If this doesn’t apply to all…: Irfan Pathan takes sly dig at Hardik on ‘domestic participation’ debate

The cricketing fraternity was hit with a significant and unexpected revelation as the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) announced the annual contracts for the Indian men’s team. The shock announcement on Wednesday, February 28, saw two promising talents, Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer, being dropped from the list of centrally contracted players. This stern decision underscored the BCCI’s policy of prioritizing participation in domestic cricket for players when they aren’t donning the national colors.

Amid the release of contracts, the BCCI made a pertinent point that stirred discussions among cricketing circles. With transparency and a keen intent to revitalize domestic involvement, the board notified that “The BCCI has recommended that all athletes give precedence to participating in domestic cricket during periods when they are not representing the national team.”

This advisory, however, has raised questions regarding its uniform applicability across the board. Irfan Pathan, the former Indian all-rounder known for his sharp swing and shrewd cricketing mind, brought into light a valid concern — would this directive hold water for all players, regardless of their stature or format preferences?

Referring to Hardik Pandya, Pathan turned to social media with a thought-provoking query. “If players like Hardik don’t want to play red-ball cricket, should he and others like him participate in white-ball domestic cricket when they aren’t on national duty?” This question is not only aimed at Pandya but also at the larger picture of inclusivity and fairness in policy enforcement.

While expressing his thoughts about Kishan and Iyer, two cricketers who have showcased their potential at the international level, Pathan tweeted, “They are talented cricketers, both Shreyas and Ishan. Hoping they bounce back and come back stronger.” Simultaneously, his perspective highlighted a fundamental concern: if the rule isn’t uniformly enforced, Indian cricket may fall short of achieving its ambitious targets.

The BCCI’s move initiates an intriguing debate that focuses on the accountability of premier players. Many of the first-choice cricketers often skip domestic matches if they are resting or recuperating from a lengthy layoff due to injury. However, with this directive, the board will now be challenged to ensure consistency in rule implementation across all players.

Kishan and Iyer, having lost their retainership contracts, will undoubtedly eye the upcoming Indian Premier League (IPL) season as a golden opportunity to demonstrate their worth and reclaim their spots in the national setup. A smashing performance in such a high-profile tournament might turn the selectors’ heads and pave the way for a swift return to international duty.

In recent events related to this context, Mushfiqur Rahim, the experienced Bangladeshi cricketer, sparked controversy with his remarks questioning the nature of his retirement from T20 internationals. This followed announcements regarding IPL’s team Lucknow Super Giants appointing an overseas cricketer as the vice-captain, circumventing local player Krunal Pandya.

Furthermore, the Indian test squad experienced a jolt as KL Rahul’s unavailability due to injury was confirmed, while the door opened once again for speedster Jasprit Bumrah to make his comeback in the upcoming fifth Test against England.

As Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer gear up for the IPL, the question remains: Will the BCCI’s reinforced stand on domestic participation prove to be a game-changer for Indian cricket by bringing in consistency and fairness in team selection? Only time will tell if this policy strengthens the roots of India’s cricketing structure or selectively weeds out the underperforming blooms.

Read More: 

Trending News