Agarkar’s three years: The art of taking tough calls beyond numbers
When Ajit Agarkar took over as the chairman of India’s senior selection committee, the circumstances were anything but routine.
His appointment followed the unceremonious exit of Chetan Sharma (caught making loose comments on a TV channel’s sting operation). The transition came with the kind of scrutiny that accompanies every powerful position in Indian cricket.
Three years later, his tenure can best be described as eventful, filled with difficult calls, bold convictions and an acceptance that the role of a selector rarely fetches applause.
A selector is like a wicketkeeper.
The good catches might draw a feeble applause but a sharp drop will invite sharper criticism. There is a certain symmetry to Agarkar’s journey.
Back in 2020-21, when the top selector’s post had opened up, it was Chetan Sharma who had pipped him despite Agarkar being an applicant. When the opportunity finally came his way in mid-2023, he inherited a responsibility to rebuild trust in a selection process that is constantly under public glare.
In the broader history of India’s selection committees, particularly in the years following the influential tenures of Dilip Vengsarkar and Krishnamachari Srikkanth, Agarkar has arguably been among the most talked-about chairman.
That attention has come not merely from the position he holds but from the nature of decisions he has been willing to take.
Over the past three years, the Indian team has played four ICC finals (2023 ODI World Cup, 2024 T20 World Cup, 2025 Champions Trophy, 2026 T20 World Cup), winning two and losing one.
It could be three wins overall if India wins on Sunday against New Zealand in the T20 World Cup final. While the players and support staff rightfully command the spotlight for performances on the field, the selectors’ role in shaping squads for global tournaments cannot be overlooked. Agarkar’s tenure has been marked by calls that demanded conviction that could withstand criticism.
His bullish backing of Suryakumar Yadav as a long-term T20I captain over Hardik Pandya was one such move.
Far more sensitive was the decision to replace an extremely successful and sentimental favourite, Rohit Sharma, as ODI captain. In both instances, Agarkar did not attempt to hide behind silence.
He fronted up, taking the inevitable bullets that came with high-profile calls. If statistics alone were the parameter, every cricket lover could pick their own playing eleven. But selection is rarely that straightforward.
It demands the ability to identify players, understand roles and visualise how individuals fit into a larger tactical framework. On that front, it must be said that Agarkar and his panel, earlier comprising S Sharath (now replaced by Pragyan Ojha), along with Subroto Banerjee (now replaced by RP Singh), SS Das and Ajay Ratra, have done more than a commendable job in white-ball cricket. Call it the IPL effect, but India today possesses an enviable depth of talent.
New Zealand’s Glenn Phillips remarked ahead of Sunday’s final that India have enough players to field “three T20 teams”.
Managing talent in abundance, at times, can be way more challenging that managing the paucity of it. For a selection committee, every opportunity granted to one player inevitably means disappointment for another. Maybe for Agarkar, the most crucial realisation has been that a selector cannot afford to be a people pleaser.
The role demands distance, clarity and the courage to accept that popularity cannot be the yardstick for every decision. It has not been an easy path.
One can say with certainty that Agarkar has rarely had anyone providing cover fire for the decisions he has taken. The criticism and accompanying questions have largely come his way, and he has faced them head-on.
One of the less visible aspects of his tenure has been his insistence on maintaining the sanctity of conversations with players who have been dropped. In an era of dressing-room whispers becoming public discourse, that discretion has mattered.
There have, of course, been questions. Some have wondered why Agarkar spends more time travelling with the national team rather than watching domestic cricket.
There have also been questions on whether his presence alongside the Indian think-tank helps in lending adds balance to decision-making that might otherwise tilt in a unilateral direction.
No tenure is without blemishes.
There could be criticism over whether Shubman Gill needed to be brought back into the T20I side for the Asia Cup, made vice-captain and then dropped later.
Yet context matters. Sanju Samson had endured a poor run of form in the preceding T20 series against England in early 2025. When decisions are made in real time, they are rarely as simple as they appear in hindsight.
Overall, the percentage of Agarkar’s successful calls has far outweighed the ones that might be viewed as errors.
As the cricketing calendar moves forward, there is a strong buzz that Agarkar could move on after the T20 World Cup. Yet his tenure still has a year remaining.
For the sake of continuity, he might continue at least until the 2027 World Cup cycle to complete the full tenure.
Agarkar has shown that selection is not merely about numbers on a spreadsheet. It is about judgment, conviction and the willingness to stand alone when the call demands it.
