Mumbai Indians v Somerset, 2nd semi-final, CLT20, Chennai October 7, 2011

'Recovered' Suryakumar Yadav returns to Mumbai Indians squad

ESPNcricinfo staff
34

Allrounder Suryakumar Yadav has been permitted to return to the Mumbai Indians squad ahead of the Champions League T20 semi-finals after having originally been withdrawn due to injury. As a result, the Champions League has withdrawn the concession given to Mumbai Indians to field five foreign players in each game, and the franchise will have to stick to the four foreigners that other sides are allowed.

Yadav was originally one of eight Indian players reported injured by Mumbai Indians, leaving them with just seven Indian players in their squad. However, on September 29 he played in an under-22 tournament in Mumbai and scored 191 for Chandrakant Pandit XI against Dlip Vengsarkar XI. Following that, the Champions League has announced in a statement that: "Yadav had originally been replaced in the squad due to injury, however given he has recovered and Mumbai has a shortage of Indian players in their squad he is now permitted to return to the group."

Out of Mumbai Indians' 23 contracted players, eight were declared unfit for the Champions League - Yadav, Sachin Tendulkar, Rohit Sharma, Dhawal Kulkarni, Munaf Patel, Ali Murtaza, Aditya Tare and Pawan Suyal. That meant the final 14-member squad had an equal number of Indian and overseas players, without a buffer to handle any potential injury to an Indian player. The organisers then allowed Mumbai Indians to field five overseas cricketers in their playing XI, though other other IPL sides continued to be limited to four.

Mumai Indians suffered another blow during the tournament when South African wicketkeeper-batsman Davy Jacobs was ruled out after picking up a hip injury. With him out of the squad and Yadav returning, Mumbai Indians have six foreign players and eight Indians.

Despite their injury problems, Mumbai Indians were the first side to make it through to the semi-finals, where they will face Somerset on October 8 in Chennai.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Rajesh.Kumar on October 8, 2011, 14:13 GMT

    I note that Surya Kumar Yadav has become very famous among cricket fans these days because of this particular episode. I must confess, until all this happened, I didn't even know who Surya Kumar Yadav was. This just goes on to prove the old adage: bad publicity is better than no publicity.

  • landl47 on October 8, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    @Pratik Nikam: So your solution is to break another rule? Mumbai had enough Indian players to follow the rules of the tournament and play only 4 overseas players. If an Indian player of the 7 available had got injured, then would have been the time to apply for an exemption, and even then the exemption they should have applied for was to bring in another Indian player, not to play more than the permitted number of overseas players. Mumbai wanted to sneak another overseas player in and give themselves an advantage and the tournament organizers let them do it. Now it has turned out to be not such an advantage, they have backtracked. Cheap and shoddy tactics.

  • on October 8, 2011, 1:48 GMT

    @bobmartin. You, damn right! I can't put it any better

  • Meety on October 8, 2011, 1:01 GMT

    LOL! He gets a ton & now he's back in the team!

  • on October 7, 2011, 20:31 GMT

    Why all dis people r not understanding dat d rule was 'Only d players who played or represented d team in ipl r only allowed to participate in d tournament & d franchise wasn't allowed to play any other playr than those.' So the thing is dat mumbai were having 7 indian & 7 foreign such players at dat tym..so any injury to a indian playr (e.g few min b4 start of match)means they wud have 2 play wid 10 playr.. but nw they have got d 8th indian..so concessn withdrawn..

  • rahulcricindia on October 7, 2011, 18:44 GMT

    go bhajji go!!! God is with you......

  • bobmartin on October 7, 2011, 18:00 GMT

    No matter what the excuses are or what the results of the matches were after MI were granted that concession... the principle remains that if Yadav was fit to play cricket on the 29th September, then that is the date the concession should have been withdrawn. Whether or not the concession should have been granted in the first place in another matter. I don't think it should have been. Injuries are part of the game and if a player is injured the regulations should state that you can only substitute him with like for like. i.e Overseas for overseas or local for local. It makes not a jot of difference that the concession didn't give MI a distinct advantage... it's the principle that matters. Totally unprofessional conduct by the powers that be and a blot on the spirit of the game.

