Format specific players is the way to go

[deepdynamo]

For years now, Indian cricket selectors are clueless and mixing formats and ruining players. Its high time, players are identified for specific formats and backed in that particular format.

Dhurv Jurel is a classic example of shattering confidence of a fine potential test player. Washington Sundar is another. Pant is a poor T20 player but backed for 75 T20I just based on potential. Sky was fast tracked in test team based on T20 exploits. Ishan Kishan was tried in all 3 formats and then discarded. Jadeja is still playing ODIs in 2025. There are many other numerous examples as well.

Selectors should be very clear moving forward--Jaiswal and Bumrah are the only all format players. There is no need to force anybody to be an all format star. Gill and Pant are being wrongly projected as all format players. There are already murmurs to add Arshdeep in Test team.

Its a mess, seriously.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 06:39 AM by deepdynamo

[Chakdephatte]

There is one guy who has travelled with the test team for at least four series AFAIR. Abhimany Easwaran. He has been in form for last three years but always on bench. The assumption is that players who have proven themselves in ODI or IPL will get a nod ahead, which is stupid. 

 

While a certain Gill or Iyer will have the same record in domestic cricket, they will find it hard to transition to top level because of playing IPL + ODIs. 

 

Now that they have been forced to play Ranji trophy, there's no doubt that they will excel at it, they are simply too good at it. Problem is that multi format players are rare. And hence, we have to compromise with even some of our best talents. 

 

Edited Sunday at 06:36 AM by Chakdephatte

[Chamsi]

30 minutes ago, deepdynamo said:

For years now, Indian cricket selectors are clueless and mixing formats and ruining players. Its high time, players are identified for specific formats and backed in that particular format.

Dhurv Jurel is a classic example of shattering confidence of a fine potential test player. Washington Sundar is another. Pant is a poor T20 player but backed for 75 T20I just based on potential. Sky was fast tracked in test team based on T20 exploits. Ishan Kishan was tried in all 3 formats and then discarded. Jadeja is still playing ODIs in 2025. There are many other numerous examples as well.

Selectors should be very clear moving forward--Jaiswal and Bumrah are the only all format players. There is no need to force anybody to be an all format star. Gill and Pant are being wrongly projected as all format players. There are already murmurs to add Arshdeep in Test team.

Its a mess, seriously.

 

 

Gambhir is the coach and he has said that if a player is in good touch, they should play all formats. Play for India all-year round. All of whom you mentioned, except SKY and Ishan Kishan can be good all-format players. Dhruv Jurel, Gill, Bumrah, Jaiswal, Sundar, Arshdeep, Axar, and Rinku would make a fantastic core team in all formats.

Can there be a mix of both? All-format players and others selected directly from the IPL or Ranji Trophy. Format-specific teams will involve managing 30-40 players for the NCA.

Edited Sunday at 06:59 AM by Chamsi

[singhvivek141]

43 minutes ago, deepdynamo said:

For years now, Indian cricket selectors are clueless and mixing formats and ruining players. Its high time, players are identified for specific formats and backed in that particular format.

Dhurv Jurel is a classic example of shattering confidence of a fine potential test player. Washington Sundar is another. Pant is a poor T20 player but backed for 75 T20I just based on potential. Sky was fast tracked in test team based on T20 exploits. Ishan Kishan was tried in all 3 formats and then discarded. Jadeja is still playing ODIs in 2025. There are many other numerous examples as well.

Selectors should be very clear moving forward--Jaiswal and Bumrah are the only all format players. There is no need to force anybody to be an all format star. Gill and Pant are being wrongly projected as all format players. There are already murmurs to add Arshdeep in Test team.

Its a mess, seriously.

 

 

I am absolutely in favour of that.

Amount of potential that we keep on wasting series after series, just because we bet on wrong horses and then when we try to do the course correction its often too late..

 

With the amount of cricket that is being played. Players get less recovery time and more wear and tear on their body, while trying to adapt different formats. Thus end up mentally tired and just can't keep up the same passion. Kohli is a prime example, who despite all his theatrics has simply lost the passion that he had in the cricket.

 

Jurel, Pant, Sundar are very good players for Tests and can be good in ODI as well.

But for T20, maybe not.

Abhishek Sharma, Bishnoi, Varun C are tailor made for T20, you push him to Tests or ODI's, may not get the same returns. Tilak can do we in T20's & ODI's but Tests may not work for him.

 

On global scale as well, Rashid Khan who is a class T20 spinner simply struggles in Tests. Nathan Lyon who is a world class Test spinner don't play T20's and is replaced by Zampa.

[Number]

Don't you think all these selectors and coaches who have played so much cricket would know better that players can have format specific skillset ? They absolutely know.

 

But it is BCCI's business model to cultivate stars and sell broadcasting rights and tickets etc on their name. This is why they want all format stars. BCCI is not like Cricket Australia who try to create a top performing team and individual stars are just a byproduct. BCCI is a cash cow for political parties. They will take a few losses on field but not drop in revenues. 

