Bold, Successful, and Never Dull

Ajit Agarkar took charge as chairman of the BCCI’s senior men’s selection committee in mid-2023, stepping into one of Indian cricket’s most thankless jobs. Nearly three years later, his record is a study in contrasts: glittering white-ball success on one side, grinding Test struggles and recurring controversies on the other. Any honest assessment must hold both in view.

The results in limited-overs cricket under Agarkar’s watch have been exceptional. India reached four ICC tournament finals between late 2023 and early 2026 and won three of them — the 2024 T20 World Cup, the 2025 Champions Trophy, and the 2026 T20 World Cup. The 2023 ODI World Cup final appearance, though a defeat, completed a period of sustained excellence rarely seen in Indian cricket’s recent history. That consistency of performance is the strongest argument in Agarkar’s favour. Selectors are ultimately judged by the teams they send out, and the white-ball sides he helped shape delivered.

Several of his decisions proved decisive. Appointing Suryakumar Yadav as full-time T20 captain ahead of the more obvious candidate, Hardik Pandya, was widely criticised at the time. Agarkar’s panel prioritised availability and form over reputation. The subsequent success of that call vindicated the choice. Equally bold was the decision to leave Shubman Gill out of the 2026 T20 World Cup squad despite his stature as Test and ODI captain, and to bring back Ishan Kishan on the strength of domestic form. These were not popular moves. They required Agarkar to push back against the team management and public sentiment. That he was prepared to do so, and that the results largely justified the risk, speaks to a willingness to take responsibility.

Defining Feature

The management of the generational transition in Test cricket was another defining feature. Overseeing the exits of Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma from the longest format after the 2024-25 Border-Gavaskar Trophy series loss was never going to be painless. Agarkar’s committee also gradually moved past Mohammed Shami. These calls were necessary if Indian cricket was to avoid clinging to fading greatness. The fact that the panel was prepared to make them, rather than postpone the inevitable, deserves credit.

Yet the same period has exposed clear shortcomings. India’s Test performances under Agarkar have been deeply disappointing. A 3-0 home whitewash by New Zealand, further home struggles against South Africa, and a 3-1 defeat in Australia ended a long period of dominance. Home conditions that once guaranteed results suddenly looked unmanageable. Critics fairly asked whether the selection committee had prepared adequately for the post-Kohli-Rohit era or simply hoped young players would step up without sufficient scaffolding.

Player management has also been uneven. The repeated experiments with Shubman Gill in T20 cricket — elevating him, making him vice-captain, then dropping him — created unnecessary disruption. Promising talents such as Yashasvi Jaiswal never quite secured a settled place in the white-ball setup. The treatment of players like Hardik Pandya, Shreyas Iyer, and Mohammed Shami at various points fuelled accusations of inconsistency and, in some cases, personal bias. Agarkar’s relative absence from domestic matches drew further criticism; a chief selector who spends more time travelling with the national team than watching Ranji Trophy games inevitably invites questions about the depth of his knowledge base.

Poor Timing

Controversies have followed him throughout. The decision to replace Rohit Sharma as ODI captain not long after the Champions Trophy win was seen by many as premature and poorly timed. The Asia Cup squad selections that left out established names triggered public uproar. More recently, the handling of Rohit Sharma’s future during the England tour in 2026 has placed Agarkar’s own position under scrutiny, with reports suggesting the BCCI is now considering alternatives such as VVS Laxman when his current term ends.

What emerges is a picture of a selector who has been unusually willing to make unpopular decisions and unusually quick to correct course when those decisions misfired. The Gill experiment is the clearest example: once it became clear the move had not worked, the panel reversed it without prolonged hesitation. That capacity for course-correction is rare and valuable.

Agarkar’s tenure will ultimately be remembered for the silverware and for the courage required to force a transition that many preferred to delay. The Test record and the occasional sense of randomness in individual selections will remain legitimate black marks. In the unforgiving business of Indian cricket selection, few leave with an unblemished ledger. Agarkar’s is mixed but, on balance, tilted toward achievement. The trophies are real. The hard calls were largely necessary. Whether that is enough for another extension is for the BCCI to decide. The results, however, already form a substantial part of the argument.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai.)