  • on October 7, 2011, 17:59 GMT

    2 Satanswish: That is why they manged to get the BCCI changed the rule back to a maximum of 4 overseas players. Sheer Opportunism! Dump Symonds ( lose the worm) and get Yadav ( catch the fish, in Symond's own fishing terminology) as replacement. This is something which they could very well have done when the tournament started, without going through the unpalatable farce! But who thought Symonds will be a disaster (and Yadav would score a near double ton -- though against a much inferior attack)

  • satanswish on October 7, 2011, 17:35 GMT

    Playing 5 foreign players did nothing good for MI. Andrew Symonds is a passe now & should be sent back fishing permanently.

  • Rens on October 7, 2011, 15:48 GMT

    funny to see those comments. Would you guys say MI played foul if Sachin or Rohit joins the team tomorrow?

  • Rajesh.Kumar on October 8, 2011, 14:13 GMT

    I note that Surya Kumar Yadav has become very famous among cricket fans these days because of this particular episode. I must confess, until all this happened, I didn't even know who Surya Kumar Yadav was. This just goes on to prove the old adage: bad publicity is better than no publicity.

  • landl47 on October 8, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    @Pratik Nikam: So your solution is to break another rule? Mumbai had enough Indian players to follow the rules of the tournament and play only 4 overseas players. If an Indian player of the 7 available had got injured, then would have been the time to apply for an exemption, and even then the exemption they should have applied for was to bring in another Indian player, not to play more than the permitted number of overseas players. Mumbai wanted to sneak another overseas player in and give themselves an advantage and the tournament organizers let them do it. Now it has turned out to be not such an advantage, they have backtracked. Cheap and shoddy tactics.

  • on October 8, 2011, 1:48 GMT

    @bobmartin. You, damn right! I can't put it any better

  • Meety on October 8, 2011, 1:01 GMT

    LOL! He gets a ton & now he's back in the team!

  • on October 7, 2011, 20:31 GMT

    Why all dis people r not understanding dat d rule was 'Only d players who played or represented d team in ipl r only allowed to participate in d tournament & d franchise wasn't allowed to play any other playr than those.' So the thing is dat mumbai were having 7 indian & 7 foreign such players at dat tym..so any injury to a indian playr (e.g few min b4 start of match)means they wud have 2 play wid 10 playr.. but nw they have got d 8th indian..so concessn withdrawn..

  • rahulcricindia on October 7, 2011, 18:44 GMT

    go bhajji go!!! God is with you......

  • bobmartin on October 7, 2011, 18:00 GMT

    No matter what the excuses are or what the results of the matches were after MI were granted that concession... the principle remains that if Yadav was fit to play cricket on the 29th September, then that is the date the concession should have been withdrawn. Whether or not the concession should have been granted in the first place in another matter. I don't think it should have been. Injuries are part of the game and if a player is injured the regulations should state that you can only substitute him with like for like. i.e Overseas for overseas or local for local. It makes not a jot of difference that the concession didn't give MI a distinct advantage... it's the principle that matters. Totally unprofessional conduct by the powers that be and a blot on the spirit of the game.

  • on October 7, 2011, 17:59 GMT

    2 Satanswish: That is why they manged to get the BCCI changed the rule back to a maximum of 4 overseas players. Sheer Opportunism! Dump Symonds ( lose the worm) and get Yadav ( catch the fish, in Symond's own fishing terminology) as replacement. This is something which they could very well have done when the tournament started, without going through the unpalatable farce! But who thought Symonds will be a disaster (and Yadav would score a near double ton -- though against a much inferior attack)

  • satanswish on October 7, 2011, 17:35 GMT

    Playing 5 foreign players did nothing good for MI. Andrew Symonds is a passe now & should be sent back fishing permanently.

  • Rens on October 7, 2011, 15:48 GMT

    funny to see those comments. Would you guys say MI played foul if Sachin or Rohit joins the team tomorrow?

