With the ICC T20 World Cup fast approaching — and the final set to be staged at the magnificent Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad, a 1.2 lakh-capacity fortress that stands as a symbol of India’s cricketing might — one would imagine that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would focus on stability, strategy, and sensible leadership. Instead, reports suggest a few “mischievous” officials and selectors are again toying with an absurd idea — replacing Suryakumar Yadav as T20 captain with Shubman Gill. If true, this move smacks of the same indecisive and politically tinted mindset that has long plagued Indian cricket’s administrative corridors. It’s one thing to plan succession sensibly — quite another to play musical chairs with the nation’s most important leadership roles just months before a global tournament. Let’s be clear: Rohit Sharma’s exit from the ODI captaincy, though emotionally jarring for millions, is at least understandable. He’s 38, and by the next ODI World Cup in 2028, he’ll be 42. The BCCI’s rationale for grooming Gill for longer formats is acceptable — he’s young, technically sound, and has already proven himself with a series win against England. But extending that experiment to the T20 format, where Suryakumar Yadav has both excelled and inspired, would be a monumental blunder. Numbers tell the story better than emotions. Under Suryakumar’s leadership, India clinched a hard-fought 2–1 victory against Australia in a five-match T20 series in Australia. His individual strike rate in T20 internationals hovers around an explosive 170 — the highest among all top-ranked batters in the world. He’s not just a captain who leads by words but one who walks the talk. His performances — 2,141 T20I runs at an average of over 45 — have made him the world’s No. 1 T20 batsman for nearly two years running. You don’t replace such a performer and a proven leader on the eve of a World Cup unless you want to invite chaos.
Contrast this with Gill, who, despite being immensely talented, is still untested as a T20 leader. His T20I strike rate of around 140 and average of 34 are solid but not exceptional. He’s better suited to anchor roles in ODIs and Tests — formats that demand patience and temperament over aggression and flair. Making him captain across all three formats at 25 would not only burden his growth but also rob India’s T20 squad of the spark and innovation that Suryakumar brings. It’s high time BCCI understood that modern cricket nations thrive on specialization — not one-size-fits-all leadership. England has done it. Australia has done it. Even Pakistan, often accused of inconsistency, has embraced the multi-captain formula. So why can’t India — a nation of 1.4 billion people and perhaps 100 million cricketing aspirants — afford three captains? If the selectors truly wish to act in the national interest, they must ensure continuity and clarity in the shortest format. Suryakumar deserves to lead the T20 squad through the upcoming World Cup — not as a stopgap but as a trusted commander who has earned his stripes. Gill can rightfully helm the ODI and Test sides as the torchbearer of India’s next generation. That’s how strong cricketing nations operate — with balance, foresight, and respect for merit. Cricket fans have long memories. They don’t forgive whimsical decisions that cost the country trophies. The Narendra Modi Stadium deserves to host not just another World Cup final but an Indian team that represents planning, unity, and conviction — not confusion. So, to those in the BCCI corridors conspiring to “experiment” at the wrong time — pause and think. Don’t turn the world’s most passionate cricketing nation into a laughingstock. Don’t be called jokers.
