Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy: Just 54 runs! Shubman Gill’s record-breaking series tarnished by London Low only. Cricket news
New Delhi: India’s captain Shubman Gill finished the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy with a major heritage, which strengthens one of the best test series by an Indian batsman. In five tests, with an average of 83.78, Gill was not only the lead run-scorer of the series, but also the lead architect of India’s historic return.Live Score: India vs England 5th TestHis series included four centuries in 10 innings, an achievement only by Don Bradman and Sunil Gavaskar as captain in the same series. Gill also became the first captain to score four hundreds in his first Test series as a skipper. The 25 -year -old Gavaskar’s long -lasting record of 732 runs also broke as an Indian captain in the same series, setting against the West Indies in 1978.
Go beyond the border with our YouTube channel. Subscribe now!However, in a near-demerit campaign, a strange pattern emerged: Gill stumbled only in London.
Voting
What was the most impressive aspect of Shubman Gill’s performance in the test series?
At Lord’s and the Oval, Gill reads: 16, 6, 21, and 11 – A total of 54 runs in four innings at an average of 13.5. These were also the only matches where they failed to cross 50.Compare this that with the rest of the series – 700 runs in six innings outside London, an average of 87.5, 147, 8, 269, 161, 12 and 103 with scores, and vice versa is impossible to ignore.
Shubman Gill in Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy
- In London – 16, 6 (God) | 21 and 11 (Oval)
- Outside London – 147, 8 (Leeds) | 269, 161 (Birmingham) | 12 and 103 (Manchester)
Performing the tone in the first two tests, including a career-servation 269 in Birmingham, set the tone. He followed it with an important 103 in Manchester, helping India survive in a tough fourth test. But in both places in London, he looked far away from his fluent, falling quickly and cheaply.With 6000 international runs, now under his belt, including 18 centuries, Gill’s rise is invincible. Nevertheless, the question is – why did the situation of London make him better, while it was done elsewhere?