  • kool_Indian on October 7, 2011, 15:45 GMT

    Guys - I tried to comment on the previous article regarding Surya kumar Yadav's injury. Hope at least this time in the concept of fairness and openness, my comment is allowed by moderator. Please look at the article that I am pasting where the player clearly says - it was a mutual decision as he was injured, there was no foul play by MI. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/interviews/Opting-out-of-CLT20-a-mutual-decision-Suryakumar-Yadav/articleshow/10175834.cms

  • ian_ghose on October 7, 2011, 14:13 GMT

    Guys, go easy on Gupta...he was being sarcastic!!

  • D-Train on October 7, 2011, 13:29 GMT

    Hope Mumbai lose bad. If he played in the under 22s he could have played for Mumbai. Clearly cheating.

  • D.S.A on October 7, 2011, 13:00 GMT

    @Gupta.Ankur: How have Mumbai shown sportsmanship and fair play? At the very worst time for Mumbai, they still had 7 Indian players, and could have fielded them, but they didn't want to. Only if one more Indian player had been injured would a problem arise, but they took advantage of the situation, to the detriment of the tournament's integrity. Also, how have Mumbai CHOSEN not to continue with the ruling? The article states that the Champions League OFFICIALS HAVE WITHDRAWN that PRIVILEGE, not Mumbai voluntarily going without it. Don't make Mumbai seem high and mighty when they simply are not. They would have continued with it for as long as it was available, regardless of injured players recovering.

  • Dr.Sunny on October 7, 2011, 12:47 GMT

    You guys are all laughable.... commenting without even bothering to understand what has happned... apart from the sensible mister 'cricketizgood'... Mumbai had 7 Indians & 7 imports... so they could field 7 indians+4 imports if 4 imports are max limit. But if another indian goes down, they will only have 6+4=10 players to field. and thats why the exemption! and now, as they have another indian fit, the exemption has been withdrwan... as simple as that! why is it so difficult to understand??? ohh, we love the spicy stories more than the logic. :)

  • Shan.z on October 7, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    Now MI will lose there semi final..indian players were already playing worse..

  • on October 7, 2011, 12:12 GMT

    It's a joke.....right? MI & BCCI losing credibility.

  • Ben1989 on October 7, 2011, 12:08 GMT

    @Gupta, what is with you & the IPL???? if you read correctly, the article reads 'As a result, the Champions League has withdrawn the concession' this actually means Mumbai have nothing to do with the change, so no they didn't CHOOSE not to continue with the exemption, they've had the exemption taken back from CL...

  • on October 7, 2011, 11:35 GMT

    no sportsmanship, this is just because Symonds is out of form... this Yadav was playing in a local tournament which implies he was fit enough to play. If at all MI were to show sportsmanship they should have fielded all 7 Indian players available with them unless they were forced to play 5 foreigner players (due to injury to one more Indian player).

  • cricketizgood on October 7, 2011, 11:13 GMT

    Jose Puliampatta@ Kedar Dhekane@ licec@ - - - Guys take it easy. I don't know why there is so much buzz about this? There was a stage when MI was having 7 Indian players and 7 foreign players. Any further injury to any Indian player would have been a problem for their team make up and so board allowed an exception. Now the team has an extra spare Indian player and so the rule is abandoned. Have some game spirit to have some competitive matches rather than one sided. ALL IS GOOD.

  • on October 7, 2011, 11:12 GMT

    Good , 5 Players were allowed due to an exceptional situation. I believe teams should have a minimum of only 4 indian players and atleast 5 more teams in the IPL. It will then become a world class . The cricket in Ipl is somewhere in between first class and international cricket , if you remove the restricitons the cricket will more competitive.

  • durhamd on October 7, 2011, 10:50 GMT

    @Gupta, never mind that Yadav wasn't ever injured. Cheap tactics from MI, devaluing the whole tournament.

