How Hardik Pandya's twisted ankle helped India to get its selection right

Injury to all-rounder and vice-captain Hardik Pandya during the match against Bangladesh had an unfortunate impact. However, it did lead to some positive outcomes for the Indian team. The exclusion of paceman Mohammed Shami from the first XI, in favor of Shardul Thakur, was seen as a mistake by many. But it took Pandya's injury and his replacement by specialist batter Suryakumar Yadav to realize the weakness in the bowling lineup. As a result, Thakur had to be dropped.

In the absence of Shubman Gill, India had chosen Ishan Kishan for the opening game against Australia and played three spinners. However, in the next match against Afghanistan in Delhi, Ravichandran Ashwin was left out due to different playing conditions. This opened the door for Thakur to be included in the team. The decision to pick Thakur was driven by a fear of losing in ICC knockout games, which has made the team management overthink their strategy. Thakur was seen as a reliable option to handle middle-order collapses or any unforeseen circumstances during the game.

But was it necessary to compromise the quality of the bowling attack by selecting an insurance player? Resting one of the best bowlers, Shami, out of fear of an accident seemed unnecessary. Moreover, Thakur's limited contribution with both bat and ball meant that a valuable resource was not fully utilized. The defensive mindset behind picking Thakur could have been expressed in a more modern way, considering the team's requirements in a constantly changing environment.


It is understandable if the team management argued that Shami would have played in subsequent matches even if Pandya was not injured. This meant that the world-class batters and bowlers needed the cushion of early wins to be able to play Shami in matches that were not must-win situations, and a cushion of Thakur in the initial games. Pandya's injury forced the team management to rethink the playing XI. Otherwise, changing a winning combination would have been a difficult decision.

In the 2003 World Cup final in South Africa, three players, including Anil Kumble, did not get a chance to play. Dinesh Mongia, who was considered an all-rounder, was preferred over Kumble in the crucial match against Australia. India missed Kumble's experience and skill in that game. Comparatively, Thakur has proven to be a better wicket-taker than Mongia. Rohit Sharma jokingly referred to Thakur as a player for big matches after India's victory over New Zealand. However, it is unlikely that Thakur will replace Shami in the current team based on his recent performances.