Not fair on Cheteshwar Pujara

Raju Korti
The idea of fielding two separate teams for the shorter and longer versions of the game may have its utility and logic but it has some strong aberrations. The reference is to Cheteshwar Pujara who is perhaps the only true specialist Test batsman in the current Indian team visiting Down Under. (Kohli excluded since he is playing only the first Test). Pujara played his last Test end February against New Zealand which means he has had no international exposure for almost a year. In 77 Tests, Pujara has scored almost 6000 runs with 18 hundreds at an average close to 50. Just how fair is it to expect a batsman of Pujara's class and caliber to walk into the Test side against Australia in Australia after such a long hiatus and deliver?

Given the way the shorter version has made inroads into the longer version, players, especially batsmen have to readjust and reorient themselves to a format that calls for completely different skill sets. In India where cricket is played extensively, there have been instances where batsmen have ended up being neither a Test or ODI/T20 specialist, losing their identity trying to constantly readjust. There are also those who have forgotten their durability and have made peace with the T20s on the premise that he Test version is now only regulation cricket and is losing its charm.

In the last decade, India has been handing out significantly higher number of ODIs and T20s although puritans and protagonists of the Test cricket believe -- and rightly so -- that the latter calls for greater endurance, competence and cricketing mindset. With more number of shorter matches being played, Test cricket skills appear to have taken a back seat. Notice that in the current series, India lost to the Aussies 3-0 in the ODIs but managed to upstage them in T20s 2-1. The transition from these to the Test series will not be easy although that the current Indian batsmen like the ball coming on to the bat on the bouncy Aussie pitches.

Pujara's example is a case in point that Test cricket skills may not earn you a place in the playing XI for the shorter formats. With some debate, India fell in line with the concept of playing different teams across formats as it was happening among other playing nations. Why batsmen, even bowlers were selected on the same yardstick. Remember, Mohammed Shami and Umesh Yadav were considered first serves for the Tests while Bhuvanesh Kumar and Jasprit Bumrah were preferred options for the limited overs games.

Take the case of Steve Smith. He has fared remarkably in both the formats but it is Aaron Finch and not he who is the captain of his side in the shorter version. He was, however, good enough to lead Rajasthan Royals in the more feverish version. Ditto with Eoin Morgan who is leading England in the shorter version while Joe Root presides over the Test squad. Morgan made a very interesting point earlier this year when he said he was open to the idea of England playing two matches in different formats on the same day. Apparently, Morgan was flexible to the idea of helping cricket back on its feet but he was also indicating that the character of the game was changing.

The specialization within formats in international cricket has happened particularly in the last decade or so and has become a working assumption among a majority in the cricket community. If you played Test cricket a decade before, you probably played T20s too. This is now passe and the emergence of a completely different ethos has changed the game's algorithm. There is little doubt that the domestic T20 contests created a new and stronger revenue model for cricketing boards even as franchise contracts became worth more than national contracts to a number of players. As a consequence, a series of new T20 competitions made their way into the already hectic international schedule, adding to new fixtures. Look at the players who have been risking injuries and burnout while signing up for everything. Players, coaches and selectors think differently about how to achieve all-format success. Specialization is a natural corollary. Three teams have pursued a strategy of choosing players to suit the format much more clearly than the rest: West Indies, South Africa and Australia. 

With lesser number of Test matches being played, specialist batsmen and bowlers are getting systematically sidelined. It is tough for someone like Pujara to come back after a long gap and start playing big innings. The exposure he gets at the domestic level does not really add up to much since playing domestic cricket and international cricket are different ballgames. Recall that two years ago at the Wanderers in Johannesburg, he took 53 balls to open his mark. That's nine overs too many of a T20 where explosive batsmen can score 100 runs.

Cricketing boards should identify players who play exceptionally good Test cricket and allow them to play a few shorter version games in tournaments like IPL where there is scope in the initial matches. A long wait outside the team can make players rusty, drop confidence and short on dressing room camaraderie. Losing good players at the cost of revenue and what people perceive as popularity does not make for a great cricketing sense. But who will convince the cricket boards?