image

Anil Jauhri 

New Delhi | Thursday | September 10, 2026

As our neighbours Pakistan crumbled against England in two Test matches in a row, the Pakistan Cricket Board has wielded the hammer and in an unprecedented move, recalled 6 of the cricketers as well as some coaches. One might argue that such a purge in the middle of a series is overaction     and one would certainly not recommend it but it does show a willingness to build accountability.

Contrast this with the approach of BCCI in India. Post T20 debacle in Ireland and England, what have we seen? Silence from the Board. No serious review. No accountability.

It is reflected in the selection for the T20 home series against Afghanistan this month.

It was a colossal batting failure in Ireland and England which cost us the series.

India has a series of T20 internationals in front of it - 3 against Afghanistan at home, 5 against West Indies at home again and then 3 against New Zealand in New Zealand.

We should have been selecting players who can deliver both at home and abroad.

And what do selectors do?

They pick up exactly the same 6 batters for the series against Afghanistan who collectively failed in Ireland/England.

They ignore the claims of Shubman Gill, Yashasvi Jauswal and KL Rahul who have proven their credentials in overseas conditions and have an excellent record in IPL 2026 to back up.

In the aftermath of the humiliation suffered in Ireland and England, how should have one gone about selections?

Frankly, the squad that failed in Ireland and England could still be a formidable force in home conditions and win against Afghanistan and West Indies.

But would it be prudent to retain players who showed little appetite for overseas conditions especially considering the next series is in New Zealand? Or should one bring in players who can succeed in overseas conditions too?

Prudence demands that we follow the latter approach rather than encourage flat track bullies.

The selectors have taken a call and announced the squad for the Afghanistan series. It does not tell us what direction the selection committee is taking.

As already highlighted, the first issue is that while the batting failed repeatedly in the English/Irish conditions, the selectors have chosen to stay with exactly the same set of batters thus not holding anyone accountable. Considering we have to tour New Zealand next, this should be considered a questionable approach.

When we review the batting performances in Ireland/England, two names come up who did not deliver– Samson and Sooryavanshi.

Was it prudent to blood Sooryavanshi in England rather than Ireland? Certainly not. Was it prudent to leave out Samson after couple of failures? Again not! He should have been persisted with to either prove himself in those conditions or otherwise.

Second interesting part is that too many players have been included subject to fitness. One assumes that one of the regulars, Hardik Pandya, has been left out on fitness grounds. Then why not others especially since we are playing Afghanistan which could be an occasion to try youngsters. It might have been a good idea to at least name the stand bys for them to make the process more transparent.

This column, prior to selections for Ireland/England, had advocated that some youngsters like Sooryavanshi may be blooded in Ireland while the seasoned players are selected for the England leg. The selection committee chose to not follow this approach and instead opted for a single squad.

One would say that this approach would have been better and can be used even now – some youngsters are tried against Afghanistan and Windies while a full strength squad is chosen for New Zealand.


The squad announced for Afghanistan series, as stated earlier, does not show a clear direction. But since they have chosen to include certainties such as Bumrah, Arshdeep and Dube, one has to assume this is likely a full strength squad.

If that be so, how is an injured Reddy in when Pandya and Dube should be automatic selections and In Indian conditions, we do not need two pace all rounders. With Dube available, why do we pick a doubtful Reddy?

Are Bumrah, Arshdeep and Rana the frontline pace attack? Certainly for NZ tour another pacer would need to be added. Who would that be? Siraj? Who gets picked and left out in turns without explanation.

What about Shami? This column has repeatedly raised question about Shami - he has played in New Zealand successfully earlier and should be in the mix.
Do we consider Bhuvaneswar Kumar – on current form, he should have gone to England – his bowling suits conditions in New Zealand too.
Or should we assume that the doors have been shut on these two veterans.
Looking at the spin combination - are Axar, Varun, Sundar and Bishnoi the preferred combination? Bishnoi has 11 wickets in the last 12 T20s he has played since Jan, 2025 not forgetting the hammering he faced in the only outing in England. In the same period, Yadav has played 14 matches and picked 26 wickets. How does then Bishnoi get selected ahead of Yadav? Should we assume that Yadav is no longer in the scheme of things.
In any case, one imagines one of them - likely Bishnoi - would be left out for NZ to accommodate a pacer. 

The batting has already been questioned earlier – the failed batters get a nod and a chance to stack up runs against weaker opposition on flat pitches while those with much better overseas records are ignored. If this is not unfair, what is?
In conclusion, one would say that the squad selected does not seem to indicate this is the best T20 team we have. At the same time, the home series against Afghanistan and West Indies should have been used to try some youngsters - couple of batsmen in waiting like Patidar and Sai Sudharsan or couple of aspiring bowlers like Anshul Kamboj and Prince Yadav who figured among top 20 in IPL 2026 even above some of the selected cricketers. 

This might be an opportunity lost.

(An engineer by training and an international authority on standardization , Anil Jauhri has been passionate about  cricket from his student days)

  • Share: