Analyzing why these 4 Indian athletes are more hype than substance

There has been some criticism on X regarding the four athletes mentioned in the article ‘4 Indian athletes whose careers have been more hype than substance so far.’ Here is a more detailed analysis of the article and its claims.

India is the most populated country in the world with 1.4 billion people, and has one of the top 5 economies, and the fastest growing major economy in the world. In its entire Olympic history from 1900 to 2024, India has won 41 medals including 10 Gold, 10 Silver, and 21 Bronze.

The nation ranks 60th in the all-time Olympic table, which is not good for a country with the population and economic size of India. The government has expressed ambitions of making India a sporting superpower and is set to bid for the 2036 Olympics. If we want to get India to the top 10 of the medal tally of the 2036 Olympics, we need to create more athletes with a Gold medal winning potential.

A Gold-winning potential is required as an athlete who aims for Gold has more likelihood of winning Silver and Bronze at least, whereas if we just target the Olympic podium (as the present policy is doing) in hopes of getting at least a Bronze, the likelihood of Bronze also decreases because there is more competition worldwide capable of winning Bronze than there is of winning Gold.

In the article mentioned before the athletes were called ‘more hype than substance’ because though they are very good compared to Indian peers they are not the best globally. It is uncertain if they will even reach the individual podium in the 2028 Olympics leave alone win Gold. The case of cricketer Shubman Gill is also similar.

So, if India as a nation wants to get closer to global standards in sport, we need to analyze our better athletes more critically apart from implementing more systemic changes. The intention is not to dismiss these athletes and their achievements. It is to motivate them- and younger Indian athletes- to aim for even bigger goals.

4. Shubman Gill

The hype around Shubman Gill is because of his young age, ODI average of nearly 60 and strike rate of nearly 100 after 55 innings and status as the No.1 Batsman in the ICC ODI rankings. It is expected that he will continue the legacy of Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma in the ODI team.

The ICC ODI Batsman rankings take into consideration the runs scored, strike rate, quality of opposition bowling attack and match conditions and assign rating points to the batsmen. They have an emphasis on recent form. At present as the No. 1 ODI batsman, Gill has rating points of 784. His best ever rating is 847.

Historically, the best ODI batsmen have consistently maintained rating points of 850+ at their peak and the very best have breached 900. The best Indian batsmen Sachin Tendulkar and Kohli both breached 850 points by the time they were 25-26, and maintained these levels for years while they also had notable performances in Tests and T20s (for Kohli).

Gill came close with 847 in 2023 but has dropped down to roughly the level of 770-830 over the last 18 months. These 18 months also coincided with two ICC ODI tournaments (2023 World Cup and 2025 Champions Trophy).

In these two tournaments Gill generally had a supporting role while the top-order heavy lifting was done by Kohli and Rohit. Only one match winning innings stands out, against Bangladesh in the 2025 CT. In knockout matches he scored an unbeaten 80 vs New Zealand in the 2023 WC SF.

Now while Gill did suffer from dengue just prior to the 2023 World Cup, he was declared medically fit to play. There is also not a big difference in performance between a recovering-from-dengue Gill in 2023 and fully-fit Gill of CT 2025.

One of the possible reasons why Gill has not breached 850 is because he has not regularly faced the best quality bowlers. Most of his runs have come in high-scoring bilateral in India where the quality of opposition bowling is not the highest as the top teams give more importance to ICC events than to bilateral. 

In ICC tournaments Gill has scored 542 runs from 14 matches at an average of 45, which is good but less than his career average of 60. In contrast, Gill’s contemporary, Rachin Ravindra, of New Zealand, who also bats at the top-order like Gill, has scored 841 runs from 15 matches at an average of 65, which is more than his career average of 44. 

Gill also had more familiarity with the sub-continent conditions than Ravindra. If the ICC rating formula is applied to both Gill and Ravindra for only these 15 matches it is highly likely Gill’s rating points would be good but not exceptional while Rachin’s will be among the highest in the tournaments.

This shows that Gill’s big match temperament has room for improvement. Now, top teams like Australia, New Zealand and England consider Test matches to be more prestigious than bilateral ODIs. The quality of bowling will be higher in an average Test than ODI, especially with the WTC cycle.

