Chief selector Ajit Agarkar’s report card: Was the gift unkind to him?

The words on Rohit Sharma’s T-shirt were hard to miss: “Tensive?”

The former India captain was promoting his latest TV show when the T-shirt caught the attention of the internet in September and the reaction was swift. Fans linked it to the debate over his place in the 2027 ODI World Cup and with comments widely attributed to Ajit Agarkar, who has been at the center of discussions about Rohit and Virat Kohli’s future. Courtesy: Instagram

Some read it as a sharp response to the chief voter. However, Rohit did not confirm that it was meant as a dig at Agarkar, nor any evidence that he had privately told Agarkar that he was non-committal about the World Cup. Whether he intended it that way is almost beside the point. Online storytelling has already taken shape and a t-shirt was enough to bring it to life.

It was a neat illustration of what Agarkar’s three years as chief selector had become. A decision would be made, the player’s future would become a moot point and Agarkar would find himself at the center of the argument. Sometimes the criticism was about the cricket, sometimes about how the decision was perceived, and often it was impossible to separate the two.

Agarkar’s tenure ended on 4 October 2026 with three ICC titles: the 2024 T20 World Cup, the 2025 Champions Trophy and the 2026 T20 World Cup. India also reached the final of the 2023 ODI World Cup. These are no small feats that the selection committee has overseen.

Yet when Gautam Gambhir wrote that “history will be kinder” to Agarkar, it was this line that stood out. Why should history be kinder to a selector whose tenure has produced so much? Was the gift really unkind to him?

Editor-in-chief and head of SportsTak Vikrant Gupta isn’t quite buying the space.

“Very strong. Very strong,” was his assessment when asked if Agarkar was a strong chief selector.

“I think there was only one brief period when we didn’t have a strong chief selector. Before that, going back to Sandeep Patil, Srikkanth and Vengsarkar, you had people of great stature. But after the Lodha Commission, cricketers found more lucrative opportunities in IPL coaching, commentary and different leagues. Prospective selectors realized they could make more money elsewhere. But even before that, Atorgarkar was selected. They were making decisions,” he said.

Strength at selectors is not just a matter of making a big call or being prepared to tell a senior player that his place is under scrutiny. It’s about having an overview of where the team needs to go, acting accordingly, and accepting that the decision will ultimately be judged publicly.

CONVICTIONS AND RESULTS

Agarkar was not without conviction; The question is whether he always had the right balance. Take Suryakumar Yadav’s appointment as T20I captain after Rohit’s retirement in 2024. Hardik Pandya was Rohit’s deputy in the T20 World Cup and seemed to be his obvious successor. Agarkar and the team management instead backed Suryakumar, with Hardik’s fitness and availability also a consideration. It wasn’t the most predictable call, but it worked: India won the T20 World Cup 2026 under Suryakumar.

This is the kind of decision that explains Agarkar’s reputation as a strong selector. He was prepared to support an opinion that was neither the most popular nor the most obvious, and the reward came later. Suryakumar Yadav led India to victory in the T20 World Cup in 2026. (AP Photo)

A TRANSITION THAT HAS BECOME PERSONAL

But the selector’s job becomes considerably more difficult when the players who have defined Indian cricket for years rise to the challenge. Moving on from Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli in Test cricket will always be more contentious than picking a captain for a format that the previous captain has already left.

Both batsmen struggled in Australia in 2024–25 and their retirements followed in May 2025, amid reports that their futures had been mooted and their performances scrutinised. The decision to look ahead was understandable: India had to prepare for life without two players who had been central figures in the team for more than a decade. But was the timing right, especially in Kohli’s case?

MSK Prasad, who chaired the selection committee during Kohli’s peak years, felt that the next generation of openers had arrived, although he was less convinced that Kohli’s Test career had to end when it did.

“I think Virat had a lot to offer in Test cricket. When youngsters like Yashasvi Jaiswal and other openers like Shubman Gill and KL Rahul came through, the next generation came in. But as far as Virat is concerned, I still feel he had two more years of Test cricket in him,” he told IndiaToday.in.

That’s a fair counterpoint, though it doesn’t settle the question. Kohli’s stature couldn’t guarantee him a place, but even a difficult run of form didn’t necessarily mean he had nothing left to offer. There’s a difference between recognizing that a transition has to happen and deciding exactly when a player’s time is up. Courtesy: Instagram/Virat Kohli

The same tension ran through the decision to replace Rohit as ODI captain after the Champions Trophy. The selectors wanted to give Shubman Gill time to prepare for the 2027 World Cup, which was the rationale given and hardly unreasonable. But the move was inevitably seen as a statement about Rohit’s future as a player.

This is where the job of the Chief Selector becomes special. A decision can be made on cricket fields and still turn into a referendum on a player’s status, and once that happens the person making the call often becomes a target, even if it has been discussed with the captain, coach and board.

Agarkar has often been the public face of the selection committee. Senior journalist Rahul Rawat pointed out that although the panel included former renowned international cricketers, among them RP Singh and Pragyan Ojha, it was Agarkar who often interacted with the captain and head coach. This visibility would make it seem like every decision was his alone.

