Ex-India cricketer Surinder Khanna expressed his thoughts on India’s disappointing defeat by 184 runs to Australia in the 4th test of the Border-Gavaskar series on Monday in Melbourne. Although Khanna commended Yashasvi Jaiswal’s batting, he disapproved of his dismissal and the team’s performance, likening it to Sunil Gavaskar’s view on contentious dismissals. “Jaiswal was the only one who really batted; the others just kept coming and going,” Khanna noted, highlighting Jaiswal’s exceptional display amid the team’s difficulties.
Khanna explored the contentious dismissal of Jaiswal, emphasizing the impact of technology and the importance of player integrity in the sport.
The umpire initially ruled him not out. The bowling team made a referral. In the referral, a snickometer is present, and according to Sunil Gavaskar, it shows no deflection; however, to the naked eye, a difference of 15 to 17 degrees is visible. Following the impact with the gloves, the ball lost speed, prompting wicketkeeper Alex Carey to leap forward to catch it. The square leg umpire was uncertain if the catch had been taken cleanly. “Technically, the snickometer showed no deflection, but speaking as a keeper, I would argue it made contact with his gloves,” he stated.
Khanna likened this scenario to the conduct of past cricketers, saying, “In the past, players such as Gilchrist would leave the field, but today’s young players like Jaiswal don’t walk away.” He claims he didn’t touch it, yet it was obvious that he did. Gavaskar states that if the snickometer indicates no deflection, then it’s not out. He never left when he used to take it. I told him once that I have seen you out 15 times behind the stumps, yet you were declared out only four times. What about the remaining 11 instances? He would often joke and mention that when I was not dismissed, umpires did declare me out on occasion. That’s the reason I never turned away. Is this a response? “This is not the correct thing.”
Khanna voiced worries regarding how such choices affect the game, especially for bowlers, stating, “If we touched it, then we simply left because it’s disheartening when a bowler dismisses you and the umpire doesn’t recognize it.” He continues to make a century, and the bowler is removed from the team. When you have a bowler of Gavaskar’s caliber, he will likely secure 4-5 additional wickets. In a similar way, if you dismiss Jaiswal, the others are already struggling with their form. Thus, a single decision can have a significant impact, yet if we focus on technical aspects, Sunny bhai is right; however, what about that enormous deflection?
He went on, “The following batter who arrived and received a pad, he also disagreed and claimed that the ball is rising. I can perceive it distinctly since I have played as a wicketkeeper. The boy understood that the ball was struck by the glove. He is untruthful.
Khanna also commended the Australian team for their performance, while criticizing India’s fielding, “Australians displayed exceptional cricket. We needed to survive a day, roughly 77 overs or around 80, but we failed to do so. The openers and top-order batsmen establish the mood. When I began watching, it was the 30th over, and at that point, they had scored 29 runs.
Reflecting on lost chances, he remarked, “Australians escaped punishment when they were 60/6.” They ought to have been removed for 80-85, but the missed catches harmed us. Jaiswal alone dropped three. Clear opportunities. You can’t miss easy catches like that, and we suffered greatly because of it.”
Surinder Khanna’s observations emphasize the pivotal moments and choices that shaped the match’s result, showcasing the narrow distinctions that differentiate winning from losing in Test cricket.