In Tests Gill’s current rating of 631 and peak rating of 701 is just above-average, as is his Test average of 35 in 32 Tests. He scored a 91 in the 2021 Gabba Test but has not had any exceptional performance since then. It is likely that he has technical deficiencies in his batting that need to be rectified. 

Another young Indian batsman Yashasvi Jaiswal has a peak rating of 854 and current rating of 847. He scored 700+ runs in the 2024 England series and also scored a 161 in the BGT Perth Test. He has scored almost the same number of runs in fewer matches than Gill at an average of 52 and has a better average in SENA countries than Gill. 

Jaiswal has played just one ODI. However, given his good strike rate in Tests and T20s, it is likely he will adjust well to the format. Yet another young batsman Harry Brook of England has a peak Test rating of 898 and current rating of 876.

Hype claim: If the hype parameter around Gill is that he is a ‘good young Indian ODI batsman’ then his hype = substance.

But if the hype claim around Gill is that ‘he is the next Virat Kohli’ or ‘he is the best young batsman in the world’ (as the original article stated), then it seems his hype is more than substance as Kohli had a better Test, ODI and T20 record than Gill, even at a younger age. Moreover, the likes of Ravindra and Jaiswal are better than Gill at the moment among young batsmen especially in clutch situations.

At 25, Gill has plenty of time to turn things around. It is not necessary that his career trajectory will follow the same path as other greats. The talented batsman has shown enough potential and his elegant batting has also been admired.

But his present-day abilities should also not be exaggerated to project that he will reach the levels of Kohli and Rohit Sharma in all formats. It is because, at this moment, his Test performance is not extraordinary. Moreover, in the ODIs, he has not been tested enough in tough situations while he remains unselected for T20Is.

TLDR version: Gill’s career trajectory so far does not suggest he will become an all-format great like Virat Kohli (Rachin Ravindra and Yashasvi Jaiswal have stronger claims to that), but has time to improve in his technique and temperament to turn things around.

3. Lakshya Sen

Since 2021, an unofficial ’Fab Four’ has emerged in MS badminton with Kunlavut Vitidsarn, Kodai Naraoka, Lakshya Sen and Li Shifeng. All of them are the same age, representing the new age badminton stars.

Lakshya, who has been hailed as a special talent from a young age, was the first Indian male shuttler to make it to the Olympic semifinals which is a great achievement. Sen also has a Thomas Cup Gold and a World Championship Bronze. However all three of the ‘Fab Four’ other than Sen have a better record in tournaments like World Championships and/or Asian Games.

Vitidsarn and Naraoka have WCH Gold and Silver, Li has the Asiad Gold. All three other than Lakshya have won at least one BWF Super 750 tournament or better, while Lakshya has been inconsistent in these tournaments.

Lakshya holds a negative H2H against everyone other than Li. Then, there are others like Lin Chun Yi, against whom Lakshya has a negative H2H. There is Alex Lanier who is younger to Lakshya, and has won a Super 750 title.

It is not as if Lakshya has proven himself as clutch given his fourth place finish at the Paris Olympics, which elicited criticism from his mentor Prakash Padukone.

Saina Nehwal won BWF Super 1000 titles early in her career, PV Sindhu distinguished herself in World Championships and later the 2016 Olympics, and Kidambi Srikanth won the China Open in 2014. Every player’s career trajectory is different and Lakshya can very well start notching up big wins soon.

But if Sen is targeting a Gold at the 2028 Olympics, he will have the challenge of facing the above mentioned player plus the likes of Lee Zii Jia, Shi Yuqi, Andreas Antonsen, the Popov brothers, Jonathan Christie, and Viktor Axelsen if fit.

So far, Lakshya has not distinguished himself ahead of his contemporaries. Sen has not won the biggest individual titles, has not reached the WCH finals, and has not proven himself as clutch. As such, he is not a Gold medal favorite for either the WCH or if the 2028 Olympics were to be held tomorrow.

Things can change and Lakshya is still 24, but he will have to develop more ruthlessness in attack if he wants to challenge the best.

Hype claim: If the hype around Lakshya is that he is ‘a good MS player’ or ‘he is the best MS player in India currently’ then hype = substance.

But if the hype around Lakshya Sen is that he is a ‘potential World or Olympic Champion,’ then perhaps the hype is excessive given that he has not proven himself as better to the competition so far. Now, this is not meant as negative criticism of Lakshya.

