India vs Australia: Ravindra Jadeja ruled out of T20 series; Shardul Thakur named as replacement

India vs Australia: Ravindra Jadeja ruled out of T20 series; Shardul Thakur named as replacement

Ravindra Jadeja

Ravindra Jadeja

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have announced that Ravindra Jadeja has been ruled out of the remainder of the T20I series against Australia. Jadeja played a crucial knock of 44 runs off 23 balls today but suffered from a hamstring injury and a concussion scare. He was replaced by ‘concussion substitute’ Yuzvendra Chahal who went on to pick up 3 wickets and bag the Man of the Match award.

Following the conclusion of the 1st T20I, reports from Cribuzz stated that according to sources from the Indian camp, Jadeja’s hamstring looks ‘worrying’ and ‘not good’. With Jadeja now being ruled out of the T20I series, there are lingering doubts over whether he will take part in the Test series which if he doesn’t will be a big blow to India’s hopes of winning especially given the fact that Virat Kohli will leave for India after the first match.

Shardul Thakur named replacement

The BCCI released a statement confirming that Ravindra Jadeja will not take further part in the T20I series. They also named Shardul Thakur who picked up 3 wickets in the 3rd ODI against Australia which India won as a replacement. The official statement read, “Ravindra Jadeja sustained a concussion after being hit on the left side of his forehead in the final over of the first innings of the first T20I against Australia in Canberra on 4th December 2020.

The diagnosis was confirmed based on a clinical assessment in the dressing room during the innings break by the BCCI Medical Team. Jadeja remains under observation and will be taken for further scans if required based on the assessment on Saturday morning. He will not take any further part in the ongoing T20I series.”

More confirmation on whether or not Ravindra Jadeja will play a part in the Test series is awaited.

Also Read: India vs Australia: Moises Henriques questions whether concussion substitution was ‘like for like’