ENG vs IND: A big turning point came in the final overs of the first session of the Headingley Test when Rishabh Pant was dismissed by Josh Tongue. Pant looked very comfortable at that time. Although Shubman Gill and Karun Nair returned to the pavilion in quick succession, Pant did not give up his aggressive style. Ravindra Jadeja was at the crease with him, and it seemed that India had taken control of the situation.
Why did Rishabh Pant lose his wicket?
Shortly before lunch, a message was sent from the dressing room to the field, which reached Pant and Jadeja directly. A few minutes later, Pant's innings came to an end, and as if the script was already written, Shardul Thakur was also out in the last over. This entire incident raised many questions.
Dinesh Karthik, who was doing commentary, said, “Also very interesting, when a message was sent out to Rishabh Pant, it curbed his style of play. He was just very carefree with his stroke-making… I get the feeling that a message was sent to tell him to calm down, which doesn’t work for certain players, I guess."
Karthik also believed that for some players, the way of sending the message can be the most decisive. Pant scored 134 runs in this innings, but the manner in which he got out has become a topic of discussion.
“As a coach, it’s completely understandable when you want to get a message across to the batter. But over time, you realise, for certain players, how you send that message becomes very important. What is the tone? What language is used that gets the best out of the batter? Maybe with Rishabh Pant, it needs to be a different way in which you get things done,” he added.
Opinion:
If we look at the entire incident, it seems that the message that came from the dressing room broke Pant's rhythm. The style in which Pant plays is spontaneous, open and risky. As long as he plays freely, he dominates the bowling. There should be no dispute about the intention of sending the message—it could be strategic or even necessary, considering the situation of the match.
But the timing and effect of the message probably cost the team heavily. Pant's style of playing is not bound by any limits, and trying to stop him sometimes backfires. In coaching, it is important to have a different way of understanding each player. Interfering with the thinking of a player who plays spontaneously sometimes confuses him.
It seems that Pant was given a message to play cautiously till lunch, and this affected his decisions. The manner of his dismissal was telling that he had deviated a bit from his natural game. The team management may have taken a step with good intentions, but the result was the opposite. Such small twists in the match create a bigger picture later on.