Indian badminton at present is in a mess and systemic changes are required to develop a stronger team and ease the pressure off Sen. But so far, the talented athlete as an individual has also not done enough to raise the profile of Indian badminton as past Indian singles stars had done and as Prakash Padukone mentioned. He still has time and will have to work harder to live up to his potential.

2. Nikhat Zareen

Nikhat Zareen has won 2 WCH titles and has a Commonwealth Games Gold and an Asiad Bronze. She had an impressive run of wins prior to the Paris Olympics. After all, her run was ended in the Round of 16 as she had the bad luck of facing Wu Yu, currently the best boxer in her weight class and eventual Gold winner.

However both of Nikhat’s WCH titles and most of her 24-4 wins prior to the Olympics were not against the best opponents in her weight class. From 2019 to just prior to Paris 2024 she had a record of 5-3 against the top 9 flyweight boxers. Out of the nine, 8 of them made it to the 2024 quarter finals.

She had not faced Wu, Aira Villegas, and Pihla Kaivo-oja before despite her WCH titles. The problem in Zareen’s career so far is that she had a high number of bouts and wins against opponents who did not qualify for the Paris Olympics or were knocked out early. Against better quality opponents she was 5-3 which is good but not spectacularly so.

In big tournaments she was 2-0 in WCH (Valencia, Raksat) and 0-1 in Asiad (Raksat), which is 2-1. So, against 5 of the top 9 opponents other than Wu at Paris, she did not have a H2H or any other advantage. There is no evidence that she could have defeated them with more than a 50% probability. 

She did have an advantage against 3 opponents. So, the chances of her reaching the semifinals were roughly 50% even if she did not have the bad luck of facing Wu. This shows that she was a contender, but not among the elite.

It is too early to predict 2028 but so far she hasn’t faced the likes of Meiyi Hu (the Chinese Champion) and Pang Chol Mi (the 2025 IBA World Champion). Nikhat Zareen is a world class boxer, the second-best ever from India after Mary Kom. Her hype has been because of her inspirational life story and being a very good boxer with 2 WCH titles.

Hype claim: If the hype parameter around Nikhat is that ‘she is a very good Indian boxer’ then hype = substance.

But if the claim is that ‘she is a potential Olympic finalist’ then the hype appears excessive as her career has not had the trajectory of the likes of Nicola Adams, Ren Cancan, or Wu.

Now international boxing has had an overhaul though the boxing federation in India is in a mess. It remains to be seen how Nikhat navigates the new scenario. Nikhat Zareen is a medal contender for 2028 if she improves her skills and fitness.

1. Deepika Kumari and the Indian archery team

Both Deepika Kumari and Indian recurve archers in general have every trait required to win an Olympic medal – talent, technique, physical stamina. However these traits are only visible in non-Olympic tournaments and non-WCH finals.

During high pressure situations, the Indian archers either start faltering in their technique, or misjudge the wind, or get intimidated by high scores set by their opponent. This has been a recurring occurrence since 2012. 

Deepika as the most experienced archer in India has not managed to develop ‘clutchness’ despite having competed in many World Championships and Olympics and despite knowing the importance of mental conditioning.

Deepika has been the best archer from India, and Indian archers in general have won countless medals internationally. However, they have never won a WCH Gold or an Olympic medal; while countries such as Australia, Turkey, Russia, Netherlands, Mexico, and Italy have all won such medals.

Hype claim: If the hype claim around Deepika and the team is that ‘they have raised the profile of Indian archery internationally’ then hype = substance.

But if the hype claim is that ‘they are potential Olympic finalists’ then hype is excessive given their poor clutchness attribute for more than a decade. 

Conclusion 

The point is to not to criticize these athletes or their achievements. The point is to show that they have not yet reached the elite levels of their sport despite showing talent and potential from a very young age (all of them have excellent records as Youths and Juniors).

They are still young and still have time for course correction as Rohit Sharma and Manu Bhaker have done before them. There are systemic issues in many Indian federations, but many other Indians in the past have risen above these problems. The best example is Neeraj Chopra and various badminton stars over the decades.

We are not in the era of before the 2010 Commonwealth Games; Indian athletes receive better facilities than they did in the past decades. We need to start having more expectations from athletes and sport federations if we want to host the 2036 Olympics.