Sharma and Pujara

Cheteshwar Pujara and Rohit Sharma disagree about how Test runs are made. In a Test match, the bowlers typically bowl to their field. Fields are set to test the batsman, to challenge both edges if the conditions permit it, or to kill the scoring. A good ball is one which forces the batsman to hit it to where the fielders are positioned. A bad ball is one which allows the batsman to hit it where there are no fielders. Sometimes, batsmen are good enough to convert a good ball into a bad one. For instance, Pujara steps out to Nathan Lyon and drives him through the covers.

The ability to hit the good ball for runs is much coveted in Test cricket. Only the very greatest players have it. Evidence of it is seen as a sign that a player is special. Bowlers would bowl at Tendulkar or Lara with three slips and two gullies, and the two could still square cut through that cordon because they got on top of the ball so well. Other batsmen are so confident of their capacity to clear the boundary that they’re prepared to loft the ball even if there is a fielder positioned on that boundary.

For the most part, good bowling in Test cricket entails bowling good balls, and forcing the batsman to hit good balls for runs (and take chances in the process) to maintain a healthy scoring rate. Sure, there are periods when the bowling side will engage in all out attack with six or seven catching fielders and the bowlers will bowl a very attacking length daring the batsmen to score boundaries and expecting to force a false shot (think Shubman Gill’s debut innings - a fullish length on the 5th stump with 1 fielder in front of square on the off-side and a five man cordon behind the wicket).

Rohit Sharma is always prepared to play his shots. Especially against the short stuff, he’s something of a compulsive hooker. To his credit, he’s very good at the stroke and can hit it down and well as for six. He plays the shot even when the field is set for it.

Here is where Pujara disagrees with Rohit Sharma. Pujara does not play a shot when the field is set for it. He prefers to wait for the ball which he can hit to places where there are no fielders. Against an attack like Australia, with four top class bowlers, that can be a long wait. But he’s prepared to wait. Rohit Sharma is not.

Rohit Sharma’s approach brings quicker runs and more risk. Cheteshwar Pujara’s approach brings slower runs and less risk. Against most opponents, there’s usually at least one bowler, if not two, who tend to make errors sufficiently frequently to keep Pujara’s scoring rate up. But this Australia are not most opponents.

Its not clear which approach is better. Rohit Sharma’s approach looks better while it is working, but his dismissals invariably appear to be terrible. Cheteshwar Pujara’s approach looks horribly crab like while it is working, and even when he top scores in the innings, it is said that the other batsmen suffered because of him!

If Australia attack Pujara more, it plays into his hands. That’s why Australia set out to restrict him. In Sharma’s case, Australia set traps - slips and two out for the hook - with the expectation that he’s going to play the shot no matter what. Against both players (or indeed, against any player), they are in control given the depth and quality of their attack.

This is why there will always been Test batsmen like Pujara and Test batsmen like Rohit Sharma. Pujara averages 48 in Test cricket. Rohit Sharma averages 46. Its not obvious that either approach is at a disadvantage.