Manjrekar leaves Rohit out of all-time Indian batting greats debate

Sanjay Manjrekar has stated that Rohit Sharma does not fit into an all-time list of Indian batting greats, citing the opener’s Test record as the key factor. While acknowledging the batter’s accomplishments in limited-overs cricket, the view is poised to trigger conversation among fans and analysts about how greatness is defined across formats.

Manjrekar’s stance and the Test benchmark

Manjrekar’s position hinges on the primacy of Test cricket as a yardstick for batting greatness. By excluding Rohit Sharma from an all-time Indian list, he has explicitly pointed to the player’s Test record as the decisive criterion. The statement underscores a widely held belief in cricket circles that the longest format provides the most exacting examination of technique, temperament, and adaptability. Such evaluations often weigh sustained performance under varying conditions and opposition. In this framework, even a highly accomplished limited-overs batter may face scrutiny if Test returns are perceived as comparatively modest, reinforcing the idea that all-time lists are shaped by strict, format-specific benchmarks.

Limited-overs pedigree versus red-ball credentials

While Manjrekar’s appraisal cites Test record, the acknowledgement of Rohit Sharma’s limited-overs success remains an important part of the discourse. White-ball cricket, with its tactical demands and pressure scenarios, has its own metrics of excellence, from consistent scoring to match-defining contributions. Public perception often places significant weight on achievements in high-visibility limited-overs events, yet all-time evaluations that foreground Test pedigree can yield different outcomes. This contrast highlights the ongoing challenge of comparing performances across formats, where criteria can diverge sharply and where individual strengths may not translate evenly between red-ball and white-ball contexts.

What defines an all-time Indian batting great?

The debate touches on fundamental questions about selection standards for an all-time list. Common considerations include longevity, sustained impact, adaptability to conditions, and the ability to shape results against strong opposition. When Test cricket is treated as the ultimate proving ground, the emphasis tends to fall on consistency over long periods, resilience in challenging environments, and the breadth of contributions across roles and situations. Alternate frameworks might give more parity to multi-format impact, potentially altering who features in such lists. Manjrekar’s view, anchored in Test assessment, spotlights how weighting criteria can significantly shift the composition of any all-time lineup.

Potential reactions and evolving conversation

The assertion is likely to energise discussion among fans and experts, especially given Rohit Sharma’s standing in limited-overs cricket. Debates may centre on whether Test performance should overshadow accomplishments in shorter formats, and how modern multi-format demands complicate comparisons with earlier eras. Supporters of a Test-first approach may argue for strict benchmarks, while others might advocate a more balanced lens that recognises limited-overs influence on contemporary cricket. As conversations unfold, they may refine the criteria for such lists, clarifying what qualities are indispensable for inclusion and how context, format, and role shape the notion of batting greatness in India.