No One Is Bigger Than Cricket, Says Manoj Tiwary

In the ever-evolving world of cricket, where individual brilliance often captivates fans and dominates headlines, a stark reminder has emerged that the sport itself reigns supreme. Former Indian cricketer Manoj Tiwary recently stirred discussions by asserting that no player, regardless of their stature, is bigger than the game. His comments, directed at stars like Virat Kohli, Jasprit Bumrah, and Rohit Sharma, came in the wake of India’s 2025 Test series against England. Tiwary’s perspective highlights a growing debate on player selection, workload management, and the depth of talent in Indian cricket. This article delves into the controversy, Tiwary’s pointed views, and the broader implications for the team’s future, emphasizing that cricket’s integrity and team ethos must always take precedence over individual egos or reputations.

The Indian cricket team has long been a powerhouse, boasting a roster of world-class players who have redefined the game. However, the recent series in England exposed fissures in strategy and selection that Tiwary believes could have been avoided. As India prepares for upcoming challenges like the Asia Cup 2025, these insights offer valuable lessons on balancing star power with collective success. Tiwary’s words serve as a call to action for selectors and management to prioritize the game’s sanctity, ensuring that decisions are made with long-term sustainability in mind rather than short-term gains.

Jasprit Bumrah, India’s premier fast bowler, has been a linchpin in the team’s bowling attack since his debut. His unique action, lethal yorkers, and ability to swing the ball both ways have made him indispensable across formats. Yet, during the five-Test series against England in 2025, Bumrah’s participation became a flashpoint for controversy. Prior to the tour, he informed the team management that he would only be available for three matches to manage his workload, a decision rooted in his history of injuries, including a back spasm sustained during the previous series against Australia.

Bumrah ultimately featured in the first, third, and fourth Tests, sitting out the second and fifth. The irony was palpable: India lost two of the three games he played, with the third ending in a draw, while triumphing in both matches he missed. This outcome fueled widespread criticism from fans and pundits alike, who accused him of “picking and choosing” appearances. Social media erupted with trolls questioning his commitment, and former players weighed in, amplifying the debate on whether such selective participation undermines team morale and strategy.

Tiwary, known for his forthright opinions during his playing days and now as a commentator, did not mince words. He argued that if a player knows beforehand they cannot endure an entire series, they should not be selected at all. This stance challenges the modern approach to player management, where rest and rotation are increasingly common to prevent burnout in a packed international calendar. Bumrah’s case is particularly instructive because of his stellar performance in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy against Australia earlier, where he claimed 32 wickets at an average of 13.06 across all five Tests—proving his capability when fully fit.

However, the England series highlighted potential pitfalls. India’s bowling unit, without Bumrah in two games, relied on emerging talents who stepped up admirably, securing victories that underscored the team’s bench strength. Critics like Tiwary point out that this depth—featuring bowlers like Mohammed Siraj, Arshdeep Singh, and others—should encourage bolder selection decisions. Why risk including a partially available star when backups are ready to shine? This question resonates in an era where cricket boards grapple with player welfare amid grueling schedules, including IPL commitments that add to physical strain.

The controversy also touches on broader issues in cricket governance. The BCCI’s workload management protocols, designed to protect key assets like Bumrah, have been praised for extending careers but criticized for creating perceptions of favoritism. For instance, Kohli and Sharma have faced similar scrutiny in the past for missing matches due to personal reasons or form dips, yet their auras often shield them from severe backlash. Bumrah’s situation, however, brought these inconsistencies to the fore, prompting calls for transparent criteria in selections. As Tiwary emphasized, the game’s essence lies in its collective spirit; allowing stars to dictate terms could erode this foundation, leading to resentment among squad members and disillusionment among fans who expect unwavering dedication.

In retrospect, the England tour might have been a missed opportunity for India to test their reserves more rigorously. While Bumrah’s contributions in the matches he played were notable—taking crucial wickets despite the losses—the overall series result (a 2-2 draw, assuming the fifth was drawn or lost based on context) could have been different with a fully committed pace attack. This episode serves as a cautionary tale: workload management is essential, but it must not compromise the team’s competitive edge or the principle that every player is replaceable in service to the greater good.

