The current discussion surrounding the futures of Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli—two of Indian cricket's most iconic figures—is gaining momentum, and with good reason. Their recent performances, particularly during the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and India's tumultuous World Test Championship campaign, have raised significant concerns about their ability to continue performing at the highest level. This brings us back to Sanjay Manjrekar's stark observation: “Retirement is in your hand, but playing for India is not.” While players can choose when to retire, their ongoing place in the team is ultimately determined by selectors, team management, and, more importantly, their own form and contributions.
Rohit Sharma’s decision to stand down from the final Test of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy due to poor form was a bold yet necessary one. It was an acknowledgment of the realities of his game: with just 31 runs across the previous three Tests, it was hard to justify his inclusion in the playing XI. Despite this self-awareness, his interview revealed a certain defiance, especially when he declared, “I am not going anywhere.” This attitude, while showing resilience, raises questions about the future of a 37-year-old player who has yet to regain the kind of form that once made him one of the most dependable openers in world cricket.
Rohit’s struggles are clear: his failure to inspire his team as captain in recent series defeats in New Zealand and Australia was notable. His poor form was coupled with a lack of the leadership clarity that had once been his hallmark, especially during India’s triumph in the T20 World Cup. In New Zealand, India suffered a historic whitewash, and in Australia, the team’s batting, which once set benchmarks for consistency and dominance, faltered spectacularly. Rohit’s role in this decline has sparked further debate—was his leadership the problem, or was it merely a reflection of his own form slump?
Rohit has made it clear that he’s not thinking about retirement, but his actions—like sitting out of a crucial Test—suggest that the conversation surrounding his place in the team is already taking place behind closed doors. His statement about not being sure of his return to form in five months reflects a player who is trying to remain optimistic while also acknowledging the possibility that his best days in red-ball cricket may be behind him.
Virat Kohli, who has long been seen as the standard-bearer of Indian cricket, is facing similar struggles. His century in Perth during the Border-Gavaskar Trophy was a sign that, at least in patches, his old brilliance was still there. But this was followed by a string of disappointing performances, particularly against deliveries outside the off-stump, which opposition bowlers have now openly targeted. The fact that Kohli's vulnerability has become so widely discussed by pundits and cricketers alike indicates just how predictable his dismissals have become.
The image of Kohli punching his bat after being dismissed during the Sydney Test’s second innings was a powerful visual representation of a once-dominant player who is now wrestling with self-doubt. If this was indeed his final Test in Australia, it marked a less-than-glorious end to a chapter that had seen him dominate the cricketing world, particularly Down Under. However, given his status in Indian cricket, Kohli’s legacy likely warrants the benefit of the doubt. After all, his earlier years have solidified him as one of the game’s greats. But even his supporters are beginning to ask: does his current form justify continued selection?
The numbers do not lie. Kohli’s recent slump in Test cricket—averaging just 32 over his last 40 Tests—has raised doubts about whether he can recapture his peak form. For comparison, even during his own lean period, the legendary Sachin Tendulkar's average never dipped below 42. Kohli’s lack of consistent runs and his struggle against a specific line of attack have brought into focus a crucial question: can the selectors continue to back a player who has not consistently delivered for over two years?
India’s batting woes were evident in both their overseas and home series defeats. Against New Zealand, their inability to handle spin led to a humiliating home whitewash. In Australia, India crossed the 200-run mark only three times in five Tests, a statistic that points to a deeper malaise within the team. This marked a dramatic departure from their previous dominance in red-ball cricket.
The Sydney Test, which encapsulated India’s struggles, saw them choose to bat first on a pitch that initially appeared conducive to bowling. India could only manage 185 runs in the first innings, and despite a spirited effort from Rishabh Pant, their second innings saw yet another collapse, with only 157 runs on the board. Australia’s senior players, Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne, stepped up when needed, demonstrating the difference between the two teams. India’s senior players, on the other hand, failed to seize critical moments.
The debate around transition has been looming large. Head coach Gautam Gambhir, while refusing to comment on the futures of Rohit and Kohli, deflected to the players themselves, suggesting that talk of transition was premature. But the reality is that India’s Test team needs to address the future sooner rather than later. Given the struggles they’ve faced, including the 2024-25 Test season’s dismal statistics, India needs to look at the upcoming tours—not just as another series to win, but as an opportunity to develop a new generation of players.
The tour of England in June could provide some answers. However, with a series of domestic and international commitments, including the Champions Trophy and IPL, there’s little time left for players like Rohit and Kohli to address their red-ball deficiencies. Both players have been conspicuously absent from the Ranji Trophy, where domestic run-scorers like Sarfaraz Khan and Abhimanyu Easwaran have been warming the benches, raising questions about the board's commitment to domestic cricket as a key factor in selection.
The current situation, where players of such stature are being bypassed in domestic cricket, presents a dilemma for the selectors. Should they prioritize the IPL or the national team’s immediate future? The lack of participation in domestic cricket by Kohli and Rohit suggests that their priorities may lie elsewhere, a concerning trend for a team that prides itself on strong domestic foundations.
The calls for a firmer stand from the board are growing louder. Sunil Gavaskar, who has long advocated for star players to engage in domestic cricket to stay sharp, expressed skepticism about the idea of Kohli and Rohit featuring in the latter stages of the Ranji Trophy. His message was clear: Indian cricket must come first, and players who prioritize other commitments should not automatically be entitled to a place in the team.
The crux of the issue lies in the selectors’ approach to these iconic players. Should they continue to show leniency based on legacy, or should they set a precedent that no player, no matter their stature, is immune from being dropped if they fail to perform? As Indian cricket enters this transitional phase, the board and selectors have a significant task ahead—one that will require tough decisions for the sake of the team’s long-term future. The looming question remains: Will Rohit and Kohli heed the call for change and adjust their priorities, or will they continue to rely on past glories to secure their places in India’s Test squad? Only time will tell.
