Is Rohit Sharma serious about Test cricket?

I know I shouldn't make assumptions but Sheldon Jackson is the least Indian-sounding name I have ever heard :silly: I just looked him up - a first class average of almost 50 from over 72 matches and yet he's never played test cricket?!? On paper he's more deserving than guys like Rahul, Raina and M Vijay.

Arnab, you keep saying it was Rohit’s decision to play in the IPL, but I suggest that was not the case? Rohit does not chose the team and who ever selected the side to include him, must have sought medical advice and Sharma was given the all clear to play. You cannot be sure Pollard would have won the IPL without Sharma but obviously the selectors thought they needed him to win, so they included him. As for whats happened since, it’s farcical for sure, but again I think the BCCI is at fault, because they should have been managing all aspects of Sharma’s injury, including the communication about his fitness. He’s a contracted Indian player, therefore the BCCI should be managing him. That they’ve chosen to allow others do so simply adds another layer of confusion. Have a look at the Roar story today where Virat Kohli talks about the confusion around Rohit. This simply supports what I’m saying.

I really can't see shaw making any runs. Gill yes so even so they would have needed Rohit to bat 4 after Adelaide. Instead will probably be Rahul failing again

No he is not. I agree with Mr. Brian that modern and upcoming players will choose IPL over test cricket, which worries me. Rohit should stick to short format instead of trying to sail on two boats and losing both in the process.

Arnab, this piece reads like an extension of some of the comments I've seen that were posted on social media. You posed the question "why did Rohit Sharma decide to play in the IPL when he wasn’t fully fit?" Without providing any evidence, you then decided it was all his fault, "For Rohit Sharma to have played in the IPL when he wasn’t fully fit was nothing but recklessness" First of all, who decided Sharoma was fit enough to play in the IPL? He must have been getting constant medical advice and if the medicos decided he was fit enough to play, then that decision was effectively taken out of his hands. Second, how many players carry all sorts of injuries into all sorts of games? I'd reckon in any starting XI, the majority would have some injury that makes them less than 100% fit. Again, if the medical staff think they're okay to play, they do so, especially if they're captaining a side. That's not recklessness, that's simply the way it is. Finally, how much communication has there been ( or not been), between Sharma, the BCCI, the medical staff at both the IPL and Indian Accademy, Ravi Shastri and Sourav Ganguly? Precious little, from what I can make out. When you throw in the 14 day quarantine and all of the above, I think it's wrong to blame Rohit Sharma. The BCCI has made a dogs breakfast of something that should have been quite simple, just as they've done with Ishant Sharma, who we were told was a certainty to play in the Tests by Rahul Dravid.

The whole Rohit injury debacle has been confusing and misleading to say the least. It seems that Rohit, Ravi Shastri and the BCCI are all on different wavelengths, and there's so much being said and done that's contradictory, that I think nobody really knows what's happening. Rohit certainly didn't need to play in the IPL, Pollard was exceptional as a captain and there were so many solid players backing up his position, yet while Rohit was initially excluded from the India squad, he continued to play. No idea what's happening there. In terms of his output in Australia, it would be a fantastic chance for Shaw or even Gill to barge the door down and become a regular, long-term opener. I hope they can do what Agarwal did 2 years ago and impress, to nail down the spot (although as an Aussie fan I also kinda hope they all get out cheaply). If Gill or Shaw perform well in the first 2 games, Rohit might not even get a look in.

Yeah, sort of anything can happen with a D/N.

Rohit not being available is a good thing for India. He averages 26 away from home in Test cricket. He's a fantastic white ball cricketer, but is very average in the longer form.

Hi average is inflated by a few amazing series in India. He's averaged 30+ in fewer than half the series he's played in, and only twice outside of the subcontinent.

All depends on that 1st Test. Being D/N there should be a result. If Australia win then Kohli leaves and the whole thing goes 3-1, 3-0 or 4-0 but if India win it I think they are favourites to retain the border-gavaskar trophy for which they only need a draw.

Agree with what you say, but I'd expect that Cricket Aus will be laying out the red carpet (flat batting - run feast wickets) for India as they subserviently do.

As he'd been around for so long and didn't seem to feature in the Test side that frequently (confirmed by the fact that in seven years, he's played only 32 tests, while most other regular players in the test side have played at least 50 and probably close to 70 odd tests in that period), I was shocked to see that he averages 46 in Test Cricket. Once Kohli goes, India is going to be light on in the batting department. Agarwal has a great average, but it's from a small sample size of only 11 games and the other openers are mere babies. They'll be leaning on Pujara heavily, because after that (without Kohli), you got Rahane, but he has been out of sorts for a bit now and I really don't rate anyone else we're likely to see. Hopefully one (or both) of their openers play well and we get a real contest.

Sharma's test record is ordinary. His record in Australia is shocking. India surely aren't missing his services.

Its time to accept that players will prioiritise IPL over Test Cricket. Especially someone like Rohit who is more suited ot the shorter format. If I was to question the BCCI it would be over Ishant. Surely the planning could have been better so he was fit for this tour.