Ravindra Jadeja’s unbeaten 61 in Lord’s 2025 thriller earns praise
Jadeja’s Grit vs. Kumble’s Critique: A Test Match Debate Ignites

The dust has hardly had time to settle on India's gut-wrenching 22-run loss to England in the third Test at Lord's, but the cricket fraternity is already active with analysis and debate. At the center of this post-mortem is Ravindra Jadeja's courageous, unbeaten 61 – an innings that took India tantalizingly close to an unlikely win.

Kumble Questions Jadeja’s Tactical Call

Jadeja came in with India struggling at 82 for 7, needing to chase a modest but tricky 193. What then ensued was a masterclass in grit, as he guided the tail, scoring valuable runs along with Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj.

His 181-ball watch, adorned with rugged defense and timely boundaries, kept India's hopes alive late in the final session on Day 5. The stand for the last two wickets stretched the game, putting enormous pressure on England and compared to some of Test cricket's most iconic rearguard performances.

Nevertheless, in spite of the praise showered universally on Jadeja's heroic efforts, Anil Kumble, during an interview on JioHotstar, presented a balanced, if somewhat challenging, view on the matter.

Kumble said that while he admitted to the brilliance of the innings of Jadeja, he reprimanded a very pertinent strategic decision which he felt may have actually cost India the game.

Kumble Criticizes Jadeja’s Late-Innings Risk Strategy

“If a risk was to be taken and exited, it should have been Jadeja, not Siraj,” said Kumble, remembering when Mohammed Siraj was given a full over by off-spinner Shoaib Bashir with just 23 runs needed to win.

Siraj was dismissed trying to survive the over and that left Jadeja stranded 22 runs short of victory. “Giving a full over to Bashir at this stage was a mistake,” Kumble lamented.

Anil Kumble drew parallels between India’s recent narrow loss to England and their 1999 defeat to Pakistan, recalling the fine margins that define Test cricket. Reflecting on Ravindra Jadeja’s approach, Kumble suggested the all-rounder could have taken more calculated risks earlier in his innings.

He particularly pointed out opportunities against England’s slower bowlers like Woakes, Root, and Bashir. He implied that a slightly more aggressive strategy might have changed the outcome in India’s favor.

“The pitch wasn't turning square. Jadeja had the ability to go after them. That could've changed things,” he opined. He emphasized that while Jadeja rightly declined some singles to protect the tailenders, there were opportunities to accelerate.

Gavaskar, Gill Defend Jadeja Amid Strategic Criticism

This evaluation has sparked a fiery controversy. A lot of fans and retired cricketers, such as Sunil Gavaskar and current skipper Shubman Gill, have come to the defense of Jadeja. Gavaskar opined that Jadeja's game plan was conditioned by the situation, playing with lower-order batsmen and looking to farm the strike.

Gill seconded this, describing Jadeja as one of the side's 'most valuable players' and indicating India's strategy was to forge pressure with smaller partnerships and, perhaps, make it to the second new ball.

In fact, Jadeja's batting performance in the series has been outstanding, with 327 runs at 109.00 from six innings, including four half-centuries. His twin fifties at Lord's made him just the second Indian after Vinoo Mankad to have done it there.

Hero or Villain: Did Jadeja Miscalculate the Chase?

Lord’s 2025 has been described as a 'great advertisement for Test cricket' as both sides battled tooth and nail. Though Jadeja's grit certainly averted a far greater loss and provided hope, Kumble's judgment remains a reminder of the nuances that can make a difference between winning and losing a match.

Was Jadeja being ultra-cautious, or was he playing the only innings possible under the circumstances? The matter of whether Ravindra Jadeja was finally a hero who battled bravely, or a villain whose strategic decision proved to be the cause of loss, continues to be a matter of passionate debate.