In the second T20I match between India and South Africa on November 10, 2024, Hardik Pandya, India’s all-rounder, was subjected to a significant amount of criticism from fans and cricket experts following his slow and cautious innings. This was despite his valiant attempt to stabilize India’s innings after a dramatic collapse. The match, played in Gqeberha, saw India struggling at 45/4 when Pandya walked in to bat, with the top order failing miserably under the pressure of South Africa’s disciplined bowling attack.
Abhishek Sharma, who had been enduring a poor run of form, once again disappointed fans by getting dismissed for a mere 4 runs off 5 balls against Gerald Coetzee. His wicket, which was a result of a poor shot choice, was the first of a series of early collapses that left India in deep trouble during the powerplay. Along with Abhishek, two other key players—Sanju Samson and Suryakumar Yadav—fell cheaply for ducks and single-digit scores, respectively, leaving the team in disarray. In fact, India’s position was looking increasingly dire as they found themselves at 45/4 in just the 8th over.
This early collapse meant that Pandya was now tasked with not just rebuilding the innings, but also ensuring that India didn’t suffer a total collapse. The pressure was on him to turn things around and provide a foundation for the team to post a competitive total. As expected, Pandya, known for his explosive batting, curbed his natural aggressive intent, given the fragile state of the Indian innings. His knock of 39* off 45 balls, though steady, was far from the aggressive innings expected from a T20I match. He managed to hold the innings together, but was unable to provide the late acceleration typically seen in the format. This led to widespread disappointment, as fans expected Pandya to shift gears and take the game to South Africa in the final overs.
Despite his best efforts, Pandya could not break free from the shackles, and his lack of aggression in the latter stages of the innings was seen by many as a major letdown. Fans took to social media, particularly X (formerly Twitter), to express their displeasure with Pandya's approach, with some comparing his innings to that of a Test match rather than a fast-paced T20I. In T20 cricket, where quick runs are crucial in the final overs, a knock that lingers for too long and lacks boundaries is often seen as a failure to capitalize on scoring opportunities. While Pandya did his part in preventing a complete collapse, his inability to accelerate left India with a total of only 124 runs after 20 overs—hardly a competitive score, especially in a T20 match.
However, it is important to note that Pandya’s situation was not easy. He walked in during the 8th over, with the team reeling at 45/4, and there was an immediate need to stabilize the innings. The match was no longer about playing an aggressive, attacking brand of cricket. It was about keeping the scoreboard ticking, playing for survival, and ensuring India didn’t lose further wickets. It is in such pressure-filled moments that players often have to adapt and sometimes play out of character. Pandya’s approach might have seemed too slow for the fans, but his role was crucial in giving India a semblance of stability. Without his innings, India could have been bundled out much earlier.
Earlier in the game, India’s top-order struggles were visible as Abhishek Sharma's dismissals showed the fragility of the batting lineup. His poor shot selection against Coetzee, which led to his dismissal, was a turning point in the innings. The crowd and fans criticized Abhishek for failing to get going once again, highlighting his poor form. Similarly, Sanju Samson’s unfortunate golden duck, followed by Suryakumar Yadav’s departure for just 4 runs, left India in serious trouble. Tilak Varma did show some resistance, scoring 20 runs, but his wicket was also claimed by Aiden Markram, which meant that India had lost half of their team before reaching the 10th over.
Pandya, when he came in, had no choice but to play a more measured role to ensure that India didn’t lose all their wickets. His experience and composure allowed him to calm the nerves, but his inability to accelerate and lead India to a higher score was a point of contention. With the team already struggling, the lack of firepower in the middle order, especially from Pandya, meant that India ended up with a modest total. In hindsight, while it’s easy to criticize Pandya for not taking the game on, the role he played in steadying the innings should not be undermined. His performance, though far from explosive, was integral in keeping India from suffering an even greater collapse.
The performance highlighted India’s ongoing issues with the middle order and the lack of support for the top order in crucial matches. The early wickets and the inability to accelerate in the latter stages of the innings were the key factors in India’s downfall in the second T20I against South Africa. In the end, while Pandya did his best to stabilize the innings, his cautious approach left India with too little to defend, and the criticism he faced from fans was reflective of the high expectations placed on him as an all-rounder in a T20 format. Nonetheless, his performance showed the complexities of batting under pressure in a T20I match, where sometimes, survival becomes more important than aggressive play.