“There were times when Agarkar seemed rigid, there were times when he seemed ready to learn from his mistakes,” Rawat said.

WILLING TO ACCEPT MISTAKES

A useful example is Gill’s experiment with T20 cricket. After captaining the Test and ODIs, Gill returned to the T20I side as vice-captain, but his inclusion disrupted the successful opening combination of Abhishek Sharma and Sanju Samson. Samson struggled to settle in the middle order while Gill did not find his best form at the top.

Ahead of the 2026 T20 World Cup, the selectors dropped Gill and brought in Ishan Kishan. Agarkar claimed the decision was about the form and balance of the side, including the need for another wicket-keeper batsman, rather than a verdict on Gill’s overall ability. India won the tournament, Samson performed brilliantly in the knockout stages.

“So that tells you that Ajit Agarkar was ready to learn from his mistakes. But then there were times, maybe like Rohit Sharma and other occasions, when he seemed a bit stiff, stiff when I said he would follow his instincts,” he said.

KEEPING EXTERIOR NOISE AT ACCESS

Is being India’s chief selector a tough job? MSK Prasad, himself a former chief selector, doesn’t think so. “I don’t think choosing is hard work,” he says, arguing that the key is to have a clear vision and spend months planning the decisions that eventually come to the table.

It’s a straight-forward response to a job that often seems otherwise, especially when every selection call is scrutinized and every omission becomes a debate.

“To me, we never heard any outside noise,” he said.

“The selector should have a vision and the committee should work as a mission for that vision. When you have a clear vision and identify players who will serve Indian cricket for the next 10 years, where is the pressure?

“Our selection committee meetings barely lasted five to 10 minutes because we worked on these meetings for six months.

Agarkar’s challenge was to show the same clarity in dealing with the demands of Indian cricket in the age of social media. The scrutiny surrounding Rohit and Kohli was not just about whether the two should be picked. It was about whether the selectors treated them fairly, whether the transition was handled correctly and whether the team planned for the future at the expense of the present. Courtesy: AP

The “non-committal” episode became a symbol of this unrest. The phrase has been widely attributed to Agarkar in public debate, but this is not evidence that Rohit told him privately that he was unsure about the 2027 FIFA World Cup. The meaning of the shirt has never been confirmed. Yet the speed with which so many linked him with Agarkar showed how firmly he was linked to the uncertainty surrounding Rohit’s future.

The disputes did not end there. Ahead of the 2026 ODI series in England, reports suggested that Rohit was told that the Lord’s match could be his last. He scored a hundred in that game, after which BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia denied that any such communication had taken place. Reports later linked Agarkar’s exit to tensions over Rohit’s future and the selector’s authority.

No need to turn that episode into a conspiracy. Facts are limited and private conversations remain private. But it’s worth asking a broader question: how much leeway does the chief selector have to make an unpopular call when the player involved is one of the biggest names in Indian cricket?

Vikrant Gupta believes that when a team succeeds, the selectors are often forgotten. The captain is remembered for lifting the trophy and the coach for leading the campaign, while the selector’s contribution, despite putting the team in the first place, is much less visible.

“Do you know the name of the chief selector when Greg Chappell took over as India coach? Kiran More was the chief selector; nobody remembers his name because Greg Chappell came in, so the coach became important,” he said.

“When India won the Champions Trophy in 2013, you remember the captain MS Dhoni. Do you know the coach’s name? Duncan Fletcher.”

“The inverted pyramid in cricket means that the captain has to be the most important person, then the chief selector and then the coach,” he added.

But visibility also brings responsibility. It would be unfair to dismiss every criticism of Agarkar as noise. Gill’s experiment deserved scrutiny, the actions of senior players raised legitimate questions and the trophy draw cannot make every selection decision correct.

Likewise, criticism is not proof of failure. Agarkar backed Suryakumar, made Gill the Test captain and was prepared to leave Gill out of the T20 World Cup squad when the combination did not work. These decisions indicate a selector who is willing to take risks, but also one who is able to reconsider them. Others will continue to debate the calls he got wrong or the transitions he could have handled differently. Courtesy: Reuters

So was he a strong chief selector? His tenure had moments of conviction, moments of rigidity, and moments when he changed direction. When up-and-comers Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli entered the conversation, the scrutiny became particularly personal. Vikrant Gupta believes this is the cost of making decisions involving India’s biggest stars.

“If you are a superstar in the modern generation because of social media, guns will be trained on those who make decisions or appear to make decisions against you. The very fact that Ajit Agarkar knew that he might not be welcome… And I think these are the checks and balances. Otherwise, history will be kind to Ajit Agarkar. The present is very kind to Ajit Agarkar.” What’s the problem?” he said.

Perhaps history will be kinder to Agarkar. But his three ICC titles have already secured him a record number of selectors to claim. The shirt fades from memory; the question he raised will not: in Indian cricket can a selector ever be judged by the decisions he makes rather than the stars who upset those decisions?

– The end