India's Harshit Rana, Zaheer Khan and England's Michael Vaughan.
India's Harshit Rana, Zaheer Khan and England's Michael Vaughan. Image Credit: X

There was so much scrutiny around India’s move to bring Harshit Rana as the concussion substitute for Shivam Dube during the fourth T20I against England in Pune, as the opponent captain, Jos Buttler, reckoned that they didn’t agree with the decision. Buttler informed me to have a word later with the match referee to know the definition of a like-for-like replacement.

India struggled with the bat, losing three wickets in the first two overs before being stabbed at 79/5 in the 11th over. But Dube, who returned to the national side after nearly six months, drilled a fine knock of 53 runs in 34 balls. Hardik Pandya also contributed with 53 runs in 30 balls to push them to 181/9 in their allotted 20 overs.

England made a cracking start with 62 runs in the powerplay for the loss of Ben Duckett. But they lost their path from that position, as India’s spinners trapped the middle order batters to celebrate a 15-run victory.

Also Read: India’s Assistant Coach Provides Massive Update On Rinku Singh’s Availability In Ind vs Eng T20Is

The former England captain, Michael Vaughan, questioned how the match officials allowed Rana to replace Dube, who was never going to bowl four overs in India’s defense.

“We had plenty of ebbs and flows. We had some quality cricket and not some good cricket. But I have to say about the substitute. How did they find Harshit Rana as the like-for-like replacement of Shivam Dube? It’s beyond me. He got 3/33 in four overs and the key wickets at the right time. They didn’t play the leg spinners well enough, and that’s an area that England will have to be better off. But you can’t tell me that Rana was a like-for-like replacement for Dube.” Vaughan mentioned on Cricbuzz.

Micheal Vaughan and Zaher Khan laud India’s debutant Harshit Rana

India’s former left-arm pacer, Zaheer Khan, decoded the law and felt it was within the right of the referee to deny the nominated player.

“Let’s just decode the law. The team is within their right to nominate a player, and obviously, India went with Rana, knowing that he would go through his four overs. He can bat a bit, but when you look at it, it’s not a like-for-like replacement.” Zaheer expressed during the same discussion.

“There is no doubt about it. Ramandeep might have been the option. It’s the match referee’s role to deny a nominated player if they don’t suit the criteria, and so you would need to suggest another player’s name.” The veteran elaborated that Ramandeep Singh could have been the best option to replace.

Vaugh remarked that had Dube bowled four overs during England’s chase, the visitors would have easily reached the target.

“Can I ask who is the match referee? So it’s Javagal Srinath, and he decided that Shivam Dube would have bowled four overs. I can guarantee you if he would have bowled four overs, England would have chased the target down.” Vaughan claimed.

However, both of them praised Rana for his incredible bowling and how he built the pressure with wickets at the crucial points to break the partnership.

Also Read: Bangladesh Premier League (BPL 2025) Under Fixing Scanner; 10 Players, 4 Franchises Being Investigated- Report

“This is a very interesting way to make your debut. You didn’t get the cap; you are not prepared, and halfway through the game, you got to know the situation.” Zaheer Khan highlighted.

“If you take away the controversial part of the substitution, then he bowled brilliantly. He varied his pace, and with those 11 dots, he built pressure. The three wickets in that period were vital, especially when the partnership was growing. Things were going nice for England.” Michael Vaughan concluded.

The last T20I of the five-match series will be played at the Eden Gardens in Kolkata.