The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) continues to spring its fair share of surprises when it comes to selection. The recent squad announcement for the ODI series against New Zealand has once again left several questions unanswered despite the side not having undergone too many changes on paper.
Lineup details released on Saturday, January 3 revealed three major changes. Two of them were the return of Shubman Gill and Shreyas Iyer as captain and vice-captain, while the third was Mohammed Siraj, who returned after missing the ODI series against South Africa. To accommodate these inclusions, the likes of Ruturaj Gaikwad, Tilak Varma and Dhruv Jurel were left out. While the changes may seem minimal, the reasoning behind some of these calls is still hard to fathom.
Why was Ruturaj Gaikwad insulted?
Before the debate begins, yes, Ruturaj Gaikwad’s omission is understood to be related to Shreyas Iyer’s return to the side. But even then, Iyer’s comeback is far from certain. The BCCI notification clearly states that his inclusion is subject to passing fitness tests at the Center of Excellence. If so, why take the risk in the first place?
Although Iyer is considered fit enough to play, his push back into competitive cricket is a cause for concern. Any setback would not only affect India’s ODI plans but could also jeopardize its participation in the Indian Premier League. In the long run, this is a risk India cannot afford to take.
Gaikwad may not be the first choice No.4 when Iyer is fully fit, but this series could have offered him a valuable run in the middle order while giving Iyer more time to recover. It’s not that Gaikwad is short on form. His last ODI appearance brought his century against South Africa in Raipur. Since then, he has continued to score runs in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, including a century and a fifty in the last two matches. So form hardly mattered.
In this context, taking a chance on an ever-recovering Iyer and leaving out a batsman who has been scoring consistently seems like an unnecessary gamble.
Siraj is coming back but why not Shami?
Mohammed Siraj’s return to the ODI setup is hardly surprising. He is a senior member of the team and has performed consistently in domestic conditions. Its inclusion on merit is understandable.
However, the continued absence Mohammed Shami raises more questions than answers. If the 2027 ODI World Cup is the long-term goal, Shami’s omission is hard to justify. While Siraj’s numbers at home may be better, Shami’s effectiveness in different conditions around the world sets him apart.
Shami has been playing domestic cricket regularly and has shown that he is still capable of performing at a high level. His importance to India’s ODI success cannot be overstated. He was instrumental in India’s run to the finals of the 2023 ODI World Cup and finished as India’s highest wicket-taker during their triumphant Champions Trophy campaign.
Continuing to overlook a pitcher with that pedigree, especially when he’s fit and active, remains one of the bigger mysteries of the selection.
Where does Rishabh Pant fit in?
Another crucial question revolves around Rishabh Pant’s role in the ODI side. Pant last featured in an ODI in August 2024. He has not played a single match in the format since then. This gap inevitably leads to uncertainty as to where it fits into the current setup.
It would be surprising if Pant is seen as a similar replacement for KL Rahul. While his wicketkeeping credentials are not in doubt, the batting equation is less straightforward. Pants’ ability to anchor an ODI innings, especially in the middle overs, remains largely untested compared to Rahul.
If Pant is only going to be a back-up keeper and not get any playing time, the logic of his selection becomes moot. Transferring a player without a clearly defined role puts the team in a vulnerable position, especially if an injury were to sideline Rahul midway through the series. In this scenario, India would be forced into a high-risk adjustment rather than a smooth transition.
What is the point of Vijay Hazare Trophy?
The Vijay Hazare Trophy exists to give the selectors a clearer picture of India’s domestic talent. However, the team’s latest selection suggests his influence remains limited. Instead of rewarding form and exploring depth, the selectors again leaned heavily on familiar names.
If this approach was always meant to be, it raises a fundamental question: what is the home tournament for? Devdutt Padikkal has been in exceptional form, scoring four centuries in five List A matches. Dhruv Jurel and Sarfaraz Khan also performed solidly throughout the competition. Still, none of them even earned a spot on the bench.
Consistency of choice is important, but so is responsibility. Domestic artists must see their way to the national side, otherwise the system risks stagnating.
All this again brings the conversation back to a familiar point: does the BCCI really value domestic performances across formats, or is it just lip service? Until selection begins to reflect form as much as reputation, the question will persist.
– The end
Issued by:
Amar Panicker
Published on:
January 4, 2026
