‘We Typically Sacrifice A Lesser…’: Rohit Sharma Delivered Brutal KL Rahul Message After Melbourne Blunder

Rohit Sharma’s poor run with the bat continued because the Indian captain was dismissed for a paltry 3 runs in Melbourne. In reply to Australia’s 474, India ended day 2 with 164 runs on the board and have a mountain to climb on the third day.

India pulled off a miraculous attract Brisbane, and the stakes have at all times been excessive coming to the fourth Check at MCG. Within the earlier two Check matches, Rohit had opted to bat at quantity six, with KL Rahul most well-liked within the opening slot alongside Yashasvi Jaiswal.

However in Melbourne, in a bid to resurrect his kind Rohit determined to return to opening with Rahul shifted to quantity three. However the transfer didn’t repay because the 37 yr previous managed to face simply 5 balls earlier than Pat Cummins received the higher of him.

Sanjay Manjrekar criticised Rohit’s resolution to open the innings as he feels it was mistaken to maneuver KL Rahul out of the opening slot regardless of his constant efficiency within the Border Gavaskar Trophy.

In an interplay with ESPN Cricinfo, the previous Indian cricketer stated, “That is one thing that occurs quite a bit within the Indian cricket tradition. There’s a big-name participant, simply to get him on observe, we frequently sacrifice a lesser or a smaller identify and it doesn’t ever make cricketing logic or it’s by no means finest for the staff.

“KL Rahul has been their most constant batter. He stitched a document partnership in Australia with Yashasvi Jaiswal. Simply because Rohit Sharma is out of shape and is a senior participant, simply to get him again into kind and provides him one thing totally different, you possibly can’t be making these sorts of adjustments.

“That simply displays poorly on Indian cricket as to what’s a precedence for Indian cricket and it’s occurred previously as nicely with Tendulkar. That simply wasn’t the best name and KL Rahul, though didn’t get too affected by it, was simply unfair.”