Three Names, Two Formats, One Month: The Unwritten Ledger Behind the ICC Player of the Month Race

At Delhi's Arun Jaitley Stadium the ball count had just touched thirty, and the scoreboard already read three figures. That same night my producer's voice came through the headset: "That is not a stadium number. That is a second-screen number." Days later, at the Barsapara Stadium in Guwahati, another number was born — 223 not out off 133 balls, with 200 reached in 117 deliveries, against a mountain of 406. Two numbers in the same month, standing side by side in the same news cycle. Yet Abhishek Sharma's 30-ball century and Shubman Gill's double century are not children of the same game. One came from the T20I lane, the other from the ODI lane. The ICC's shortlist has seated them in the same row, but those numbers do not run on the same clock.

The ICC has placed three names on its September Player of the Month shortlist — Abhishek Sharma, Shubman Gill, Sikandar Raza. Three different series, two different formats, three different teams. Abhishek's stage was the T20I series against Afghanistan, largely at home. Gill's stage was the ODI series against West Indies, where he had to chase 406. Raza's stage was the ODI series against Australia, which his side lost 0-3. The least discussed thing about these three names is the shape of the shortlist itself. Two names are Indian, one is Zimbabwean. India is the largest market in world cricket, and in September India played the most white-ball cricket. Which means this list is not only a list of performances; it is also a list of the calendar.

From my twenty years of watching matches from the stands and the commentary box, one thing I can say without hesitation: an award like Player of the Month is never a final verdict on form — it is a photograph of a month. And however beautiful the frame, the space outside it stays dark. By 2026, when my crowd notebook had crossed four hundred entries, I had learned something — the scoreline arrives first, the story arrives last. The same holds for these three.

Start with Abhishek Sharma, because his numbers speak loudest. 229 runs across the series at an average of 76.33 — in T20I cricket, where an average of 25 to 30 is normal, this is close to abnormal. 82 off 32 in Delhi, a strike rate near 256. Then 100 off 30 in the third T20I, a strike rate of 333. To grasp the scale of that aggression, remember one thing: in T20I cricket, 30 balls is barely halfway through an innings, yet the score is already innings-defining. His Player of the Series recognition confirms this was not a single-match flash but a series-long statement.

His left-handedness is a separate asset. Against leg-spin, the side that stays open before the ball turns is easier for a left-hander, and the natural angle of right-arm bowlers is not hostile to him either. Anyone who measures this matchup value only in runs has done half the arithmetic. The 30-ball century is being claimed as the fastest by a full-member batter. My caution sits exactly there: a record that has not been independently verified is not news — it is a time bomb. If it is wrong, the cost lands on the reporting outlet, not the player.

Then Shubman Gill. 110 in the first ODI, 223 not out off 133 in the second. 200 came in 117 balls. The numbers are internally consistent — 200 off 117, then 23 more off 16, totalling 223 off 133. That consistency is what makes them credible. A 200 off 117 balls in ODI cricket means not just talent but a long, steady capacity to decide between stroke and restraint. A chase of 406 is a pressure test where the required rate must be held every over. That can only be done with a blend of fitness and stroke selection.

There is another layer to Gill's performance, beyond runs: he is the captain. While a 406 chase is underway, Gill the batter and Gill the captain are two different men. When an innings runs long, its rhythm spills onto everyone else. Leadership is never a thing outside the innings; it is the sound inside the innings. Back-to-back centuries mean this is a hot streak, not a lone flash. But one thing must be said plainly — both came at home.

The third name is Sikandar Raza, and it is the quietest name on the list. 57 in the first ODI, 81 not out in the last, with a team total of 271. Plus important wickets — though the figures are nowhere clear, only the word "important" is used. Yet the rarest commodity in ODI cricket is the all-rounder who scores in the top order and then returns a full bowling quota. Raza's nomination means the ICC panel did not merely count runs; it looked at individual contribution outside the team result.

But here is the real problem. Zimbabwe lost that series 0-3. Raza's 81 not out came in a series where nobody stood at the other end. That is a great individual performance, but in terms of match outcome it is a consolation innings. And by the standards of a Player of the Month award, consolation and victory are never weighed equally.

Now the part nobody wants to say. The ICC has placed these three performances on one shortlist as if they were comparable. They are not. A 30-ball T20I innings and a 133-ball ODI innings are two different games, and measuring them on one stick is a methodological error. In a 30-ball century the bowler is given no time to think; in a 133-ball innings the bowler repeatedly gets the chance to change plans. These are not two sides of one coin — they are two different coins.

The second gap is home advantage. Both of Abhishek's big innings came in Delhi and at home; both of Gill's centuries came at home. Home pitches, familiar conditions and crowd support inflate runs — this is not cheating, it is context, and hiding context leaves the analysis incomplete. Neither player's overseas, seaming-conditions sample is known. Until it is, the "next superstar" label is a loan taken against a single series.

The third gap is the structure of fan voting. The ICC Player of the Month selection includes a fan-vote component. The largest fanbase naturally casts the most votes. So where two names are Indian and one is Zimbabwean, the arithmetic is nearly written in advance. This is not corruption; it is market reality. But it must be acknowledged, because an award that depends on a vote can never be a neutral measuring instrument.

The fourth gap is the most important — Player of the Month means best of the month, not best of the season. A single-series explosion and six months of consistency are not the same thing. A large part of my crowd notebook from 2026 to 2026 is filled with batters who set fire to one series and went cold in the next. Abhishek's sample is one T20I series. Gill's sample is two ODIs, though both elite. Raza's sample is a losing series. None of the three is equal, and that inequality is precisely what the shortlist conceals.

This is where the third voice enters. Scorers, analysts, producers, local fixers — the people who never come in front of the camera decide which number goes to air and which does not. If Abhishek's 30-ball century was a number built for the second screen, then who built it? A room did, where someone decided that T20I speed sells better. The third voice is not a spare mic; it is the game.

And it is from that position that Raza's nomination should be read. India's two names arrive through a vast media machine where every run is counted separately. Raza arrives from almost zero publicity. This one ICC decision carries real value — it is a message to smaller boards that good cricket, not a big name, is what gets noticed. In Zimbabwe's current state, what an experienced all-rounder carries — top-order runs and a full bowling quota — reveals a structural gap. When a team leans so heavily on one man, that is both his greatness and its weakness.

But this sympathy must not become an excuse to avoid accountability. Zimbabwe lost 0-3 — who fixes that? The team, the selectors, the structure. However good Raza's innings, if nobody stands beside him, the next series will end the same way. If the third voice really is the game, it must take not only praise but responsibility. And that is the most unspoken part of today's cricket conversation.

One last thought. This shortlist reminds us of a larger truth — the centre of gravity of world cricket has shifted toward India. Bigger market, more matches, more broadcast, more votes. For smaller boards, this gap will widen steadily. The three names of the Player of the Month are September's photograph, but the backdrop behind the frame is larger — a place where calendar, market and power sit together and decide whose story gets told first.

Next month three new names will arrive, two new formats will again share one list, and again we will make the same mistake — measuring numbers from different lanes with one ruler. So the question is no longer who wins. The question is whether we will ever learn that a 30-ball innings and a 133-ball innings cannot be read in the same breath. Does the month that teaches us runs also teach us context? The answer is not the ICC's. It is ours.