

His prayers answered twice lol

 

 

AB is astonished listening his narsisistic hyperbole

[tapandrun]

He isn’t really international quality, but he’s a solid IPL option—especially for teams that need a wicketkeeper who can bat in the middle order.

If you look at India’s pool, there aren’t many wicketkeepers who genuinely fit that middle-order T20 role. That scarcity gives someone like Kohli the flexibility to move up and open. And to be fair, Jitesh has outperformed a few players who are often labelled as “finishers.”

There are 10 IPL teams, but how many Indian wicketkeepers are available—and more importantly, how many are actually strong T20 batters? Ishan Kishan has only recently shown improvement (notably in the latest SMAT season). Rishabh Pant, despite his reputation and multi-format pedigree, isn’t really a natural T20 batter, though his IPL record and name value keep him in contention. Then there’s Jurel—so teams are often forced to pick from a limited pool rather than ideal options.

The problem starts when players like this get pushed into the T20I side. Jitesh’s selection, for instance, felt like a chain reaction. First, there was the questionable call to open with Gill, and that forced further compromises in the XI. Jitesh’s role was clearly defined—come in for 10–12 balls, swing hard, and maybe get 2–3 boundaries—but that’s a very narrow skill set for international cricket.

Right now, India’s T20I setup seems fragile in this sense: one mistake in the playing XI often leads to another. A big reason is that many Indian batters are locked into fixed roles—they’re not flexible across positions.

Why is that? Largely because Indian players don’t regularly play in other T20 leagues, where they’d be forced to adapt—batting in unfamiliar positions and fitting into a team’s needs rather than their own established roles.

 

[Ultimate_Game]

17 hours ago, tapandrun said:

He isn’t really international quality, but he’s a solid IPL option—especially for teams that need a wicketkeeper who can bat in the middle order.

If you look at India’s pool, there aren’t many wicketkeepers who genuinely fit that middle-order T20 role. That scarcity gives someone like Kohli the flexibility to move up and open. And to be fair, Jitesh has outperformed a few players who are often labelled as “finishers.”

There are 10 IPL teams, but how many Indian wicketkeepers are available—and more importantly, how many are actually strong T20 batters? Ishan Kishan has only recently shown improvement (notably in the latest SMAT season). Rishabh Pant, despite his reputation and multi-format pedigree, isn’t really a natural T20 batter, though his IPL record and name value keep him in contention. Then there’s Jurel—so teams are often forced to pick from a limited pool rather than ideal options.

The problem starts when players like this get pushed into the T20I side. Jitesh’s selection, for instance, felt like a chain reaction. First, there was the questionable call to open with Gill, and that forced further compromises in the XI. Jitesh’s role was clearly defined—come in for 10–12 balls, swing hard, and maybe get 2–3 boundaries—but that’s a very narrow skill set for international cricket.

Right now, India’s T20I setup seems fragile in this sense: one mistake in the playing XI often leads to another. A big reason is that many Indian batters are locked into fixed roles—they’re not flexible across positions.

Why is that? Largely because Indian players don’t regularly play in other T20 leagues, where they’d be forced to adapt—batting in unfamiliar positions and fitting into a team’s needs rather than their own established roles.

 

 

Agree with most of the post, especially about forcing Gill into the team which had cascading affect of playing Jitesh since we could only accommodate a wk who could bat lower down the order. However, I don't agree with the statement that Indian batting order is not flexible and players can't play at different positions.

 

In fact Indian T20 team is one of the most flexible batting units. Ishan can open and play at 3. Tilak can bat at 3 and is equally successful at 5 or 6, SKY can bat at 3, 4 or 5 though he's useless everywhere. But if we add Iyer in place of SKY, he can bat at 3, 4 or 5 as well. Pandya can bat anywhere from 5 to 7. Axar is a floater who can come in anywhere from 4-8 and has done so successfully in the past. I would argue there's no other team whose batting order is so flexible.

 

Our problem has always been accommodating stars and building rest of the team around them. That's the way they were doing with Gill in T20s and thankfully we made the right call and kicked him out. And we are makin the same mistake in ODIs with over the hill seniors in Rohit, Kohli, Jadeja around with eternal failures KL Rahul and Gill around them. In fact other than Iyer, our batting is outdated and jaded. Our challenge has been selections and accommodating stars, and not flexibility.

[tapandrun]

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Agree with most of the post, especially about forcing Gill into the team which had cascading affect of playing Jitesh since we could only accommodate a wk who could bat lower down the order. However, I don't agree with the statement that Indian batting order is not flexible and players can't play at different positions.

 

In fact Indian T20 team is one of the most flexible batting units. Ishan can open and play at 3. Tilak can bat at 3 and is equally successful at 5 or 6, SKY can bat at 3, 4 or 5 though he's useless everywhere. But if we add Iyer in place of SKY, he can bat at 3, 4 or 5 as well. Pandya can bat anywhere from 5 to 7. Axar is a floater who can come in anywhere from 4-8 and has done so successfully in the past. I would argue there's no other team whose batting order is so flexible.

 

Our problem has always been accommodating stars and building rest of the team around them. That's the way they were doing with Gill in T20s and thankfully we made the right call and kicked him out. And we are makin the same mistake in ODIs with over the hill seniors in Rohit, Kohli, Jadeja around with eternal failures KL Rahul and Gill around them. In fact other than Iyer, our batting is outdated and jaded. Our challenge has been selections and accommodating stars, and not flexibility.

 

Shuffling middle order and top order batters separately does not mean team is flexible. ind top order batters can only play in top 3 and middle order can only play in middle order. Say if Ind wants to play vaibhav then they have to drop one of the opener it can not be that one of the opener can play in middle order without impacting themsleves and balance and strngth of the team and none of the middle order can play in top3.

 

Take ex of eng/sa/aus -- one of their opener can play anywhere, players like jacks/owen/