Rohit Sharma and Hardik Pandya leadership calls under Ajit Agarkar’s tenure spark debate after team setbacks
Two major leadership decisions involving Rohit Sharma and Hardik Pandya during Ajit Agarkar’s tenure as chief selector have come under intense criticism. Experts say unclear planning and abrupt captaincy changes created confusion inside the Indian team and contributed to recent failures.
Indian cricket has found itself in the middle of a leadership debate after two crucial captaincy calls made under Ajit Agarkar’s selection panel were labelled as mishandled. Specialists and former players believe that inconsistent communication, unclear role assignment and sudden changes led to avoidable instability within the national squad.
The first controversy surfaced around Rohit Sharma’s leadership in limited overs cricket. Despite being one of India’s most experienced captains, confusion arose over his role in white ball formats. Frequent discussions on workload management and long gaps between ODI and T20 assignments created uncertainty about whether he remained the long term leader. Analysts say the lack of clarity affected team preparation and continuity.
The second contentious call involved Hardik Pandya. He was promoted as the future captain in T20 cricket and later positioned as a possible all-format leader. However injuries, fluctuating form and inconsistent availability made the succession plan unreliable. Critics argue that the selection committee failed to create a stable leadership structure or groom alternatives effectively. This, they believe, contributed to tactical issues during major series.
These leadership decisions have come under scrutiny as India faced disappointing results in recent matches. Former cricketers say that captaincy changes must come with clear messaging, long term planning and strong backup options. Without that, teams often struggle to build cohesion.
With major tournaments on the horizon, the BCCI is expected to review leadership strategy, ensure better communication and stabilise the structure around senior players. The debate continues as fans and experts hope for stronger, more consistent guidance for the national team.
About the Author
