After spending much of the previous year on the sidelines, Ishan Kishan sought a break in December during the South Africa tour, citing mental fatigue and a longing for home. During this time, he appeared on Kaun Banega Crorepati, discussing his tattoo, sharing jokes, and entertaining the audience with Team India anecdotes. Subsequently, pictures surfaced of him in Dubai, portraying a seemingly enjoyable time, including moments on a skyscraper balcony overlooking yachts and at a fine dining restaurant.
However, this seemingly ordinary display of leisure did not sit well with the decision-makers in Indian cricket. Despite being a 25-year-old wicketkeeper from Jharkhand, known for his white-ball prowess and having scored two half-centuries in three T20Is against Australia, Ishan Kishan was mysteriously dropped for the Afghanistan series, and not considered for the Tests. Dhruv Jurel was now higher in the pecking order, and the T20 squad also omitted Shreyas Iyer, a standout performer for India in the ODI World Cup.
The T20I squad saw lower-order wicketkeepers Sanju Samson and Jitesh Sharma taking Ishan’s place as designated finishers for high-pressure situations and chasing impossible targets. Surprisingly, the top-order batting position in white-ball cricket, usually occupied by Ishan, was now given to seasoned players in their mid-30s, Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli. The selectors seemed to convey a message – the experienced duo, despite past ICC disappointments, would reclaim the top three spots for the upcoming T20 World Cup in June. However, this decision raised questions about its appropriateness.
Virat and Rohit, recognized as anchors, belonged to an ODI cricket concept that is fading in T20s. In the current T20 landscape, having even one ODI native in the playing XI is considered a luxury. India, seemingly unaware of this shift in T20 dynamics, accommodated two such players. While both Virat and Rohit achieved individual success in global events, India hadn’t won an ICC trophy under their leadership for over a decade. Their IPL records also lacked the numbers associated with match-winning performances. Despite being revered as brands and leaders, they were not viewed as everyday game-changers.
The selectors’ decision left room for speculation – were they being conservative or hesitant to make tough, unpopular calls that could invite backlash on social media from the dropped superstars’ fanbases? The absence of traditional post-selection media interactions by national selectors only added to the mystery, leaving the reasoning behind these decisions shrouded in secrecy.
Days later, head coach Rahul Dravid added a layer of complexity to the Ishan Kishan situation by stating, “Ishan Kishan was not available for selection. He requested for a break in South Africa, which we agreed to. He has not made himself available for selection, and when he does, I am sure he’ll play domestic cricket and make himself available for selection.”
Unequal treatment
For those deeply acquainted with Indian cricket, the phrase “he’ll play domestic cricket and make himself available” carries a familiar weight. It serves as a euphemism for a reprimand, akin to the classic class teacher’s directive to ‘go stand in the corner.’ More alarmingly, it can signify a potential push towards the abyss, where numerous hopefuls strive to ascend.
A pertinent question for Rahul Dravid was whether, with the imminent five-Test series against England crucial for World Test Championship calculations, Sharma and Kohli would be better served playing a Ranji game instead of a T20 series against Afghanistan.
When asked about the Ishan situation, one decision-maker resorted to the cliché response, stating, “Ishan remains in the scheme of things.” This familiar carrot is dangled historically, whether for those genuinely in contention or practically out of it.
However, what exactly does this “scheme” entail? It appears to align with the selectors’ long-standing approach. By including Rohit and Virat for the Afghanistan series, the selectors conveyed that the transition would be deferred. Following India’s tradition of offering extended opportunities to senior players, a decisive move seemed postponed. In Indian cricket, significant changes often occur only after the horses have bolted from the barn.
Exceptionally, prior to the 2007 World T20, India took a bold step by trusting a group of promising youngsters and adopting a fresh leadership approach. MS Dhoni’s historic victory, achieved without stalwarts like Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, and Rahul Dravid, is considered an anomaly—an exceptional occurrence that failed to inspire subsequent selection committees. Instead of taking substantial leaps, subsequent decisions resembled cautious hop-scotch jumps leading nowhere.
To be a genuine world leader, India’s decision-makers must keep abreast of cricket’s ever-evolving nature, particularly concerning the players. Insightful sources reveal that the Indian team management showed insensitivity to Ishan’s frustration while being benched for an extended period. Mental fatigue, often considered a Western concept, was seemingly dismissed by a mindset that perceives relentless toil as impervious to such frivolous trauma.
Ishan faced criticism for not handling his non-selection with the expected spirit. The leadership seemingly desires players like Ishan to display unwavering enthusiasm, grinning widely, and running energetically with drinks while waiting on the fringes. Even when senior players receive potentially undeserved extensions, the juniors are expected not to sulk but to perform joyous cartwheels for the team’s sake. Taking a break from the game and sharing happy pictures from Dubai, according to India’s decision-makers, doesn’t align with the conduct expected from good juniors. Ok boomer.
