Sunil Gavaskar refuses giving credit to Gautam Gambhir for India's aggressive batting approach in Tests, calls it…

Legendary India batter Sunil Gavaskar believes the aggressive approach shown by the batters in securing a remarkable seven-wicket win over Bangladesh in the rain-hit second Test at Kanpur should be named after skipper Rohit Sharma.

Despite the rain and wet outfield washing out two days of action at the Green Park Stadium, India came out all guns blazing in their first innings with the bat by setting new records for the fastest 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 scores in the longer format, before declaring at 285/9. They then chased down 95 in 17.2 to complete a blazing win and seal the series 2-0.

“As seen in India last year, this approach doesn’t work in Test matches and may surprise the opposition for a game or two at best. While one paper called the Indian batting “Bossball” because the captain or “boss” of the team, Rohit, had shown the way, some from the old powers referred to it as “Gamball” after the Indian coach, Gautam Gambhir.”

“While the England batting approach changed completely under the new regime of Ben Stokes and McCullum, we have seen over the last couple of years that Rohit has been batting like this and encouraging his team to do so as well. Gambhir has only been coaching for a couple of months, so attributing this approach to him is foot-licking of the highest quality.”

“Gambhir himself hardly ever batted in this fashion like McCullum used to do. If any credit is due, it is solely to Rohit and nobody else. Instead of using the words this-ball or that-ball, I would suggest using the skipper’s first name, Rohit, and term it the “Gohit” approach. Hopefully, brainier people will come up with a trendier name for this rather than the lazy option of calling it after “Bazball”,” wrote Gavaskar in his column for Sportstar on Monday.

He also wondered if India had batted in the same manner when Test matches weren’t worth World Test Championship points, with the top two teams from the current cycle to play the final at Lord’s next year.

“That day’s batting set the game up for India to secure a win on the final day and earn the much-needed points required to be in the race for a place in the World Test Championship (WTC) finals in June next year.”

“Would this approach have been adopted if there were no points on offer and no qualification needed for the WTC final? Having lost two full days of play, with the team batting first still having seven wickets in hand, not many teams in the past would have even looked at a result and would have been content to play out the remaining two days for personal records and milestones.”

“So, full marks to the ICC for creating the World Test Championship and thereby making every Test match, including a dead rubber, important for the points teams can accrue from them. Every Test match thus has context and has livened up the long format, with teams wanting a win and looking to make things happen by trying something new and innovative.

“However refreshing and thrilling the Indian batting was in the Kanpur Test match, let’s face it: would they have batted in the same manner if there were no points on offer? The much-maligned ICC deserves every bit of applause for changing the perception towards every Test match by creating the World Test Championship. India knows they have tough games ahead, and thus they had to try and secure maximum points while playing in India,” elaborated Gavaskar.

The next challenge for table-toppers India will come from New Zealand, who will play a three-match Test series here from October 16 to November 5 in Bengaluru, Pune and Mumbai. “Bangladesh is done and dusted, and now it’s the Kiwis who will be in the firing line of Rohit and his boys. Will they overpower them as they did Bangladesh? We shall soon find out,” concluded Gavaskar.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by DNA staff and is published from IANS)

The DNA app is now available for download on the Google Play Store. Please download the app and share your feedback with us.