0
0
That’s a dramatic turn—and quite emblematic of how cricket politics and perception play a huge role in selection, especially with big names like Rohit Sharma. It sheds light on the behind-the-scenes power dynamics that can often blur the line between merit and legacy in Indian cricket.
Rohit’s supposed exclusion from the Sydney Test, described as unceremonious, already indicated that the selectors may have been preparing for a transition — perhaps nudging him toward retirement. But the Champions Trophy win, especially if Rohit had a prominent role as captain or performer, changes the entire narrative.
In such cases, players regain leverage — not always through long-term performance, but through timing and achievement. It’s plausible that Rohit, emboldened by victory, felt he still had unfinished business, particularly in Tests where his record at home is solid.
But the selectors and BCCI thought otherwise. Banking on past glory instead of building towards the future has hurt Indian cricket before— particularly in overseas Tests, where form, fitness, and adaptability matter more than seniority. So, a change of guard was always on the cards.
In addition to that, there was pressure on Rohit to leave the scene on a high (Who does that in India?). In between, CricBlogger spoke to one of the former selector and BCCI secretary Sanjay Jagdale who made it clear that Rohit isn’t an extraordinary cricketer in red ball.
His white-ball legacy is undeniably strong — World Cup heroics, Champions Trophy success, and a calm, seasoned captaincy style. But red-ball cricket, especially in testing English conditions, demands a different level of fitness, reflex, and long-form rhythm — areas where Rohit has looked increasingly vulnerable of late.
If the selectors finally decided to draw the line, it signals a turning point — not just tactically, but culturally. The fact that Rohit reportedly tried to push back, including against a no-nonsense figure like Gautam Gambhir, and still found no backing, shows that the internal shift in Indian cricket might be real: performance over persona.
It’s also revealing that his earlier influence — wielded via backdoor conversations and narrative management — no longer carried weight. Once institutional support dries up, even the most powerful names are exposed.
For weeks, there may have been an unspoken understanding between Rohit Sharma and the power corridors that his time in Test cricket was nearing its end — a couple of good IPL knock gave him a false sense of extended relevance, even in the vastly different demands of red-ball cricket. It’s a clear example of how short-term performances in T20 leagues can cloud long-term planning, even in the minds of senior players.
The decisive shift — from quiet acceptance to loud, undeniable chorus — suggests that internal consensus finally crystallized: the team needs to move on. And once that momentum builds, especially with public and media sentiment tilting, even icons like Rohit have little choice but to step aside.
Passing the Test baton to Jasprit Bumrah or KL Rahul marks a new era — both have contrasting styles: Bumrah, a tactical and sharp-minded bowler with natural leadership gravitas; KL, calm but at times conservative. It will be a fascinating shift in identity for the Test side.
