If you’re the sort of cricket fan who believes in picking your best bowlers from Nos. 8 to 11, never mind their batting ability, Friday’s India-Australia ODI in Mohali was made for you.

Mohammed Shami, who’s definitely one of India’s four best ODI bowlers, picked up 5 for 51, his best figures in the format. Along the way he got Mitchell Marsh caught at slip with a gorgeous first-over outswinger and cleaned up a set Steven Smith with a big inducker out of nowhere. On a pitch that offered grip when the sun was out, he stayed in tune with the conditions in textbook manner, hitting the full side of a good length with the swinging new ball and the shorter side of a good length later on, with the vertical seam gradually giving way to the scrambled-seam offcutter as his stock option.

Shardul Thakur, who isn’t one of India’s four best bowlers, went at seven an over or above for the 14th time in 42 ODI innings – that’s once every three innings. His first over, the ninth of Australia’s innings, could have been his career, or the popular narrative of it, in miniature. David Warner dispatched a half-volley and a long-hop for fours, and survived a dropped chance when he snatched too eagerly at a drive and spooned the ball to mid-off.

This was an uncharacteristic moment of misfortune for Thakur, but you could also see it as an entirely characteristic slice of fortune: his detractors would suggest he has made a career out of taking flukey wickets with non-threatening deliveries.

On a day when India picked only five bowlers, Thakur went for 78 in 10 wicketless overs. None of his colleagues went at over a run a ball.

Australia were bowled out for 276. India chased it down with five wickets and eight balls remaining. Australia put them under pressure at times, but the top seven did the job by themselves. Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 weren’t required to bat.

If you belong in the camp that’s against the idea of the Thakur-style utility player, this match wrote your arguments for you.

Shami got his chance on Friday because India rested Mohammed Siraj, who had picked up a five-for in their last game, the Asia Cup final. It ended up being the perfect like-for-like swap.

If you’re in the just-pick-your-best-bowlers camp, the idea that India have to choose between Siraj and Shami is a travesty. Why not play Siraj and Shami and Jasprit Bumrah? And Kuldeep Yadav?

India, however, have been clear in the lead-up to the World Cup that they won’t pick all four of their best bowlers at the same time. When they’ve been at or near full strength, they’ve almost always picked only three of them, plus two genuine allrounders in Hardik Pandya and Ravindra Jadeja, and one other allrounder at No. 8. Depending on conditions, this third allrounder is either Thakur or a third spinner.

Thakur has been integral to India’s World Cup plans. He has played as many ODIs (28) as Siraj since the start of 2022; no India bowler has featured in more games.

Mohali may have convinced you that Shami had won the argument with Thakur, but the reality is that there’s no such argument. They aren’t fighting for the same spot.

This might seem like a frustrating reality after games like Mohali, but not all ODIs are like Mohali. Some ODIs, instead, are like Birmingham 2019, the match that convinced India that batting depth is non-negotiable.

India picked their four best bowlers in that game: Bumrah, Shami, Kuldeep and Yuzvendra Chahal. The Kul-Cha era was in full swing when India began that World Cup, and Kul-Cha had contributed handsomely to India starting the tournament with five successive wins and a washout.

India’s best four bowlers, though, couldn’t prevent England from running away to 337 on a flat Edgbaston surface. And they became a liability when the chase commenced. Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 didn’t bat at all, but they had an outsize influence on India’s approach. Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli put on 138, but went at less than a run a ball. With India lacking depth, they put all their eggs in one basket: preserving wickets to turn this into something like a T20 chase.

India got to the last 20 overs needing 186 with eight wickets in hand. Cameos from Rishabh Pant and Hardik kept them in it, but India effectively shut shop after they were dismissed. You probably remember feeling puzzled and frustrated when MS Dhoni and Kedar Jadhav pushed the ball around for singles during an unbroken stand of 39 with no intention of going for the target. You might not remember that there was virtually no batting to come, and India were resigned to playing for net run rate.

India jettisoned Kul-Cha after that game, and went back to one wristspinner plus Jadeja. What can a No. 8 do if your top seven doesn’t score runs? Jadeja answered that question more than adequately nine days later, almost winning India a semi-final they’d all but lost.

If anything, India have strengthened their bowling since that World Cup. Jadhav, a part-timer, was their sixth bowler in that tournament. Hardik and Jadeja have both moved up a place in the batting order since then, allowing India to play a genuine sixth bowler in either Thakur or a spinner such as Axar Patel, R Ashwin or Washington Sundar.

And while Thakur is no one’s idea of the perfect fast bowler, he’s built a weirdly compelling body of work. Only 27 bowlers in ODI history have picked up 50 wickets at a strike rate of below 30 (that’s effectively more than two wickets per 10-over quota): Shami, Siraj and Thakur are among them, though it won’t surprise you that Thakur has the worst economy rate of all 27.

This speaks to his very method. Thakur may take a lot of wickets with seemingly innocuous deliveries, but there’s definitely skill involved if you keep doing it over 42 innings. He’s capable of swinging even the semi-new white ball, and he finds ways to get the ball to behave in odd ways by bowling cutters or cross-seam deliveries into the surface. And over time, it’s also become fairly clear that India have given him license to gamble with attacking lines and lengths. The dropped chance of Warner on Friday, for instance, came off a classic Thakur delivery, a full ball that wasn’t quite full enough to drive safely. Similarly, he may have overdone the short ball and taken stick for it on the day, but on another day, he may have had a couple of wickets from miscued hooks.

It’s not how you’re supposed to bowl in ODIs, if such a rulebook exists, but it’s probably how India think they can get the best out of a player with unusual gifts.

Thakur isn’t the ideal No. 8 either, but India aren’t blessed with the likes of Sam Curran or Wanindu Hasaranga, who average in the 20s and strike at close to or above a run a ball. While batting at No. 8 or below, Thakur averages 15.50 and strikes at 114.28 – of the India players to have occupied those slots at least 10 times since his debut, only Bhuvneshwar Kumar (18.13) has a better average, but his runs have come at a strike rate of below 80. Kuldeep, Bumrah, Chahal, Siraj and Shami have the batting records of No. 10s at best.

Thakur might not have played the number of games he has for India, across formats, if even one of their other regular fast bowlers had his ability with the bat. None of them do, however, and India have found in Thakur an imperfect solution to a thorny problem.

It’s something India fans might just have to get used to as the World Cup looms into view. Love him or hate him, Shardul Thakur isn’t going anywhere.