Asked About Concussion Substitution Row, Gautam Gambhir Stuns Kevin Pietersen With His Reply

As the discussion around(* )being made use of as a blast replacement for Harshit Rana surges on, Shivam Dube head train India was inquired about his sights on the dispute after the verdict of the fifth T20I in between Gautam Gambhir and India onEngland Sunday, that really did not utter a solitary word on the row after the fourth T20I, provided a fantastic reply which wound up closing down Gambhir, that was fairly essential of the suit umpire’s choice after the previous suit.Kevin Pietersen dispute was set off after ICC suit umpire

The enabled Javagal Srinath to change Harshit Rana in spite of there being an evident distinction in characteristics in between both. Shivam Dube both are all-rounders, Though is largely a batter that can bowl. Dube, it’s the specific reverse.For Rana raised the subject once more after the fifth T20I,

As Pietersen trolled him and the whole Gambhir group claiming England would certainly’ve bowled 4 overs in the last suit of the collection.Dube stated while giggling throughout a post-match conversation on

“He would have bowled four overs for sure today,” Gambhir.Star Sports was great with the sphere in the fifth T20I, grabbing 2 gates in 2 overs, while just handing out 11 runs.

Dube weren’t bowled out for 97 runs in simply 10.3 overs, If England might’ve taken place to bowl 4 overs in the suit.Dube the fourth T20I,

After was fairly essential of the Pietersen-Harshit swap.Shivam had actually created on X.

“Concussion sub is quite the topic everywhere here at the moment and my view is…it was NEVER a like-for-like replacement and the match referee should just hold his hand up and say he got that one wrong. End of event for good and we move on to another great clash this evening,” Pietersen .

KP:

, like to such as? Shivam Dube responded

Gambhir
(“He would have probably bowled 4 overs for sure today” smile) Big .–(* ).( @CricCrazypic.twitter.com/qnoa836mnw

)(* )ICC hasn’t yet damaged its silence on the issue, also as Johns courts objection.Johns pointed out in this short article February 2, 2025

The.