Michael Vaughan justifies dropping Kohli from his combined CT squad

SportsCafe Desk
no photo

Former England skipper Michael Vaughan picked his Champions Trophy team of the tournament immediately after the event concluded, with Kohli being the most notable absentee in the team. Vaughan justified his omission saying that he didn’t play well enough to make it to his team.

Michael Vaughan certainly likes ruffling the feathers of the Indian cricket fans. He first constantly instigated the fans during the final of ICC Champions Trophy 2017, as Pakistan were on their way to a decisive win after scoring 338 and reducing India to 72/6. Though he was trolled mercilessly by both Pakistani and Indian fans, it seems like he hadn’t had enough of the banter.

On June 20th the Englishman picked his Champions Trophy team of the tournament on Twitter and it included most of the usual suspects who had done well in the tournament. However, for some odd reason, he did not pick Virat Kohli.

Although Sharma’s selection is justified given that he is the second highest run-scorer with 304 runs from 5 innings in the tournament, Kohli’s exclusion from the side does come as a surprise particularly given that the Indian skipper scored 258 runs in the tournament at an average of 129, including a blazing 96* against Bangladesh and was the fourth highest run-getter in the event.

As expected, the Indian fans were disappointed with Kohli’s exclusion and made their feelings known to the former England skipper. However, Vaughan responded by taking a dig at both Kohli as well as his fans with his next tweet.

.

The Indian fans were understandably irked by Vaughan’s tweet with one of them even asking the 42-year old for the reason behind Kohli’s omission a couple of days later.

However, the only response he got from Vaughan was.

Only Vaughan himself would know the real reason for the baffling omission.

Get updates! Follow us on

laught0
astonishment0
sadness0
heart0
like0
dislike0

Comments

Sign up or log in to your account to leave comments and reactions

0 Comments