Indian cricket is in a phase where talent is abundant, ambition is high, and the calendar is brutally unforgiving. Yet in the middle of this relentless churn stands a simple truth: fitness is the only non-negotiable, no matter how gifted the cricketer. And that is precisely why the current treatment of Shubman Gill — arguably the finest young batter of his generation — deserves closer scrutiny.
At 24, Gill is a phenomenon. Elegant, composed, prolific across formats, and widely seen as India’s future batting pillar. But the question that cricket administrators must confront is this: are we stretching him too thin, too early?
Playing Gill in all three formats is understandable. Handing him leadership in all three formats — or even preparing him for that burden — is not. Captaincy in modern cricket is not merely about tactics on the field. It involves man-management, media responsibilities, brand obligations, and non-stop travel. For a player still finding his long-term batting rhythm in Tests, this is a heavy load.
Yes, Gill impressed during the England series, leading well and showing maturity beyond his years. But that still doesn’t make him the ideal choice to lead India in the longest format. Test cricket demands not just skill but longevity, and longevity demands smart workload management. A 30-plus captain — someone with hardened experience, emotional resilience, and a deeper understanding of the grind — would be more suited for the role over the next couple of seasons.
The Rohit Sharma example stands tall. At 36-37, he remains fit and steady, bringing calm leadership despite the wear of franchise cricket, traveling schedules, and injuries. That’s because he built his cricketing wisdom over years, not months.
The truth is that cricket has changed more in the last decade than in the previous three. The old era, when players enjoyed cushy gaps between formats, is gone forever. Today’s cricketer plays 6 to 8 months a year, spends another month in conditioning camps, and juggles high-pressure brand commitments. Running between the wickets at full throttle, sprinting to save boundaries, diving for impossible catches — these are not just skills but physical risks that demand recovery time.
Consider the big cricketing nations: Australia, England, South Africa, and New Zealand. Many of their players retire by 30 or 32. Why? Because they enter elite cricket young, are physically overworked by busy schedules, and understand the toll on the body. On the other hand, subcontinental teams — India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh — routinely field 33- and 35-year-olds because skill often compensates for declining athleticism.
And yet, despite this reality, India seems determined to use its brightest talents everywhere, all the time. Gill is not alone. Australia’s Marnus Labuschagne also plays every format, floats across batting positions, and struggles to maintain consistency. The comparison is instructive: both are gifted, but both face human limitations.
History offers lessons. V.V.S. Laxman was once asked to open the batting — a role he could perform but not sustain. He pushed back, preferring the No. 5 slot to prolong his career. The result? Some of the greatest Test innings ever played, carved out because he understood his body and his game.
With a population of 1.4 billion, India can easily field three different captains for three different formats, as England did so successfully for years. Specialized roles reduce fatigue, improve focus, and allow players to extend their careers without being burned out by 27-year-old.
Selecting talent from the U-19 system is commendable, but grooming must be balanced with protection. A young star is not a machine to be used without pause.
India must remember: even the most gifted cricketer is human first, athlete second, and captain only if the body and mind can handle the load.
The selectors must rethink their approach. If fitness is the priority — as it must be — then workload management should dictate roles, leadership, and format participation.
Because the one thing modern cricket cannot afford is sacrificing longevity at the altar of short-term expectations.
