In the ICC Player-of-the-Month Race, Abhishek-Raza-Gill: Mix the Format Lanes and Every Number Turns Upside Down

Late in September two scorecards lay side by side on my desk, and both were pushing me toward the same mistake. One was from Barsapara in Guwahati, where a left-handed youngster reached a century off thirty balls. The other was from Delhi, where a chase of 406 ended with an unbeaten 223 off 133. Thirty balls on one side, one hundred and thirty-three on the other. Scrolling through them, both can be dressed up with the word 'explosion'. Yet these two numbers cannot sit on the same shelf. I have spent forty-seven days listening to a dressing room change its breathing, and what I learned there is simple: a different format means a different clock, a different load, a different risk. When the ICC released its shortlist for September's Player of the Month, three names arrived: Shubman Gill, Abhishek Sharma and Sikandar Raza. Three names, three teams, two formats. This list is not the game itself; it is a monthly snapshot. The context has to be laid out plainly. The ICC hands out a monthly award decided by an independent jury plus a fan vote. For September the jury had three white-ball performances in front of it. Abhishek Sharma played a T20I series against Afghanistan at home, made 229 runs at an average of 76.33, and was named Player of the Series. Gill made 110 in the first ODI against the West Indies and an unbeaten 223 in the second. Raza made 57 and then an unbeaten 81 in the last ODI against Australia, though Zimbabwe lost that series 0-3. Here is the first split: Abhishek's format is T20I, the other two are ODI. The distance between these formats is not just overs; it is the licence to take risk. In T20I a thirty-ball century is possible because a strike rate above 300 is permitted. In ODI, reaching 200 off 117 balls demands a different kind of physical and mental patience, where the fear of losing a wicket and the calculation of the run rate must be managed together. That is why Gill's unbeaten 223 carries the heaviest load for me. A chase of 406 means moving at nearly eight an over, and scoring 200 under that pressure is not only shot-making but a game of fitness and breath control. My MS in Kinesiology taught me that 200 off 117 balls means the body had to make a decision on almost every ball, while each sprint's recovery window kept shrinking. The numbers are internally consistent: 200 off 117, then 23 more off 16, giving 223 off 133. That internal consistency is a strong signal. This is not a knock to remember; it is a full innings architecture to remember. Yet a caution belongs here: the claim of the fastest ODI double century still needs external verification, because the documented figure for the fastest to 200 in ODIs is different. The bigger the record claim, the bigger the duty to verify it. With Abhishek the picture differs. 82 off 32 in Delhi, then 100 off 30 in the third T20I. That second innings carried a strike rate near 333, beyond the usual finisher's mark around 180. But the important thing is the series: 229 runs at 76.33, meaning this explosion was not one match but a whole series. The Player of the Series award proves that consistency. Still, a question remains: an average of 76.33 implies he was dismissed roughly three times in three innings, so he converted starts rather than surviving unbeaten. And his two biggest innings came at home, in batting-friendly conditions. His T20I sample in overseas seaming conditions is unknown. As a left-hander his match-up value against leg-spin and right-arm angles is high, a structural asset. But home numbers can never hide away weaknesses. Now to Raza, who has received the least light. The rarest commodity in ODI cricket is an all-rounder who can turn a match with bat and ball. Raza is that species. A patient 57 in the first ODI, an unbeaten 81 inside a team total of 271 in the last, and important wickets in between. But here is the gap: his bowling figures are given only qualitatively, not in numbers. So his all-round claim cannot be weighted numerically. There is also a context the award list does not weigh — Zimbabwe lost the series 0-3. His performance was a consolation performance, where he fought almost alone. As an experienced all-rounder in a lower-ranked side, his burden is disproportionate, because he must score at the top and carry a full bowling quota. That dual load is a blessing for his team and a risk for his body. Now the mistake that dominates this month's discussion. We are placing Abhishek's thirty balls and Gill's one hundred and seventeen balls on the same scale and asking who is best. That is a category error. Comparing a 130-ball innings with a 30-ball innings is like timing a hundred-metre sprint and a marathon with the same stopwatch. The design of T20I permits risk; the design of ODI demands controlling that risk over a long period. The batter who scores a century off thirty balls displays great