It has been over four decades since Mohinder Amarnath famously called the national selectors a “pack of jokers.” And yet, those stinging words continue to echo with startling relevance in Indian cricket today. If consistency was ever the defining characteristic of the Indian selection committee, it’s been in its inconsistency. Shreyas Iyer’s latest omission from the Indian Test squad for the World Test Championship underlines just how little has changed.
Iyer, fresh off a stunning IPL campaign as captain of Punjab Kings, has every reason to feel aggrieved. Not only has he led a relatively modest side to the IPL final, but he has also demonstrated remarkable form with the bat, highlighted by a brilliant, unbeaten 84 against the Mumbai Indians in the semifinal. More than the runs, it was how he scored them that has left cricket connoisseurs baffled at his exclusion.
Facing Jasprit Bumrah—arguably the best death bowler in the world—Iyer looked unshakable. Yorkers that would normally uproot stumps or crush toes were instead driven, sliced, or flicked away with surgical precision. The bat came down like a guillotine, late and straight, and yet with supple wrists that redirected the ball to the boundary with elegance. It was a masterclass in handling high pace under pressure—something Indian cricket desperately needs in the red-ball format, with Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli both unavailable.
This isn’t the first time Indian selectors have shown a perplexing blind spot toward talent. M.L. Jaisimha, another elegant batsman from Hyderabad, was once flown mid-series to Australia, only after being ignored initially. He went on to become a celebrated stylist of his era. But history seems to repeat itself in Indian cricket with mechanical predictability. Talented players like Amarnath, Jaisimha, and now Iyer, find themselves at the mercy of selectors whose decisions appear increasingly arbitrary.
The current selection committee, headed by Ajit Agarkar, has not given any public explanation for Iyer’s omission, despite his rich form and the clear vacancy left by Kohli and Rohit. This silence only adds insult to injury. For all the talk of meritocracy, Iyer’s exclusion raises troubling questions. What message does it send to young cricketers? That form doesn’t matter? That consistency is irrelevant? That politics, perhaps, is louder than performance?
Even former India opener and current mentor Gautam Gambhir is reportedly surprised by the omission. If those within the ecosystem are scratching their heads, fans can hardly be blamed for being outraged. In Iyer’s case, the selectors seem to have punished confidence and rewarded caution. If a player can take on Bumrah at full tilt and come out not just surviving but dominating, how is he not Test material?
Some will argue that IPL performances shouldn’t directly translate to Test selection. But that’s an oversimplification. What Iyer demonstrated wasn’t just T20 flair—it was technical brilliance under pressure. His calm, his shot selection, his balance at the crease, and his ability to read length early are all traits that apply across formats. That ability to counter quality pace bowling is something India sorely lacked during the last WTC final.
With a young side now entrusted to Shubman Gill, wouldn’t it have made sense to bring in an experienced head like Iyer—someone who has already proven himself in red-ball cricket with hundreds against quality sides?
Selectors may have their reasons, but silence is not one of them. At the very least, transparency is owed to the player, to the fans, and the game. Until then, the phrase “pack of jokers” will continue to haunt Indian cricket’s corridors of power. And deservedly so.
