Cricketing Civil War: Rishabh Pant's 'percentage cricket' uproar exposes ambivalence, hypocrisy and stubbornness

In the finals of the 2007 T20 World Cup at the Wanderers in Johannesburg, Pakistan's Misbah-ul-Haq tried to play a scoop shot in the last over in an attempt to go over short fine leg, and win his side the game against India. The consequences of that ill-fated attempt are being debated to this day, echoing as a warning for those who try to attempt the same, but does it hold any relevance in this day and age? No.

Back then, such audacious attempts were unheard of, and were far from routine. But 17 years later, it is not only an important facet in the game, but also a part of batters' core arsenal. Unorthodox shots like the ramp, scoop, lap, and sweeps, were once deployed to throw the bowlers off their rhythm or manipulate the fields, now it is flexed by batters just because they can, and to some degree, have to at times.

Take sweeps and reverse sweeps for instance. Earlier it was a one-off shot to target the area behind square on the leg side. Now, without it, one won't be in the squad for a series in the subcontinent.

There were dirty looks and ugly words from the traditionalists when the unorthodox shots' uncommon traits began to vanish, and started creeping into the purest format of them all. Bazball has facilitated, and normalized the existence of such shots in Tests too.

While teams around the world have become increasingly accepting of the risks and rewards associated with such shots, there is still a lot of resistance towards it from the majority of the cricketing fraternity.

At the end of the day, a batter's role is to find ways to score runs off the bowlers, whether it is left or right side of the pitch, or front or back of the stumps. To each his own.

Rishabh Pant divided the cricketing fraternity into two with a single-stroke

Rishabh Pant has been India's flag bearer in introducing an unorthodox style of play, at least in Tests. So, it is futile to expect normalcy from a candidate who has shown so little of it, but has delivered results with that particular approach.

But, a section of the cricketing legion were not in a forgiving stance when the left-handed batter's audacious scoop shot off Scott Boland, caught the outside edge, and found Nathan Lyon in the deep. Sunil Gavaskar's rant on air set the tone for the rest to pile on.

Soon, factions began to form, with a vast majority of the fans, and the likes of Damien Fleming, and Mark Waugh agreeing that it was a questionable and poor shot at that particular juncture. However, Pant found support from the rest, including figures like Michael Vaughan, Ravi Shastri, and Michael Hussey, who backed the natural instinct.

So, is this a straightforward black-and-white prospect or just one of the many gray area situations that cricket is muddled with, in a confusing time amid a transition in mindset and approach? The outrage that ensued is not just a civil war between the traditionalists and the modernists, it is also one between stubbornness and acceptance.

Is there a right way to get out?

If the odds of nicking one to slips, and botching a scoop shot is more or less the same, then is there any point fuming over any one of those? Aside from literally unplayable deliveries, batters are always at fault for their dismissals in varying degree, and chastising them for each one of them would be a colossal waste of time.

The way Pant bats, he looks uncomfortable at comfort at times, and vice-versa, which makes all modes of dismissals likely, irrespective of whether he is attacking or defending.

During the second Test in Adelaide, when India were placed at 128-5 while trying to chip away Australia's lead, Pant edged a routine Starc delivery to slips off the very first over of the day. There was rightly no overreaction in that case, but why this time around just because it was a different stroke?

In the same innings of the second Test, Pant had stepped down the track to hit Scott Boland over mid-off off the very first ball to get off the mark when India were 66-3 under the lights against the pink ball. On that occasion, although it was unorthodox, it was branded as 'counter-attack', 'display of intent', 'trying to ignite momentum', and 'relieving pressure'.

It is unfair to change opinion based on the result under different circumstances, when the same principle is involved in such cases. For a viewer or a pundit, there might be a difference between a traditional slog and an unconventional ramp or scoop shot, but there is none for Pant. If a batter is adept at something, and fails while attempting it, it is questionable to call him out for that.

If it is in his arc, he will go for it, regardless of the situation and condition. It is this innate self-backing that has bailed India out of trouble on numerous occasions, and to turn your back on it at this stage does not make much sense.

Revered when it comes off, lambasted when it doesn't

The morning of the Boxing Day Test saw the cricketing world swoon in response to Sam Konstas' 'confidence'. The youngster took on Jasprit Bumrah in a fashion that was deemed unfathomable, and was hailed for the same. The ramp shots, reverse laps, and full-blooded strokes was accepted as part of the rookie's natural game.

But there are bound to be instances when it will not pay off. It is to be noted that his first couple of attempts when awry, and the very same people who hailed him would have chastised him had any one of those miscued attempts led to his dismissal.

Pant is no stranger to that feeling. Since his very first outing, he has implied that he has no fear, and will continue to bat in the manner that he seems fit, irrespective of people's opinions. He obviously also has the management's backing to go out and play in such a manner.

Cricket, much like other sports, and other endeavors in life, is completely results-based. All of Pant's fancy shots have been classified as innovative and several more adjectives, but only when it pays off, when the benefits of it are there to be seen.

The fickle nature of punditry has been enhanced, given how unpredictable cricket is. It is high time that the community understands that there will be cases where unorthodox strokes will not pay off, but that is not incentive enough for batters to stop going for it.

Situation and conditions remains the biggest factors as accountability cannot be left ignored

More than the nature of the stroke, the situation in which Pant chose to play was arguably more scrutinized. With India still a fair way away from Australia's first-innings score, and with only young all-rounders to follow, perhaps a bit more accountability and responsibility was desired from Pant in that particular scenario.

However, more importantly than the scenario, it is the conditions favor that have not been stressed enough. Instead of the shot selection, the reason behind the shot selection needs to be raised.

Execution-wise it is pretty clear what such shots bring, in some instances, it works, and sometimes it does not, there is not much control over that, no matter how accomplished the player is, and that is completely natural. However, there should be a good enough reason to play it, and 'just because I can', is sometimes not a satisfactory one.

In some cases, especially when the bowlers are in great rhythm, or there is a run-flow choke, or when stuck in a rut, these shots are a great way of unsettling a bowler among other benefits.

However, when there are so many run-making options on offer in the conventional sense, that too on a relatively harmless Day 3 MCG track, the need for such a stroke is disputable. Pant was coasting along well, balancing caution and aggression, and had built a decent enough start to build an innings.

All said and done, Pant is not among those who will die wondering. It will hardly be a surprise if he attempts the shot in the second innings too, and if he fumbles that, then he will go again even then, because that is who he is.