Mumbai: The announcement of India’s ODI squad for the upcoming series against New Zealand has triggered widespread debate, with the exclusion of Ruturaj Gaikwad and Dhruv Jurel emerging as the most baffling decisions. Equally perplexing is the inclusion of Shreyas Iyer and Nitish Reddy, raising serious questions about the selection committee’s consistency, fairness, and selection logic.
Ruturaj Gaikwad’s omission is particularly difficult to justify. The Maharashtra batter had delivered a sublime century against South Africa in the second ODI, showcasing both temperament and class at the international level. He did not get an opportunity to bat in the third ODI, as India cruised to a nine-wicket victory, making it unfair to assess his form based on a single innings. Gaikwad has been a consistent performer in domestic cricket for years and made full use of his chance at the international level by scoring a hundred. Dropping a player immediately after such a performance sends a confusing and demoralising message. For Gaikwad, the exclusion will undoubtedly come as a shock, and for the selectors, it reflects a lack of continuity and clarity in decision-making.
The case of Dhruv Jurel is equally troubling. Widely regarded as one of the finest young wicketkeeper-batters in the country, Jurel has proven his mettle in domestic cricket and has already been part of India’s squads for both the Test series and the ODI series against South Africa. However, despite being in the squad, he did not get a single opportunity to play in either format. To now drop him without giving him even one game against New Zealand appears unjust. What makes the decision even more questionable is Jurel’s red-hot form in the ongoing Vijay Hazare Trophy, where he has been among the runs in all five matches he has played, including a magnificent century and three half-centuries. Dropping a player who is performing consistently at the domestic level, without offering him a fair run at the international stage, defies logic.
On the other hand, the inclusion of Shreyas Iyer and Nitish Reddy raises eyebrows. Nitish Reddy earned praise for his century in Australia, but since then, his performances across Test matches and ODIs have been underwhelming. He has struggled to make a meaningful impact and is yet to establish consistency at the international level. Persisting with him across multiple series without sustained domestic dominance appears premature. A return to domestic cricket to rebuild confidence and form would have been a more sensible approach.
Similarly, Shreyas Iyer’s recall straight after recovering from injury seems rushed. While there is no denying his talent and experience, easing him back through domestic cricket, particularly the Vijay Hazare Trophy, would have been a fair and practical step before reinstating him into the national side. Bypassing this process not only undermines domestic performances but also sets an uneven benchmark for selection.
The manner in which the squad has been selected is bound to hurt players like Gaikwad and Jurel, who have done everything asked of them, only to be sidelined without explanation. Indian cricket has witnessed similar treatment in the past, notably with Kuldeep Yadav, who was dropped multiple times despite delivering consistent performances across formats. Such decisions risk discouraging players who believe that performances alone should dictate selection.
In a system that prides itself on depth and meritocracy, selections like these weaken faith in the process. If consistent domestic form and impactful international performances are not enough to secure continuity, one must ask: what truly defines selection in Indian cricket today?