Manoj Tiwary, a former middle-order batsman who represented India in 12 ODIs and three T20Is, has transitioned into a respected analyst whose insights often cut through the noise. His recent comments on a podcast or interview (as reported) encapsulate a philosophy that resonates with traditionalists: cricket is bigger than any individual. “No one is bigger than the game of cricket,” Tiwary declared, naming Kohli, Bumrah, and Sharma explicitly to drive home his point. This bold statement challenges the cult of personality that surrounds these icons, reminding stakeholders that the sport’s legacy endures beyond any single career.

Tiwary’s critique stems from his observation of India’s strategy in England. He believes the selectors erred by including Bumrah despite knowing his limitations. “If a player is not fit for a five-Test series, when you know beforehand, then obviously, you will not pick that individual,” he said. This view underscores a pragmatic approach: with a robust pool of fast bowlers performing well in domestic circuits like the Ranji Trophy and IPL, there’s no justification for partial commitments. Tiwary elaborated that exceptions might be made if bench strength were lacking, but India’s current depth—bolstered by investments in youth academies and A-team tours—renders such concessions unnecessary.

His words echo historical precedents in cricket where legends were dropped to uphold team principles. For example, Australia’s decision to move on from Shane Warne in certain scenarios or England’s handling of Kevin Pietersen’s controversies illustrate that no player is irreplaceable. In the Indian context, Tiwary’s perspective aligns with past instances, such as the phasing out of seniors like Sourav Ganguly or Rahul Dravid to make way for new blood. By invoking Kohli and Sharma—both captains and batting maestros—Tiwary extends his argument to all facets of the team, suggesting that even leadership roles should not confer immunity from accountability.

What makes Tiwary’s stance compelling is his own career trajectory. Often overlooked despite consistent domestic performances, he understands the frustrations of bench players waiting for opportunities. His advocacy for merit-based selections promotes fairness, potentially motivating the next generation. Critics might argue that Tiwary’s views overlook the physical demands on modern cricketers, where multi-format involvement leads to higher injury risks. Yet, he counters this by highlighting successful models in other teams, like England’s rotation policy under Ben Stokes, which balances rest with consistency.

Ultimately, Tiwary’s message is one of empowerment for selectors and management. By not selecting unfit players, they affirm the game’s primacy and foster a culture where every squad member feels valued. This could lead to more innovative strategies, such as integrating data analytics for workload predictions or psychological support to build resilience. As India eyes dominance in all formats, embracing such accountability could be the key to sustained success.

The ripple effects of Tiwary’s comments extend far beyond the England series, influencing how Indian cricket evolves in the coming years. With the Asia Cup 2025 looming on September 9 in the UAE, where Bumrah is set to return, the team must navigate these discussions to maintain unity. Kohli, currently navigating a form slump, and Sharma, as captain, face added pressure to lead by example, proving that their contributions justify their places without special privileges.

This debate also spotlights India’s enviable talent pipeline. Programs like the National Cricket Academy and Under-19 successes have produced ready replacements, reducing dependency on stars. For bowlers, the emergence of talents like Mayank Yadav or Akash Deep means selectors can afford to be stringent. Similarly, in batting, youngsters like Shubman Gill and Yashasvi Jaiswal are knocking on the door, ready to challenge established names.

However, implementing Tiwary’s ideals requires systemic changes. The BCCI could introduce clearer guidelines on workload, perhaps mandating full-series availability for key tours unless medically exempted. Fan education is crucial too; shifting focus from hero worship to team achievements could mitigate trolling and foster a healthier discourse.

On a global scale, Tiwary’s views resonate amid cricket’s commercialization. With T20 leagues proliferating, players often prioritize lucrative contracts, potentially diluting international commitment. Upholding that no one is bigger than the game could preserve Test cricket’s purity, ensuring it remains the pinnacle.

 Manoj Tiwary’s critique is a timely reminder that cricket thrives on equity and resilience. By heeding his words, India can build a legacy where the sport, not individuals, is the true star. As the team marches forward, embracing this ethos will not only honor the game’s traditions but also propel it into a brighter future.