The BCCI has commenced preparations for the ODI World Cup 2023 by compiling a list of 20 possible participants. Kris Srikkanth, on the other hand, thinks that Shubman Gill and Shardul Thakur won’t make the cut.
Fans, past cricketers, and analysts have already begun naming players they hope to see in the 2022 ODI World Cup squad. All corners of the Indian cricketing spectrum are hard at work trying to guess which 20 players will make the BCCI’s shortlist. When it comes to the players that “won’t be” on the team, however, former India star and top selector Kris Srikkanth is certain of one name.
On the Star Sports program “Cricket Ka Mahakumbh,” Srikkanth discussed which players on the BCCI’s roster he would cut and which he would keep, as well as who he thought could help India win games at the 2023 World Cup.
During our conversation, he mentioned not including Shubman Gill or Shardul Thakur on his ODI World Cup roster.
“Notably absent from my roster are Shubhman Gill and Shardul Thakur. Bumrah, Umran Malik, Arshdeep Singh, and Mohammad Siraj would be my recommended medium pacers. You only need four medium pacers at most. If Shami were to be mediocre, “His words.
Srikkanth added that the Indian squad needs players who can win matches single-handedly, like “Yusuf Pathan,” despite the fact that such players tend to be erratic. In Srikkanth’s estimation, Rishabh Pant fits this description.
“As chairman of selectors and not a fan, I would rather have Hooda join the team. Also, they are the players who will be most successful on the field. If you want to win matches, you need players who can beat them on their own, like Yusuf Pathan. You only need them to win three of the ten matches for it to be a success. Do not count on any sort of reliability from these performers. Do not count on Rishabh Pant, a player in this current squad, to be reliable. I’m not looking for reliability; if these men can win games single-handedly, that’s all I care about. Who will help you with that? Count on Rishabh Pant to do that for you “His claim was categorical.