  • bobmartin on October 7, 2011, 10:22 GMT

    Surely Indian cricket is not that short of players that Mumbai couldn't have drafted in replacements for their injured players rather than give them the advantage of an extra overseas player. Grossly unfair.

  • boris6491 on October 7, 2011, 10:01 GMT

    If anything, this just proves how poor injury and fitness management is within the Indian camp. They're a great team, as long as all of them are fit.

  • anver777 on October 7, 2011, 9:58 GMT

    HIT OUT or GET OUT time for MI !!!!! I predict NSW vs MI in the final !!!!!!!!

  • kas_kas on October 7, 2011, 9:58 GMT

    l dont see any issues with mumbai being allowed to play 5 overseas players ...sometimes there is need for flexibility for it to be fair to everyone

  • on October 7, 2011, 9:57 GMT

    hmmm - funny, why would MI take this risk ahead of a semi final. Symonds though woefully out of form could have been a better choice than Yadav who seems to have hardly had any exposure in any form of the game.

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:58 GMT

    The " 5 foreigners rule" should not have been allowed in the first place. It was not only tantamount to favoritism to one team against the others,(whether the authorities meant it or not); but also amounted to an insult to many of the Indian recruits in the MI, and sitting on the bench match after match, year after year! A little depressing and shameful! Getting it corrected at this stage will not erase the bad taste left in the mouth!

  • licec on October 7, 2011, 8:52 GMT

    Ha! Now lets see how MI fare from the semi-final on. Now begins the real fun!

  • Gupta.Ankur on October 7, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    What a wonderful example shown by MI of sportsmanship and fair play.......even though they still have 8 players injured they have chosen not to continue with that exemption....

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    How we manage our young players and their injuries. Just pathetic!

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:42 GMT

    What is the injury / recovery status of Sachin? Anyone could manage to get a toe into the rather "mysterious" injury? Swollen? Broken? Shrunk? Re-set? What?

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    Lmao :D cant laugh ... what a cheap tactics..

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:28 GMT

    what is this??is it kind of a joke??why the franchise changing the rules by itself??this gives a chance to certain peoples to ask questions about boards reliability.if you have allowed for five players then complete the tournament with this rule otherwise mumbai should have played with 4 overseas players and stick to the rules.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:28 GMT

    what is this??is it kind of a joke??why the franchise changing the rules by itself??this gives a chance to certain peoples to ask questions about boards reliability.if you have allowed for five players then complete the tournament with this rule otherwise mumbai should have played with 4 overseas players and stick to the rules.

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    Lmao :D cant laugh ... what a cheap tactics..

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:42 GMT

    What is the injury / recovery status of Sachin? Anyone could manage to get a toe into the rather "mysterious" injury? Swollen? Broken? Shrunk? Re-set? What?

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    How we manage our young players and their injuries. Just pathetic!

  • Gupta.Ankur on October 7, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    What a wonderful example shown by MI of sportsmanship and fair play.......even though they still have 8 players injured they have chosen not to continue with that exemption....

  • licec on October 7, 2011, 8:52 GMT

    Ha! Now lets see how MI fare from the semi-final on. Now begins the real fun!

  • on October 7, 2011, 8:58 GMT

    The " 5 foreigners rule" should not have been allowed in the first place. It was not only tantamount to favoritism to one team against the others,(whether the authorities meant it or not); but also amounted to an insult to many of the Indian recruits in the MI, and sitting on the bench match after match, year after year! A little depressing and shameful! Getting it corrected at this stage will not erase the bad taste left in the mouth!

  • on October 7, 2011, 9:57 GMT

    hmmm - funny, why would MI take this risk ahead of a semi final. Symonds though woefully out of form could have been a better choice than Yadav who seems to have hardly had any exposure in any form of the game.

  • kas_kas on October 7, 2011, 9:58 GMT

    l dont see any issues with mumbai being allowed to play 5 overseas players ...sometimes there is need for flexibility for it to be fair to everyone

  • anver777 on October 7, 2011, 9:58 GMT

    HIT OUT or GET OUT time for MI !!!!! I predict NSW vs MI in the final !!!!!!!!