Explore

India beat New Zealand by five wickets in the rain-hit first ODI at Eden Park today, chasing a revised 143 in just 22.4 overs. Virat Kohli made 74 off 51 balls; Rohit Sharma fell for a first-over duck; and the Player of the Match was a young seamer, Anshul Kamboj, with 2/22 from his 10 overs. Kohli turns 38 tomorrow. Rohit is 39. The next ODI World Cup is a year away, in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia. The case for - keep them Knockouts are won by players who have won them before - today Kohli showed he can still run a chase. One duck proves nothing. Experience of World Cup pressure cannot be coached into a newcomer in a year. The case against - start the transition now By the World Cup, Kohli will be 39 and Rohit 40 - fitness and fielding count across a long tournament. Today's Player of the Match was a young seamer. Every top-order place kept for a legend is a year less for the next batters to settle in before the tournament. Pick a side: keep Rohit and Kohli for 2027, or build without them? Vote, then say why. Sources: Yahoo Sports , ESPNcricinfo

Women's cricket and other women's sports are drawing bigger crowds, but coverage and sponsorship are still a fraction of what the men's game gets. The case for Visibility builds audiences; you cannot be a fan of what you never see. It creates role models and real careers for young girls. The case against Investment should follow audience demand rather than lead it. Better scheduling and promotion may grow the game more sustainably than equal coverage overnight. Where do you stand? Vote, then share your opinion - and say what would change your mind.

DRS and VAR have overturned many wrong decisions, but they also stop play and still spark arguments. The case for Big decisions should be right, and technology helps get them right. It takes pressure off umpires and referees. The case against Constant reviews slow the game and kill the emotion. The technology is not perfect, and not every match can afford it. Where do you stand? Vote, then share your opinion - and say what would change your mind.

Every time a big name is picked despite a poor run, or dropped after one bad series, fans argue about it. The case for It rewards merit and keeps everyone hungry. Young players in form deserve their chance. The case against A few matches are a small sample; class is permanent. Experience matters in big tournaments and pressure moments. Where do you stand? Vote, then share your opinion - and say what would change your mind.

More teams would mean more matches, more players and more cities with a home side to cheer for. The case for More chances for domestic players to play at the top level. Cities without a team would get one. The case against Talent would be spread thinner and matches could be less competitive. The cricket calendar is already packed and players are tired. Where do you stand? Vote, then share your opinion - and say what would change your mind.