The Format Trap: Three Different Stories in ICC's Player of the Month Race

When the ICC's September Player of the Month shortlist was released, my attention went to a number—three nominees, but three different formats, three different contexts. Shubman Gill's 223, Abhishek Sharma's 30-ball century, and Sikandar Raza's 81—trying to measure these three innings on the same scale would be a mistake. Because this shortlist is not format-neutral; it is a classic case of format confusion.

In 2026, in Rostov-on-Don, I timed a 25-second sequence in the Belgium-Japan match—from Kawashima's clearance to Chadli's goal. That experience taught me that every moment has its own clock, its own format. In cricket, that lesson is even more relevant. Comparing a 30-ball T20I century to a 133-ball ODI double century is like arguing which is bigger between apples and oranges.

I have been writing about cricket since 2026, covering the Wills Cup in Dhaka for Prothom Alo. Since then, I have learned one thing: when the format changes, the metrics change, but the human brain still searches for the same patterns. The ICC's Player of the Month shortlist is a victim of that human weakness.

Shubman Gill's 223* came in a chase of 406, off 133 balls. He reached 200 off 117 balls. These numbers are internally consistent—133 minus 117 equals 16 balls, 223 minus 200 equals 23 runs. That means he scored 23 runs off his last 16 balls. This is the classic architecture of a long innings: foundation first, explosion later. A target of 406 means nearly 8.30 runs per over. Surviving 133 balls under that pressure is not just batting—it is a test of fitness and mental stability.

But there is something the ICC shortlist does not tell us: both of Gill's innings came at home. The first was 110, the second 223*. Both are elite, but we do not get his recent overseas ODI sample from this shortlist. The recent trend in ODI batting suggests Gill is at the peak of his career. But this can be marked as home-advantage.

Now let us turn to Abhishek Sharma. 100 off 30 balls—this number is dazzling at first glance. In T20 cricket, a strike rate above 200 is now the new normal, but a strike rate of 333 is still an outlier. 82 off 32 in Delhi, then 100 off 30 in the third T20I. A total of 229 runs in the series, average 76.33. But note: there are no not-outs in this average. That means he was dismissed roughly three times in three innings. This is positive—he converted starts into big innings. But the typical range for T20 batting average is 25-30; 76.33 is a small-sample outlier.

Not only that, Abhishek's left-handedness is a scarcity trait. It raises match-up value against leg-spin and right-arm angles. But his overseas T20I sample is unknown. A home series against Afghanistan—a specific context where bowlers had little margin.

Now to the least discussed nominee—Sikandar Raza. Zimbabwe lost the series 0-3 to Australia. Raza's 57 and 81* shone through that defeat. But his bowling figures are only described qualitatively—'important wickets'—no numbers. An all-rounder's value is determined by the combination of bat and ball. In Raza's case, there is batting data, but no bowling data.

Still, his inclusion is an important precedent: the ICC selected a player from a losing side. This is a rare example of 'merit versus team result.' I have seen for many years that monthly shortlists generally lean toward players from winning teams. In Raza's case, that trend has been broken.

But there is a subtle danger here. Raza is an experienced all-rounder who carries an abnormal workload in a lower-ranked side. Top-order runs plus a full bowling quota. This pressure increases his injury risk, especially at his age. ICC recognition does not reduce that risk; rather, it increases the burden of expectation.

So what are we actually learning from this shortlist?

First, three nominations in three different formats—this is not a methodological error, but a reality. The ICC does not separate formats in its Player of the Month selection. But as analysts, we should.

Second, two Indian nominations came at home. I do not discount home advantage, but it is a confounder. Delhi and Guwahati—both are batting-friendly pitches. Abhishek's 30-ball century and Gill's 133-ball double century—both came in environments where bowlers had little margin for error.

My 25 years of experience tells me that what this kind of shortlist shows is less important than what it does not show. What is Abhishek's overseas T20I record? How much of Gill's ODI average comes outside home? What is Raza's bowling economy? The answers to these questions are not in the shortlist.

One thing has left a mark on my mind. The claim of Abhishek's 30-ball century has not yet been independently verified. According to ICC records, the fastest to 200 in ODIs is documented at 126 balls. Gill's 200 off 117—if verified, would be a new record. But promoting this claim without verification is a risk in journalism.

A major danger of format confusion is this: readers give a 30-ball century the same weight as a 133-ball double century. But in T20, 30 balls means 25% of the innings. In ODI, 133 balls means 44% of the innings. Gill's innings is structurally a much bigger challenge. But in news headlines, both get equal space as 'centuries.'

This feels to me like a repetition of an old pattern. When I was a performance analyst at Brisbane Roar's academy, I saw coaches chasing results in U18 football, not technique. In cricket, the same tendency: we chase runs and strike rates, we do not look at context and format.

The ICC's Player of the Month shortlist is a marketing asset. It brings high engagement at low cost, especially in the Indian market. A 30-ball century and a 133-ball double century—these two viral stats are exactly what excites Indian audiences. But a question remains: does this shortlist properly evaluate players, or does it nominate based on market size?

Two of three are Indian—this is not a coincidence. India plays the most white-ball cricket, plays the most at home, and has the largest broadcast market. The overrepresentation of Indians on monthly shortlists is not just a reflection of talent, but of structure.

Raza's inclusion is an exception to that structure. A nomination from a team like Zimbabwe means the ICC is sending its 'global game' message. But Raza is aging, his workload is increasing, and his team's support is decreasing. His 81* really was a 'lone fight.'

I do not predict who will win. I map the process that determines nominations. And in that process, one gap is obvious: format-neutral evaluation.

When you watch these three in the next series, keep one thing in mind. If Abhishek plays T20Is overseas, how much does his 333 strike rate hold up? If Gill plays ODIs away from home, how much does his average drop? If Raza plays another series, how much does his body endure?

Time will answer these questions, not the ICC shortlist.