Are Nitish Reddy, Sai Sudarshan and Dhruv Jurel best batsmen from Indian FC cricket?

[Trichromatic]

If yes, then test cricket must be dying in India.

[Trichromatic]

Not including Sundar as he has bowled 15 overs by now, but even his role is not clear. Sometimes he bats at 8, sometimes he doesn't bowl.

[Prabhdeep Singh]

Jurel is a good batsmen.

 

It is quite obvious the following 3 need to be given chance:

Sarfaraz

Tilak

Rinku Singh

 

[rkt.india]

Jurel averages 55+ in FC cricket but agree about Reddy and Sudharshan. They are in the team based on IPL and not first class cricket. Both have done nothing of note in FC cricket. I always prefer picking high average (50+) FC batsmen for tests and give them more chances. If they fail then pick others. Don't like batsmen being picked based on IPL to play test cricket. 

[rkt.india]

15 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Not including Sundar as he has bowled 15 overs by now, but even his role is not clear. Sometimes he bats at 8, sometimes he doesn't bowl.

We are picking too many bowlers, not developing enough proper batsmen. Picked 6 guys last test who all could play as proper bowlers. Had just three specialist batsmen last game and one of them got injured.

Edited November 23, 2025 by rkt.india

[putrevus]

21 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

If yes, then test cricket must be dying in India.

Guy like Jurel is back up keeper nothing more you don’t play back up keeper as batsman. It is that simple if India has play Jurel as batsman then they might shut the test team down.
 

 

Pant himself doesn’t deserve a place in the team as batsman where does that leave Jurel.

 

Same thing applies to Sundar and Reddy they are neither batsmen nor bowlers.

 

Edited November 23, 2025 by putrevus

[Vickydev]

Said this before, Pant batting at 5 is messing up our batting order. While he is quality himself, we end up filling the rest of the batting with ARs and bit n pieces cricketers. A wk shouldnt bat that high for me

[rkt.india]

24 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Guy like Jurel is back up keeper nothing more you don’t play back up keeper as batsman. It is that simple if India has play Jurel as batsman then they might shut the test team down.
 

 

Pant himself doesn’t deserve a place in the team as batsman where does that leave Jurel.

 

Same thing applies to Sundar and Reddy they are neither batsmen nor bowlers.

 

Jurel averages 55 in FC cricket so he isn't just a backup wicket keeper.  Reddy has no place in test side and Sundar should be batting at 6/7 at best. Top five must be proper first class batsmen. 6 alrounders 7 wk and then four bowlers. If one or two of those bowlers can bat like Ashwin used to then that is great.

Edited November 23, 2025 by rkt.india

[putrevus]

4 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Jurel averages 55 in FC cricket so he isn't just a backup wicket keeper.  Reddy has no place in test side and Sundar should be batting at 6/7 at best. Top five must be proper first class batsmen. 6 alrounders 7 wk and then four bowlers. If one or two of those bowlers can bat like Ashwin used to then that is great.

Abhinav Mukund averaged 60 when he was selected for India , we all know how well he batted in test cricket.

Is Jurel   better batsman than Pant ?

 

 

 

Sundar if his bowling is not upto the mark has no place till Jadeja retires, Jadeja himself is not able to justify his place as bowler. 
 

Ashwin covered lot of cracks in Jadeja’s bowling.

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Abhinav Mukund averaged 60 when he was selected for India , we all know how well he batted in test cricket.

Is Jurel   better batsman than Pant ?

 

 

 

Sundar if his bowling is not upto the mark has no place till Jadeja retires, Jadeja himself is not able to justify his place as bowler. 
 

Ashwin covered lot of cracks in Jadeja’s bowling.

Doesn't matter what mukund did? You are signalling out one failure ignoring many successes. Name one poor fc average specialist indian batsman succeeding in test cricket. If high average batsman isn't succeeding then chances of a low average batsman succeeding are even lower.

[express bowling]

Jurel is a very good batsman.

 

Sai and NKR must be dropped. 

[Forever Indian]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

We are picking too many bowlers, not developing enough proper batsmen. Picked 6 guys last test who all could play as proper bowlers. Had just three specialist batsmen last game and one of them got injured.

You would think coach being a former pure opening batsman would know the value of proper test batsmen... but very apparently it's not.

[Vk1]

We are very close to Pak, SL, BD level in test cricket. Very very close. 

[Trichromatic]

31 minutes ago, Vk1 said:

We are very close to Pak, SL, BD level in test cricket. Very very close. 

 

Pakistan saved a series v SA earlier. It's difficult to say that India will manage to do so.

[singhvivek141]

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

Abhinav Mukund averaged 60 when he was selected for India , we all know how well he batted in test cricket.

Is Jurel   better batsman than Pant ?

 

 

 

Sundar if his bowling is not upto the mark has no place till Jadeja retires, Jadeja himself is not able to justify his place as bowler. 
 

Ashwin covered lot of cracks in Jadeja’s bowling.

He doesnt need to be better than Pant...he has to be better than the rest.

Since you're still looking Jurel as wk-batsman only...you feel that it's Pant OR Jurel...but it's not an OR Gate, its an AND gate.

 

That being said, yes, our Ranji batting level is struggling. Baba Indrajith, Smaran, Sarfaraz, Danish Malewar, Yash Rathore, Aryan Juyal, Rinku Singh are some the batters avging high. Make your choice.

[bowl_out]

Sarfaraz 

Easwaran

Baba Indrajit

Rinku 

 

should all get a look in before Sai and Nitish.

[putrevus]

4 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Doesn't matter what mukund did? You are signalling out one failure ignoring many successes. Name one poor fc average specialist indian batsman succeeding in test cricket. If high average batsman isn't succeeding then chances of a low average batsman succeeding are even lower.

Is Jurel better batsman than Pant,

 

I was just giving example of  Mukund, since you quoted his  Jurel's FC avg.

 

Sundar FC avg is how much then why is he playing test cricket as batsman?

Edited November 23, 2025 by putrevus

[vvvslaxman]

India needs a home track bully team separately. There are many teams that would have chased 124 in the last match.

[putrevus]

2 hours ago, singhvivek141 said:

He doesnt need to be better than Pant...he has to be better than the rest.

Since you're still looking Jurel as wk-batsman only...you feel that it's Pant OR Jurel...but it's not an OR Gate, its an AND gate.

 

That being said, yes, our Ranji batting level is struggling. Baba Indrajith, Smaran, Sarfaraz, Danish Malewar, Yash Rathore, Aryan Juyal, Rinku Singh are some the batters avging high. Make your choice.

Pant himself does not get in a batsman, so question of Jurel getting in as batsman does not arise.

 

He already played 2 tests as batsman, did not reach 20s.

 

IMO he  is a backup wicket keeper nothing more.

 

Sarfraz is better than all of them . He is having bad patch in Ranjis and Jurel had good patch.

 

If I were Sarfraz, I would be disillusioned too to see tom dick and harry play over him.

Edited November 23, 2025 by putrevus

[putrevus]

4 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Doesn't matter what mukund did? You are signalling out one failure ignoring many successes. Name one poor fc average specialist indian batsman succeeding in test cricket. If high average batsman isn't succeeding then chances of a low average batsman succeeding are even lower.

What many successes ??

 

Jurel played 31 FC matches and he happened to score three of those 5 100s in last one month. 

 

As I said I would be shocked if this guy becomes a batsman.I just don't see him having the batting talent.

 

Adam Voges was forced out when he had test avg of 61. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2025 by putrevus