By Rohit - Aug 12, 2025 04:36 PM
Not everyone is on board with how the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is handling the workload of injury-prone fast bowler Jasprit Bumrah. The Indian team management stuck to their pre-decided plan of resting Bumrah for two out of the five Tests in England. This meant that the pace spearhead missed the final Test of the series, even though the result was on the line.
India eventually drew the five-match series 2-2, winning both the matches in which the senior pacer was rested. The 31-year-old Bumrah played in three Tests, taking 14 wickets at an average of 26. In contrast, Mohammed Siraj featured in all five Tests and was one of only two fast bowlers, along with England’s Chris Woakes, to play every game of the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. However, Woakes injured his shoulder on the opening day of the fifth Test and did not bowl again in that match.
The management’s decision to rest Bumrah was influenced by his history of back injuries, the most recent of which sidelined him for nearly two months after playing all five Tests of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy in Australia. This cautious approach, however, hasn’t sat well with everyone in the cricket fraternity.
Former India cricketer and chief selector Sandeep Patil has voiced strong criticism, questioning why BCCI decisions seem to be driven by the recommendations of the team physio.
“I wonder how the BCCI is agreeing to all this. Is the physio more important than the captain or the head coach? What about selectors? Are we to expect that the physio will be sitting in selection committee meetings now? Will he decide?” – Sandeep Patil
Patil drew comparisons to his playing days, pointing out that legends like Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev never complained about workload despite long and demanding careers.
Patil labelled modern workload management as “nonsense”, insisting that a player is either fit or unfit. He stressed that during his tenure as chief selector, such considerations never dictated team selection.
“Modern-day players have all the facilities. We did not have such rehab programmes in our playing days. At times, we played despite injuries. We were happy playing for the country… no naatak (drama).”
The comments have reignited debates in cricket circles about whether workload management is genuinely protecting players or unnecessarily keeping them out of crucial matches.
Give Your Feedback