 "Ex-Pakistan Cricketer Weighs In On Rohit Sharma’s Comments Post WTC Final")
After Team India lost to Australia in the World Test Championship (WTC) final, Indian captain Rohit Sharma spoke about the scheduling and a few other issues that ignited debates on social media. Apart from the scheduling, Rohit also shared his views on the concept of a three-Test series for the WTC final. He believed that competing over three Tests would be more suitable after the extensive hard work and two years of effort put in to reach the final. Rohit also emphasised that June should not be the only month for playing the WTC final, adding that the match could be hosted anywhere in the world, not just in England.
One of the key points Rohit spoke on was Shubman Gill's contentious dismissal on Day 4. He expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of camera angles shown during the match and drew a comparison to the Indian Premier League (IPL), which employs 10 different angles for reviewing decisions. Rohit questioned why an international event like the World Test Championship final did not utilise advanced technologies such as ultra motion or zoomed images.
Former Pakistan wicketkeeper-batter Rashid Latif offered his perspective on Rohit's statements, interpreting them as indirect criticism directed at the International Cricket Council (ICC). According to Latif, Rohit's remarks were aimed at questioning the decisions made by the ICC.
Latif shared his views on his official YouTube channel, stating, "He asked the ICC directly. 'Why in June?' I had said the same thing earlier. And why only in England? Who was he telling all this to? ICC, of course."
Latif believed that Rohit's comments about Shubman Gill's dismissal and the insufficient camera angles were also intended to challenge the ICC. He speculated on a potential conflict between the ICC and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) behind the scenes, mentioning the reported 38.5 percent increase in the BCCI's share of ICC earnings. Latif questioned the source of the report and suspected a conflict of interest, suggesting that it might have influenced the information presented.
Newsletter
