India is a nation of 140 crore people, bursting with cricketing talent. A sport once introduced by colonial elites has now become the heartbeat of the country, producing world champions and turning the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) into the financial powerhouse of world cricket. From Kapil Dev’s underdog triumph in 1983, through the MS Dhoni era, and into the present day, Indian cricket has dominated across formats, often topping global rankings. The Indian Premier League (IPL) further solidified this dominance, providing Indian cricket with unprecedented depth and reach.
And yet, for all this progress, Indian selection policies remain stubbornly outdated. The BCCI and its selectors continue to rely on a narrow, recycled pool of players, instead of fully harnessing the breadth of available talent. That complacency is now being called out not just by fans but also by former cricketers. A case in point: the omission of in-form players like Shreyas Iyer and Nitish Kumar Reddy, a promising, genuine all-rounder, from the Asia Cup T20 squad.
Both have shown consistency and class in the IPL, yet they find themselves sidelined. Instead, the selectors have opted to bring Test captain Shubman Gill into the T20 side. While his abilities are unquestionable, should his inclusion come at the expense of younger players who are in better form and temperament for the shortest format? More importantly, where exactly does he fit in the batting order? Gill, coming off a grueling tour of England, might have benefited more from a much-needed mental break. His inclusion highlights a deeper flaw in the system: Indian cricket desperately needs to rethink how teams are picked, managed, and nurtured across formats.
The BCCI must consider selecting 30 players dedicated to each format—Test, ODI, and T20. These would be specialists, trained and groomed to excel in their respective arenas. Such a system would:
- Ensure deserving players are not overlooked because of limited squad slots.
- Allow specialists to hone their skills without the burden of constantly switching between formats.
- Expand opportunities for nearly 100 Indian cricketers to represent the nation at the highest level.
- Reduce over-dependence on a handful of stars, while avoiding the politics and heartburn of appointing “one captain for all formats.”
Just as importantly, India could consider appointing three separate coaches for the three formats, with a senior figure overseeing as head coach. This is no radical idea—several countries, including England, have successfully adopted similar models.
Talk of making Shubman Gill captain across all formats has only highlighted the pitfalls of India’s current approach. Suryakumar Yadav has proven himself as an effective T20 leader; replacing him without cause risks disillusionment. Likewise, uncertainty looms over Rohit Sharma’s future as ODI skipper. Instead of recycling leadership, why not identify and back new names like Rishabh Pant or other emerging leaders to build a squad for the next World Cup?
Indian cricket is at a stage where it can afford to experiment boldly. With a talent pool unmatched anywhere in the world, why cling to rigid selection templates? Creating dedicated squads, format-specific coaches, and leadership structures tailored to each format will not only maximize India’s chances of success but also ensure that dozens of deserving cricketers do not fade away due to a lack of opportunities.
This is not about undermining anyone. It is about strengthening the system, preventing needless heartburn, and ensuring Indian cricket continues to dominate on merit, not habit.
The time has come for the BCCI and its selectors to think differently. (The author is a former Hyderabad Ranji player and coach.)