talent, but the batter who stays unbeaten for 133 balls under eight-an-over pressure proves a different kind of patience and physical control. Croatia's base camp had a bass line, and Modric kept it steady — I draw that parallel only to show that the real skill of a long innings is not in flamboyant strokes but in holding the setting. And I stop the analogy there, because no rhythm outside cricket can explain a format error inside it. The second hidden mistake is home advantage. Both of Gill's centuries came at home, and both of Abhishek's big innings came on home batting paradises. These venues traditionally favour batters, leaving bowlers with little margin, and in high-scoring conditions strike rates naturally inflate. Ignore that context and compare the two numbers directly, and you are confusing home comfort with international quality. India's two representatives on the ICC shortlist are also a product of this structure — given how much white-ball cricket India plays and how many home series it stages, its presence on monthly lists is natural. This is not only a talent story; it is a calendar story. One more thing everyone is avoiding: the nature of these performances. All three are bilateral series, not a global tournament or a knockout. In bilateral matches pressure leverage is different; in a knockout one error means elimination, in a bilateral it means one match. So despite the shine of these numbers, their pressure weight is lower. That is no player's fault; it is the reality of format and calendar. That is why I treat this shortlist as a snapshot, not a verdict on sustained form. Turning one month's heat into six to twelve months of consistency requires separate evidence. What emerges is that the real difference among these three names is not only in runs but in the balance of expectation. The 'next superstar' label forming around Abhishek runs ahead of his sample. One series, and that at home — historically, superstar tags built on such ground have had a low fulfilment rate. With Gill the expectation is more reasonable, because back-to-back ODI centuries plus a leadership role create a stable picture. With Raza the opposite is happening: his performance is under-discussed relative to its merit, because he plays for a smaller market and his team lost. This is the classic quiet-achiever pattern — more work, less camera. I have spent forty-seven days in dressing rooms and learned one thing there: statistics never arrive alone; they come with pain, sleep debt and travel fatigue. At that Croatia camp I saw how leg load rises after every extra-time match and how it leaves a mark on the next match's tempo. September's three innings are the same — there is load behind the numbers. Gill's 133-ball innings means a whole day's physical investment. Abhishek's 30 balls mean the opposite — extremely high risk in an extremely short window, where one error ends everything. For Raza the load is split in two, bat and ball. These three loads differ, so they cannot be weighed on one scale. Seen through the transfer and contract market, this award has a separate tail. An ICC Player-of-the-Month recognition is not direct money, but it indirectly lifts brand value, which affects endorsements and future contract negotiations. A viral stat like Abhishek's thirty-ball century quickly drives jersey sales, follower growth and advertising interest. For Gill, leadership brand value adds on top, working beyond cricket. But one caution is essential: a record claim that cannot be independently verified can become a time bomb for the reporting outlet, not the player. Once a wrong number goes viral, the correction never spreads at the same speed. There is another layer almost absent from this discussion — competitive balance. Becoming the sole hope of a mid-tier side like Zimbabwe actually signals a generational gap in that side's pipeline. Raza bats alone, bowls alone, and his name reaches the table even when his team loses. The ICC's recognition of this kind sometimes serves the message of growing the game, because smaller nations enter the conversation. In India this award expands participation in a big market, while for Zimbabwe the same recognition carries disproportionately greater national-pride value. One award, two scales of impact. One last point must be made. If anyone looks at these three names and thinks they are seeing a list of permanent future forces, they are mistaken. This is one month's numbers, and when the month changes the list changes too. The real question is: which of these three can hold their rhythm three months from now? Abhishek's true test lies overseas, where the ball seams and the scoreboard moves slowly. Gill's test is different — whether he can show the same patience against the red ball in Test format. Raza's test is the cruellest: how long the body can carry a dual load. An award is a moment's photograph; cricket is a running rhythm. Who keeps that rhythm is decided by the bat, not the award.