In a candid and thought-provoking analysis, former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar has reignited the debate surrounding Virat Kohli’s decision to step away from Test cricket. Manjrekar’s comments, made on his Instagram account, surfaced as England’s Joe Root continued his red-ball dominance by smashing his 41st Test century, prompting a stark comparison between the two batting titans.

Kohli, once an integral part of the revered ‘Fab 4’ alongside Root, Steve Smith, and Kane Williamson, remains the only member of this elite quartet to have quit the longest format. Manjrekar explicitly questioned Kohli’s choice, suggesting he ‘walked away’ instead of ‘fixing his flaws’ during a challenging five-year period where his Test average dipped to 31. This critique is particularly pointed given Kohli’s continued presence in One Day International (ODI) cricket, which Manjrekar controversially labelled the ‘easiest format’ for top-order batters.

The ‘Fab 4’ Divide: A Divergent Path

The ‘Fab 4’ was a moniker bestowed upon a generation of batsmen who dominated all three formats, particularly Test cricket, with their consistency and prolific run-scoring. Each possessed a unique style, yet shared a common hunger for big hundreds and a seemingly insatiable desire to conquer the toughest challenges the game offered. While Root, Smith, and Williamson continue to etch their names deeper into Test cricket history, Kohli’s departure from the format in January 2022 marked a significant deviation from this shared trajectory.

Manjrekar’s disappointment stems from this divergence. He lamented that while Root, Smith, and Williamson are ‘really making a name for themselves in Test Cricket,’ Kohli chose a different path. This isn’t just about individual statistics; it’s about the broader narrative of commitment to the ultimate test of cricketing skill and temperament. For many purists, Test cricket remains the benchmark, and a player of Kohli’s calibre stepping away, especially after a period of struggle, naturally invites scrutiny.

Manjrekar’s Core Argument: Quitting vs. Fixing Flaws

The crux of Manjrekar’s critique lies in his belief that Kohli ‘didn’t quite put his heart and soul into finding out the problems’ during his five-year Test slump. Acknowledging that the specifics of what Kohli ‘could have done’ are ‘for another time,’ Manjrekar’s primary concern is the perceived lack of resolve to overcome his red-ball challenges.

His sentiment is encapsulated in the statement: ‘He’s walked away from Tests, and it’s unfortunate that in the five years that he struggled before retiring, he didn’t quite put his heart and soul into finding out the problems as to why he was averaging 31 for five years in Tests.’ This suggests a profound belief that a player of Kohli’s stature should have exhausted every avenue to reclaim his Test form, rather than concluding his journey in the format.

The ‘Easiest Format’ Controversy: ODIs Under Scrutiny

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of Manjrekar’s commentary is his characterization of ODI cricket as the ‘easiest format’ for top-order batters. He clarified his stance, stating he wouldn’t have had an issue ‘if Kohli had quit all three forms of the game.’ However, the fact that Kohli ‘chose to stick with the easiest format ODIs but refused to fix the mistakes he was making in red-ball cricket baffled him.’

This claim challenges the prevailing view that modern ODI cricket, with its demands for rapid scoring, innovative shot-making, and consistent strike rotation, presents its own unique set of pressures. While the technical demands of facing a red ball over five days are arguably greater, the psychological and strategic complexities of ODIs, particularly in high-stakes tournaments, cannot be understated. Batters must balance aggression with stability, adapt to changing field restrictions, and maintain intensity for extended periods. To label it ‘easiest’ might diminish the achievements of those who excel in it, including Kohli himself, who boasts an exceptional ODI record.

Test Cricket: The Ultimate Examination

Manjrekar’s hierarchical view of formats places Test cricket firmly at the top as ‘the format that really tests you.’ He concedes that ‘T20 cricket has its different challenges,’ but his focus remains on the purity and unforgiving nature of the longest form. Test cricket demands relentless concentration, technical precision against a moving ball, patience, and the ability to adapt to varying conditions and match situations over an extended duration. It tests a player’s character as much as their skill, often pushing individuals to their physical and mental limits.

This perspective resonates with many traditionalists who believe that a player’s true measure is taken in Test cricket. The implication is that by choosing to step away, Kohli deprived himself – and fans – of the opportunity to witness a legendary comeback in the format he once dominated and passionately championed as captain.

Could Kohli Have Fought On? The Path Not Taken

Manjrekar also pondered the alternative paths Kohli could have explored, given his ‘supremely fit’ physique. He suggested Kohli ‘could have maybe continued his fight, you know, to get back into form, even if he was left out of a series, he could have maybe gone down to first-class cricket, played in Australia, England, more matches in India, tried to make another comeback.’

This suggestion highlights a time-honoured method for seasoned professionals to rediscover form – returning to the domestic circuit. Historically, many top cricketers, when facing a slump, have gone back to their roots, played first-class matches, tinkered with their technique, and rebuilt their confidence away from the intense international glare. Players like Sachin Tendulkar, during certain phases, utilized domestic cricket to fine-tune their game. For a player of Kohli’s stature, a stint in the Ranji Trophy or even a county cricket season could have provided the much-needed match practice and mental reset to conquer his red-ball demons.

However, the decision to retire is deeply personal and often influenced by a myriad of factors, including mental fatigue, the desire to prolong a white-ball career, and the sheer pressure of maintaining elite standards across all formats. For Kohli, who had also relinquished his Test captaincy prior to his retirement from the format, the weight of expectation was immense.

Legacy and Disappointment

Manjrekar concluded his video by reiterating his ‘disappointment and a little bit of sadness’ whenever he sees Root, Smith, or Williamson scoring big runs. ‘Because he cared so much for Test Cricket, didn’t he?’ Manjrekar remarked, touching upon Kohli’s visible passion and commitment to the format during his captaincy tenure.

This sentiment is likely shared by many fans who admired Kohli’s fiery intensity and his instrumental role in making India a formidable Test team, particularly overseas. His legacy as a Test captain and batsman is undeniably strong, but Manjrekar’s comments hint at a lingering sense that there could have been more, that a chapter was closed prematurely.

The debate around Virat Kohli’s Test retirement underscores the complex interplay of personal choice, performance pressure, and the enduring value placed on Test cricket. While Manjrekar’s views are pointed, they reflect a traditionalist perspective that views Test cricket as the ultimate crucible, and a player of Kohli’s stature as someone who should have endured every trial to excel in it. As the ‘Fab 4’ continues to evolve, Kohli’s path will remain a fascinating, albeit contentious, part of his illustrious career narrative.

---

Disclaimer: Cricket Mantra aggregates breaking cricket news from multiple reputable sources, enriching them with in-depth analysis and expert commentary to provide comprehensive coverage for our readers.