Rishabh Pant’s aggressive approach on day three of the Guwahati Test has sparked fierce debate, with the stand-in captain facing heavy criticism for throwing away his wicket when India desperately needed stability. While ex-cricketers blasted his shot selection, teammate Washington Sundar defended Pant’s intent, arguing that execution—not approach—was the issue.

India were staring down the barrel at 102 for four when Pant walked to the crease, trailing South Africa by 387 runs. The situation demanded grit, patience, and partnerships. Instead, Pant lasted just 11 balls, scoring seven runs before edging a rising Marco Jansen delivery to Kyle Verreynne behind the stumps.

​

The Dismissal That Sparked Outrage

Batting on seven, Pant attempted to take on Jansen’s short ball despite India’s precarious position. The ball climbed sharply off a good length—exploiting Jansen’s 6-foot-8 frame—and caught the edge, flying straight into the wicketkeeper’s gloves.

Former India wicketkeeper Saba Karim didn’t mince words: “The most disappointing was skipper Pant’s shot-selection and dismissal despite being well aware that the team is in doldrums. Knowing his responsibility, he should have shown more discipline”.

Pant compounded the error by reviewing the decision, wasting a referral when replays clearly showed the deflection. It was his second dismissal in the match—he would later perish for 13 in the second innings, caught at slip off Simon Harmer after the ball reared up unexpectedly.

​

Ashwin’s “Shocking Body Language” Post

Ravichandran Ashwin, watching from the sidelines, expressed dismay at the team’s approach on social media. “I really hope we can bounce back while batting in the 2nd innings, but the indications on the field with respect to body language,” Ashwin posted on X, hinting that energy and intent were missing.

​The comment was widely interpreted as a veiled criticism of Pant’s captaincy and the team’s overall mindset during the collapse.

Washington Sundar Defends Teammates

Amid the criticism, Washington Sundar—who top-scored with a fighting 48 off 92 balls—came to Pant’s defense at the post-day press conference.

“On another day, the bowlers would have gone into the stands, and all of us would have appreciated and clapped. That’s how it is. Sometimes you just have to back their plans and their skill sets as well,” Sundar said.

“Given the fact that they have shown a lot of proof and evidence in the past as well. I think it is just about them backing their skill sets. Obviously, execution didn’t go the way we wanted,” he added.

Sundar’s argument was clear: Pant’s aggressive approach has worked countless times before—most memorably during India’s historic series wins in Australia and England. The issue wasn’t intent but poor execution in a critical moment.

Jansen’s Perspective: “Could’ve Gone Fifty Rows Back”

Marco Jansen, who finished with match figures of 6 for 48, acknowledged that Pant’s shot could easily have succeeded on another day.

“It’s not that things will always be going your way. So there are times where Rishabh Pant would have hit that one fifty rows back, straight back over my head and then we would be having a different conversation,” Jansen said pragmatically.

​

The South African seamer had identified early in India’s innings that there was neither swing nor seam movement, forcing him to rely on bouncers. “When I got my first wicket—Dhruv Jurel—with a bouncer, we thought, ‘Okay, cool, let’s see how long this works.’ And it just did,” Jansen explained.

​

A Pattern Emerging?

Pant’s dismissal wasn’t an isolated incident. Dhruv Jurel (0) had fallen moments earlier, playing a needless pull shot off Jansen to mid-on. Sai Sudharsan was careless, and the pattern of reckless shot selection compounded India’s woes.

​

Out of Jansen’s six victims, five fell to short balls—a damning indictment of India’s inability to adjust their game plan despite the clear trap being set.

​

The Broader Context: India’s Home Collapse

The Guwahati dismissal is part of a worrying trend. Pant’s captaincy debut has coincided with India’s worst home Test season in living memory—five defeats in eight matches, including whitewashes by New Zealand (0-3) and South Africa (0-2).

While Pant’s attacking instincts make him a match-winner, there’s growing concern that his style doesn’t translate well to captaincy situations where responsibility and restraint are paramount.

Former players have questioned whether Pant has the temperament to lead, especially when the team needs him to bat time rather than entertain. His second-innings dismissal for 13—caught at slip after a ball spat from a good length—only added fuel to the fire.

​

Sundar’s Reality Check on the Pitch

Interestingly, Sundar dismissed suggestions that the pitch was unplayable. “It wasn’t a snake pit or whatever you may call it. It was a very good wicket. It was a true wicket. Not many days you will get to bat on such tracks, especially in India. Honestly, it is a true wicket. If you spend time there, runs are there for the taking,” he stated.

​

His assessment makes India’s collapse even harder to digest. South Africa posted 489 in their first innings, with Tristan Stubbs, Kyle Verreynne, and Marco Jansen all playing substantial knocks. If the pitch was “true” and runs were “there for the taking,” India’s 201 all out becomes a failure of application, not conditions.

The Fine Line Between Bravery and Recklessness

Pant’s career has been defined by audacious strokeplay that defies convention. His counterattacking knocks have won Tests in Australia, England, and at home. But captaincy adds another dimension—leading by example, reading match situations, and knowing when to attack and when to absorb pressure.

In Guwahati, trailing by nearly 400 runs with four wickets down, the situation screamed for caution. Pant’s decision to take on the short ball—knowing Jansen had already claimed Jurel with the same plan—reflected either a misjudgment of the match situation or an inability to rein in his natural instincts.

As India face an embarrassing home whitewash, the question isn’t whether Pant’s aggressive approach works—it’s whether he can calibrate it to the demands of captaincy and match context.