The Enigma of Sunil Gavaskar’s 1975 World Cup Innings

One-day cricket is now an integral part of the game, yet it is easy to forget that it emerged relatively recently. England pioneered the first domestic tournament in 1963, followed by the inaugural One-Day International in 1971, an impromptu affair born out of a rain-ruined Test match. By 1975, the format had matured enough to merit its first World Cup, a spectacle that would cement the limited-overs game’s place in cricket history. 

The tournament, however, did not begin without controversy. On June 7, in the opening round, England faced India at Lord’s. The stakes were high—defeat would significantly dent either side’s semi-final ambitions. A sun-drenched London provided an idyllic backdrop, though the summer had been precariously unpredictable. Just days earlier, snow had interrupted a county match in Derbyshire, and biting cold had plagued a fixture in Essex. 

Lord’s, while not sold out, was three-quarters full—an encouraging turnout for a format still finding its footing. England, having opted to bat first, executed their innings with masterful precision. Dennis Amiss compiled a sublime 137, blending elegance with authority. Keith Fletcher’s composed 68 provided support, and a late flourish from Chris Old, who bludgeoned a 30-ball half-century, propelled England to 334 for 4—then the highest total in one-day cricket. 

By conventional wisdom, India’s task was daunting but not insurmountable. If victory was improbable, at least a competitive response was imperative, for the competition’s structure placed great emphasis on net run rate. What followed, however, defied logic, and exasperated spectators, and remains one of the most enigmatic innings in cricket’s history. 

The Gavaskar Conundrum 

Sunil Gavaskar, India’s esteemed opener, strode to the crease with an approach inexplicable to teammates, opponents, and the 16,000-strong crowd alike. What began as cautious accumulation soon spiraled into an exercise in inertia. The murmurs of impatience grew into audible discontent as Gavaskar resolutely resisted acceleration. At first, his go-slow approach was attributed to prudence against the new ball, but as the innings dragged on without intent, the frustration among Indian supporters boiled over. 

Spectators implored him to play with urgency. Some, overcome with exasperation, stormed the field to plead with their reluctant hero. "Dejected Indians were pathetically pleading with him to die fighting," lamented The Cricketer. In the pavilion, his teammates sat in muted disbelief. 

By the close of the innings, Gavaskar had crept to 36 not out off 174 deliveries, with a solitary boundary to his name. India limped to 132 for 3, succumbing to a 202-run defeat—the kind of margin that stung not just as a loss but as an act of self-sabotage. 

Motives and Theories 

Why did Gavaskar bat as he did? Theories abound, yet definitive answers remain elusive. India’s manager, GS Ramchand, suggested that Gavaskar deemed the target unattainable and used the innings as practice. But this reasoning found few believers. "I do not agree with his tactics," Ramchand admitted. "But he will not be disciplined." 

Two days later, Ramchand’s frustration had only deepened. Speaking to the Daily Express, he denounced the innings as "the most disgraceful and selfish performance I have ever seen," dismissing Gavaskar’s complaints about a slow pitch as "a stupid thing to say after England had scored 334." The whispers of discontent within the team grew louder. 

Some speculated that Gavaskar was disgruntled with team selection, resenting the move away from spin to seam-friendly tactics or harbouring dissatisfaction over Srinivas Venkataraghavan’s captaincy. Others suggested personal grievances—perhaps an issue with his hotel room or meal allowance—had compounded his indifference. 

Ted Dexter, then a BBC commentator, was unambiguous in his criticism. He suggested that Venkataraghavan should have intervened, even pulling Gavaskar from the field. "Nothing short of a vote of censure by the ICC would have satisfied me if I had paid good money to watch such a performance," he fumed. 

The ICC, however, had neither the mechanisms nor the inclination to adjudicate on such matters in an era devoid of match referees. The incident was left to the court of public opinion, where Gavaskar found few defenders. 

Gavaskar’s Own Reckoning 

For years, Gavaskar remained silent on the episode. When he finally broke his silence, his explanations remained enigmatic. He described the innings as "the worst of my life," attributing his torpidity to being trapped in a "mental rut." He even suggested he had contemplated walking away from his stumps to force his own dismissal. 

"There were occasions I felt like moving away so I would be bowled," he confessed. "This was the only way to escape the mental agony." 

He later revealed a curious detail—he believed he had nicked the second ball of the innings and regretted not walking. "If I had walked, I would have been out for zero and spared all this." But nobody had appealed, and fate had left him stranded in an innings he wished he could erase. 

Karsan Ghavri, one of Gavaskar’s teammates, provided a simpler assessment. "Sunil thought it was impossible to chase this target. Messages were being sent to him, but he never bothered." Anshuman Gaekwad, Gavaskar’s partner for much of the innings, was equally bewildered. "We were all very surprised. It was difficult to say what he was up to. When I was with him, we never discussed the strategy." 

The Aftermath 

India’s return home was accompanied by widespread condemnation. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) rebuked Gavaskar privately but refrained from official sanctions. The newspapers, however, were unsparing. While much of the cricketing world was enraptured by Dennis Lillee’s destruction of Pakistan at Headingley, the Sunday Telegraph delivered a scathing verdict: "Indian stodge follows England’s spice."

As the tournament progressed, Lord’s would later witness one of the great World Cup finals, a pulsating contest between West Indies and Australia that showcased the very essence of limited-overs cricket. In contrast, Gavaskar’s infamous innings remained an anomaly, a riddle within the larger tapestry of the game. 

Even today, it is an innings that defies simple categorization—a moment of petulance, an act of defiance, or a psychological collapse? Whatever the explanation, it remains one of cricket’s most enduring mysteries.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar