Virat Kohli will miss the remaining three test matches in the Australia-India series. Photo / Getty Images
Cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar has named his own country for allowing Virat Kohli to miss the remaining three test matches in the Australia-India series to attend the birth of his first child while asking other players who have not yet met his newborn daughter to take charge of netball.
Gavaskar, the record-opener who missed the birth of his son Rohan while on tour of New Zealand in 1976, went offensive in the column for Sportstar after India’s defeat in the first test in Adelaide.
He questions why Kohli left while fast bowler Thangarasu Natarajan remains separated from his family.
Princess Natarajan was born while she was playing for the Sunrisers Hyderabad in the Indian Premier League, which was held in the United Arab Emirates from September to November due to the Covid-19 lockdown in India.
He was mentioned in the party on the India tour to Australia and traveled directly to Sydney from the T20 tournament. After making an impressive impact in the visitors’ 2-1 T20 win, Gavaskar said Natarajan was asked to stay for the test series.
“But not as part of the team but as a net bowler,” wrote Gavaskar. “Imagine. A match winner, albeit in another format, is asked to be a net bowler. Thus, he will return home only after the draw ends in the third week of January and be able to see his daughter for the first time. And there is a captain who returns after the first test for the birth of her first child.
“It’s Indian cricket. Different rules for different people.”
Gavaskar’s stance divided opinion in India.
“The reason Kohli is different from Natarajan is because the former has the power of advertisers, the freedom to set the rules at the BCCI, the compliant BCCI admin, the troll army of social media, and the media that sucks access to him. The latter has a Yorker,” wrote author Arnab Ray.
“Disagree with Gavaskar. Nobody forced Natarajan into the net. He realized it was a stepping stone for him. Kohli decided to return was a personal choice. Cricket was his profession, part of life, not his whole life. If it made him unfit to play, then Of course, fire him, “replied columnist Kartikeya Tanna.
Gavaskar is also aiming for the shortage of safety star Ravi Ashwin has experienced during his testing career despite his world-class production at home and away.
Ashwin took 4-55 and 1-16 in the first test to make his career tally to 370 test wickets with a 25 average.
“Ashwin has suffered too long not because of his bowling skills that only rude people would doubt, but because of his honesty and expressing his thoughts at meetings where most people just nodded despite their disapproval,” Gavaskar wrote.
“Any other country will welcome a bowler who has more than 350 test wickets and also doesn’t forget four centuries of trial matches. However, if Ashwin doesn’t take that many goals in one game, he is always absent for the next game. That doesn’t happen to the batsmen. established. Even if they fail at one game they get another chance and another and another but to Ashwin the rules seem different. “