1
0
Rohit Sharma is now going to town that it was his decision to opt out of the Sydney Test and if it is true then it does paint a very different picture of him. It looks as if he wanted to escape further scrutiny. In Hindi we call it ‘Bhagora’, one who runs away from a challenge.
On the surface, this is a move to salvage his image and maintain control over the narrative, especially given the heavy scrutiny he has faced in recent weeks. However, the fact remains that such a decision — whether driven by the coach or by Rohit himself — has significant ramifications for both his leadership and India’s cricketing culture.
When a captain steps down from leading his team in the midst of a “war”, it does raise questions about his resolve and commitment, especially in a high-stakes match like the fifth Test against Australia. In cricket, and particularly in Test matches, captains are expected to set the tone and lead from the front, both in terms of performance and mental fortitude. By choosing to sit out without a legitimate injury, the message sent can be seen as one of avoidance. Whether it’s a case of needing rest or simply stepping away from the challenge, such a move could very well be interpreted as a lack of courage, especially when the team needs its leader the most.
The comparison to his exit from the Mumbai Indians’ captaincy, where he used PR tactics to justify his stepping down, further fuels this perception of Rohit as someone who shies away from difficult situations when the pressure mounts. In the cricketing world, where leadership is so often tested during tough times, a captain who steps away during a crucial moment risks being labeled as an escapist.
In reality, Rohit did tried to play the Sydney Test but it was coach Gautam Gambhir who told him not to. The fact that Rohit repeated phone calls to the board officials didn’t help, his latest’s statement of not to step away or retire is a last ditch effort to play and lead in the Champions Trophy. If Rohit isn’t the captain of the ODI team then he doesn’t have a place in the team as well. His statemate Yashasvi Jaiswal straight away gets into the ODI team.
However, it’s important to note that there could be more to this than meets the eye. While the PR defense seems to be at play in order to protect his image, the dynamics within the team, the management, and the board’s involvement will make things clear. Was this truly a personal decision, or was there external pressure — either from the coach, selectors, or the board — that led to this situation? Rohit was, in fact, pressured into sitting out and it signals a major fracture in the leadership structure, which is a concern for the future of Indian cricket.
But the timing and the optics of this move seem ill-judged. In the fiercely competitive world of international cricket, leadership is built on the foundation of resilience, and at this moment, Rohit’s decision risks damaging his standing as a leader. The public relations maneuver may have salvaged his personal image in the short term, but in the long run, it may prove more harmful than helpful to his reputation as the leader of India’s Test team.
There is no home series now to save Rohit. Even the World Test Championship cycle starts after the June final, so what’s the point of having a struggling Rohit in England. His teammates like Jasprit Bumrah and Rishabh Pant could do a better job. Even Hardik can do the same in ODI team, isn’t?
