Age is being used as a criterion for blatant discrimination in Indian cricket team

The ‘age factor’ is perhaps one of the biggest scams in the squad selection framework in Indian cricket.

The recent series losses in Ireland and England where the Indian team had to bite humble pie has taken the sheen of the T20 World Champions. Investing in the future is the mantra that is being dished out for our consumption.

What is the value of ‘looking for a long term and future oriented talent’ which gives practically no returns presently?

One, it destroys the current outcomes and a few proud team records.

Bhuvneshwar Kumar

Two, the same non-performers will either lose their places (and self-confidence). Further they will be involved in BCCI politics actively or otherwise become pawns.

Age is being used as a criterion for blatant discrimination, and the worst part is that it is being accepted at both power centres and public levels.

How else would someone justify performers like Bhuvaneshwar Kumar and Mohd Shami being completely ignored in favour of Prasidh Krishna, Harshit Rana and Washington Sundar?

Rohit Sharma delivers at least one or two punches every series or tournament. That is comfortably at par with any other decent player, and yet the sword is perennially hanging. If fielding and agility are held against Rohit Sharma, what is the justification for the embarrassing outcomes of the so-called younger cubs?

Mohammed Shami. Pics: BCCI

On one hand, there is so much clamour over workload balance for the fragile superstars, and continued failures of the young and fit (for nothing) starlets. On the other hand, experienced performers on their comeback trail are humiliated.

Just a case in point… at 35, Kapil was literally jogging and limping, but he was in the team. It was no secret that he was retained only for his personal landmark of 432 Test wickets. On the other hand, Imran was well and truly retired when he was requested to make a comeback. He won the ODI World Cup at 39.

So how is age any yardstick? Nobody knows what future looks like. It would be wise for the selectors to look at present and reward recent (but consistent) performances.

At least that way, there is a hope that the few good records we have remain, and further dubious distinctions are averted.