Disclaimer:
I used to be an avid cricket fan—until the day Hansie Cronje was found guilty of match-fixing. That moment shattered the sanctity of the game for me, and I stopped watching cricket altogether. Since then, I’ve stayed away. In fact, when I was invited to watch a World Cup match at a friend’s house last year, I could barely recognize two players out of the playing eleven. That should give you a sense of my current cricket knowledge.
The Rishab Pant Conundrum
“You’ve gotta watch Rishab Pant bat,” a friend told me recently, sending me a link to the highlights of the first Test match between India and England. I gave in, clicked the link, and ended up watching the entire highlight reel.
What I saw left me stunned. The way Test cricket is played today is unrecognizable from the game I once followed.
In this particular match, seven centuries were scored—five by India, two by England. Remarkably, two of India’s centuries came off the bat of Rishab Pant. And yet, India lost the match.
Let that sink in: India scored five centuries in a single Test and still ended up on the losing side. You can’t help but ask—what’s the point of scoring century after century if it doesn't help your team win?
Here’s the kicker: as of today, Rishab Pant has scored eight Test centuries, none of which have led to an Indian victory. That’s right—zero wins. Eight personal milestones that didn’t translate into team success.
So, What Went Wrong?
Let’s break it down:
-
Dropped Catches: India dropped eight catches. In Test cricket, that’s practically handing the opposition the match.
-
The Tail Woes: India’s tail was shorter than a Doberman’s. Across both innings, the tailenders managed fewer than 50 runs while losing 13 wickets. That’s simply not good enough.
-
Bowling Blues: India’s spearhead, Jasprit Bumrah, went wicketless on Day 5—against a side chasing 371 runs. That’s hard to digest.
-
Jadeja the All-Rounder?: Calling Ravindra Jadeja a Test all-rounder is becoming increasingly debatable. He may be useful in white-ball cricket, but in Tests, he’s more of a hit-or-miss player.
The Pant Problem
Despite all that, I’d argue that a critical turning point in the game was Rishab Pant’s over-aggressiveness—after reaching his centuries.
Anyone who’s played cricket knows that a 50 or 100 is just a milestone. The real job is to ensure your contribution helps the team win. Pant played aggressively, had his share of luck, and delivered two beautiful centuries. But once he reached those milestones, he failed to consolidate. He got out soon after in both innings, triggering collapses from the lower order. That’s where the match slipped away.
If he had just curbed his instincts a little, held the crease longer, and built partnerships with the tail, India might have been able to stretch the lead or build scoreboard pressure. Instead, both innings ended in a heap.
Centuries are great, but if they don’t help the team win, they’re like “a spare coffin at a Jewish funeral”—completely unnecessary.
Stats Don’t Lie
Here’s a comparison of the top ten Test century-makers and the percentage of their hundreds that led to victories. You’ve got to admire the Aussies. Their centuries usually count. They don’t waste them.
* not one of the top century hitter, but was included here to prove my point
Final Thoughts
Test cricket has changed. It’s faster, more dynamic, and sometimes, more reckless. But the essence remains: it's a team sport. Personal milestones are meaningless if they don’t contribute to team success.
Rishab Pant is a thrilling batsman—no doubt about that. But to become a truly great Test player, he’ll need to evolve from a showstopper to a match-winner.