Sunil Gavaskar’s recent comments about Australian fast bowler Josh Hazlewood have sparked controversy, with former Australia cricketer Mitchell Johnson accusing the legendary Indian opener of trying to “distract, disrupt, and annoy” Hazlewood during a crucial Test series. Gavaskar, known for his outspoken views, had questioned Hazlewood’s fitness and performance after a few inconsistent displays in recent matches, suggesting that the bowler may not be at his best.
Source:- bbc news
Johnson, a former pacer with Australia, responded strongly to these remarks, stating that Gavaskar’s criticism was unnecessary and disrespectful to Hazlewood. He pointed out that Hazlewood had been a key player for Australia for many years and his contributions to the team should not be undermined by such comments. Johnson also suggested that the timing of Gavaskar’s remarks, during a high-stakes series, was intended to create a psychological pressure on Hazlewood and disrupt the Australian camp.
Source:- news 18
The exchange has brought the spotlight onto the tension between former players’ analysis and their impact on current players. While Gavaskar’s comments were seen by some as part of his critical role in offering insights, others felt it crossed the line into unnecessary provocation.
Hazlewood, who has been one of Australia’s most reliable bowlers in recent years, has faced his share of injuries and setbacks, but his resilience has been widely acknowledged. As the series continues, the focus is now on how Hazlewood responds to the external pressure and whether his performances will prove the critics wrong.
This latest exchange highlights the fine line between constructive criticism and disruptive commentary, with both sides of the debate passionately defending their positions.
Share your views in the comments
