Ajit Agarkar: A tenure defined by decisions that helped shape next generation of Indian cricket

Ajit Agarkar knows a thing or two about being dropped from his time as a fast-bowling all-rounder for India, during which he played for the country 221 times. He knows about whisper campaigns based on nothing — suggestions that someone had their place only because of proximity to someone powerful. When push came to shove, as selector, he ensured he wouldn’t have to endure the experience again.

Agarkar wrote to the BCCI informing them that he would not be seeking an extension to his tenure as chairman of selectors on the eve of the Annual General Meeting of the Board. He might have sensed the writing on the wall, even though it made logical sense for him to carry on for another year, completing a natural cycle that would have ended with the 2027 World Cup in South Africa in September.

That he made the decision, rather than waiting for events to dictate what the path would be, tells you what you need to know about his approach to selection, specifically, and problem-solving, in general.


During his term, the Indian team won the T20 World Cup in 2024 and 2026 and the Champions Trophy in 2025. The team also won the Asia Cup twice. But accepting credit for this, as it is due, will also mean taking his share of the blame for the Test results at home in recent memory.

Also read | Reasons for Agarkar exit: Rohit Sharma future fiasco, difference of opinion with VVS Laxman

A better way to understand Agarkar’s tenure as chairman is to examine some of the key decisions his committee took that shifted Indian cricket. Agarkar was instrumental in installing Shubman Gill as captain of the Test and ODI teams. Test results under Gill have not been satisfactory, but it is clear he is the man for the job long term. It won’t be a surprise if the T20 captaincy also falls to Gill down the road.

Gill’s elevation was by no means a foregone conclusion. He had limited captaincy experience outside the IPL and, while he was the obvious candidate, still had plenty of room to grow tactically. In selecting the playing eleven, Gill had much growing up to do to work best with a coach who has strong opinions and beliefs. This assertion was becoming obvious in the course of the recent series in Sri Lanka, showing that the right choice had been made.

Agarkar was in the hot seat when Suryakumar Yadav got the job as T20I captain. Pandya’s recurring injury absences made him, at best, a risky choice for the job and, at worst, an untenable one. Rather than roll the dice, Agarkar backed Surya decisively — a player who did not feature in the team in any other format — and it paid dividends.

And, when the time came, it was Agarkar’s panel who moved on from Surya, bringing Shreyas Iyer into the job even though he had not been a regular in the T20I team at the time. That Iyer was the best man for the job and gave the side greater structure and balance was obvious, but it was still a cat that needed to belled.

Also read | EMW Global enters Indian market, signs Rinku Singh as first cricket talent

Agarkar’s panel also had to decide what to do with Vaibhav Sooryavanshi. It may look like this was taken out of their hands by the runs the 15-year-old scored, and the manner in which he scored them. But picking a player also means benching another. In that sense, finding a place for Sooryavanshi was a tricky puzzle that took some deft solving, especially on timing.

Finally, there’s the biggest call of all: what to do with Rohit Sharma? If usually reliable sources are to be believed, Agarkar and his committee had indeed decided to move on from Rohit, believing he was unlikely to sustain fitness and form through to September 2027. One of the selectors even volunteered to speak to Rohit about the decision. But that move left the selectors red-faced when Rohit’s meeting with the powers that run the BCCI, followed by a sensational century at Lord’s, ensured that the status quo remained.

As with all selectors and committees, some choices work and others don’t. What underpinned Agarkar’s time in the job was clarity in decision-making, adherence to processes, clear communication with players, and transparency with the public, while protecting the confidentiality of the ecosystem.

Agarkar showed that it was possible to bring a certain gravitas to the office through the work itself, rather than relying on the stature he had acquired through the cricket he played in his time. This is no mean feat in Indian cricket, especially today, when the selectors are often deciding on the fates of men who themselves have become towering figures in the game.

During his playing days, the one thing Agarkar hated being called was an enigma. He can allow himself a chuckle now, having left the office of the chairman of selectors in a better place than he found it, and with greater clarity about what needs to be done for those who follow.