Is it time for Rohit Sharma to pull out of the pull stroke?
4th March 2022, Mayank Agarwal and Rohit Sharma have resisted the Sri Lankan pressure for the opening 9 overs and look set for the long haul. The Indian captain, who has begun briskly, has produced a couple of sumptuous boundaries against Lahiru Kumara, who by the way, is the quickest bowler on display (from both sides).
Then, the 10th over dawns. Not much has changed for Rohit. He is still looking to take down Kumara and the latter, rather unsurprisingly, has decided to test out the middle of the track. The second ball is hurtled in at 149 km/hr. Rohit, though, doesn’t even bat an eyelid.
He sits back in his crease and thumps it in front of square – past mid-wicket for a majestic boundary. A ball later, Kumara amps up the temperature and sends down a 150 km/hr thunderbolt. Guess what, Rohit pulls him further in front of square – this time past mid-on.
As soon as the ball hits the fence, those at the stadium erupt in joy. Many, both at home and in the aisles, comment on how Rohit is born to play the pull and how no bowler should ever waste his time trying that tactic.
Kumara and Sri Lanka are a little more stubborn. The fourth ball of the over is bowled much fuller and outside off stump. That, however, is just a decoy. On the fifth ball, Kumara does what thousands of fans advised him not to do – pitch it short.
On this occasion, it leads to Rohit’s undoing. He shapes for the pull but with not enough room on offer, he only manages to shovel it straight down fine leg’s throat. All of a sudden, the shot, which he was born to play, becomes his kryptonite.
Some in the crowd shrug their shoulders. They know they’ve seen something unimaginable but also understand that they won’t see such sights often. In all likelihood, the next time someone pitches the ball short, the Indian captain will wallop it into the stands.
Others with a keener eye, however, point out that this has happened before. If anything, there is a sense of déjà vu involved. So much so that those following Rohit closely actually begin to wonder how long the Mumbai Indians captain can keep playing that shot, score runs but ultimately get dismissed.
As with most questions surrounding Indian cricket, a simple yes-or-no answer doesn’t exist. There are favourable arguments to support Rohit’s case and there are notions underlining why he should abandon that stroke completely. Almost all of them, though, rely on what the Indian skipper feels is his best way forward.
Rohit Sharma has fallen to the pull stroke a few times lately
Since the start of 2021, Rohit has been dismissed playing the pull shot numerous times. It happened in each Test during India’s tour to England, and was also prevalent when India battled Australia at the SCG (in early 2021). The worrying part is that he has gotten out in different ways.
He has been dismissed caught at fine leg. When that has happened, he has either not controlled his stroke or has just not gotten the requisite elevation to clear the sweeper on the fence.
But there have also been occasions when he has chosen the wrong delivery to pull – like it happened against Craig Overton at Headingley and Mark Wood at Lord’s.
Against Overton, the ball, which had reared up close to his right shoulder, cramped him for room and led to a tame dismissal at mid-on. Against Wood, the ball was too high for the stroke, meaning that he top edged it to deep square leg.
In the 4th Test against England, he went searching for a delivery that ought to have been punched off the back foot. The result, as you might have deciphered by now, was a top edge that was pouched by deep square leg.
The dismissal to Kumara at Mohali falls somewhere in between that spectrum. It was a quick delivery and was aimed at Rohit’s body. He was tucked up a touch but he still tried to swivel and hit it over fine leg. The extra pace, however, meant that he could only arrow it down to fine leg – thus, bringing another promising essay to a premature end.
For any other batter, the easy solution will be to stop playing the pull stroke, especially after getting out in a variety of manners. But this isn’t any ordinary batter. This is, in fact, a batter who regularly keeps reminding the cricketing community that he was, indeed, born to play this shot.
There isn’t a technical flaw in him attempting the pull. If anything, he has run out of luck when unfurling this stroke. Of the instances mentioned above, each could have fallen in no man’s land and it could have accorded Rohit the reprieve he craved. It didn’t, and it has since led to countless hours of introspection.
A case could be made that he is a slightly compulsive player of the pull/hook stroke. But he wouldn’t have scored half as many runs had he not batted in that fashion.
Fast bowlers bowl short to Rohit because he is so elegant on the front foot and can access a wide range of strokes. So, if he were to completely shelve the pull, it will prompt pacers to keep bowling back of a length deliveries, thereby curbing the run-flow that is pivotal to Rohit’s style of batting.
Hence, the answer to this particular quandary is not simple. If a pure recent risk analysis is conducted, it would be concluded that Rohit is getting out more frequently because of playing the pull.
Yet, if he were to pull out of the pull stroke altogether, he wouldn’t be as destructive a batter, and would most certainly not carry the aura that he does now. That shot, more than anything else, is a vital weapon in his arsenal and something that allows him to dictate proceedings.
Maybe then, the solution is for Rohit to do his thing and hope that the rub of the green turns his way at some point. On recent evidence, that might not make a lot of sense. But when the Indian captain rocks back, treats a 150 km/her delivery like a genuine loosener, it will start making much more sense.
This argument will seem absurd the next time he gets dismissed via that avenue. But cricket, or for that matter any sport, isn’t played without flirting with risk. And, over the years, Rohit has shown that this is a gamble definitely worth taking.