[raki05]

[R!TTER]

Finger *ers 

[Prabhdeep Singh]

I would say all format players are better as they are more versatile, they can play different types of innings.

 

Single format players eventually get found out.

[deepdynamo]

41 minutes ago, Prabhdeep Singh said:

I would say all format players are better as they are more versatile, they can play different types of innings.

 

Single format players eventually get found out.

 

All format players are rare. T20 especially is a unique format and require completely different skills.

 

ODI and Test are closer to each other though.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

14 minutes ago, deepdynamo said:

 

All format players are rare. T20 especially is a unique format and require completely different skills.

 

ODI and Test are closer to each other though.

 

None of them are close to each other anymore. 

 

The formats have diverged very rapidly in the last 3-4 years. 

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:16 AM by Nikhil_cric

[deepdynamo]

On 2/2/2025 at 2:03 PM, Number said:

Don't you think all these selectors and coaches who have played so much cricket would know better that players can have format specific skillset ? They absolutely know.

 

But it is BCCI's business model to cultivate stars and sell broadcasting rights and tickets etc on their name. This is why they want all format stars. BCCI is not like Cricket Australia who try to create a top performing team and individual stars are just a byproduct. BCCI is a cash cow for political parties. They will take a few losses on field but not drop in revenues. 

 

BCCI can create as many superstars and spread them around over three formats.

Who is stopping BCCI to make a superstar out of Jaiswal  (all format), Abhishek (T20), Tilak (T20 & ODI) & Gill (ODI & Test) ??
All four are young 22-24 & marketable.
 

The key is to cultivate stars but keep it format specific.

[R!TTER]

1 hour ago, deepdynamo said:

Who is stopping BCCI to make a superstar out of Jaiswal  (all format), Abhishek (T20), Tilak (T20 & ODI) & Gill (ODI & Test) ??

IPL & the Pig big 3 franchises! We'll probably never see test "specialists" like Pujara or Rahane ever again, although Rahane did play quite a few ODI/T20 as well 

[vvvslaxman]

Agree about Pant. He should have never played this many T20 internationals. 

[express bowling]

I prefer 2 format players.

 

Tests + ODIs

T20Is + ODIs

 

with rare 3 format players like Bumrah, Jaiswal. Potentially Harshit. 

 

One format players often become a bit too limited in terms of skillsets. Like Vihari, Pujara, Dube, SKY etc.

[tapandrun]

4 hours ago, express bowling said:

I prefer 2 format players.

 

Tests + ODIs

T20Is + ODIs

 

with rare 3 format players like Bumrah, Jaiswal. Potentially Harshit. 

 

One format players often become a bit too limited in terms of skillsets. Like Vihari, Pujara, Dube, SKY etc.

Odi and t20i crossover can only happen for an allrounder, or a bowler like bhumrah.

T20i is going in its own different direction can be seen as 100 m dash, you need different level of athletes.

test and odi yes there can be many batters playing in those 2 formats.

 

Saw some highlights of bbl mitch owen is another t20 format opener- tall, power, v.quick hand and v.quick feet movement. Never seen all this in a single batter.

Also Allen from nz nt sure if any ipl team got him or not but he was hitting pak bowlers for 4/6 for fun. T20 is getting more and more batters who if plays 22 balls ensure a fifty and more balls they play-on from there it increases the tempo. 50 ball ton are just about ok any ton in over 55 balls that might be costing the team the game

 

In coming days do not think a 60 run pp will be considered good or even decent.... Teams will try to find mystery bowlers, bowler like pathirana who can bowl 3-4 yorkers in an overs from an unorthodox angle to put any dent in run scoring

Edited Monday at 11:05 PM by tapandrun

[Chamsi]

@deepdynamo The impetus behind having format specific teams just reads 'impossible'. BCCI being one oragnisation will not want to have one coach managing so many different players. Imagine GG 30-40 different players...the situation will be something akin to Bangladeshs or Delhi. Instead, the idea is those players who are in great form and are able to maintain that form and fitness all-year round. These 'runs'...think of Rinku Singh, Kamindu Mendis, Travis Head, and at one time our greats like Rohit and Kohli.
I think you should think in the opposite direction and realise that the format-specific player was always the hunch. Pujara and Rahane as Test-specialists and limited-over specialist like Kedar Jadhav and Manish Pandey, they have all been underwhelming. Same with the whole wicketkeeper situation; nobody can get their head around any WK selection (Sanju Samson).

Other point is really that India doesn't have split captaincy permanently. And one captain usually means one team across the formats.

Edited Tuesday at 12:39 PM by Chamsi

[bowl_out]

Pick the Test team based on Ranji performance.

 

T20 based on IPL and SMAT

 

ODI is a mix of players doing well in both 

 

Picking Test players based on T20 performance is the worst.

[deepdynamo]

@Chamsi Although you have been a staunch opposer of format specific teams, but you do have some valid points. But just to be clear, I don't intend a clear division among players of three formats. Don't want 15 players for each of the three formats- 45 players. No, that can't and won't happen. What I want definitely is to identify the player strength and develop him in that format. Just because BCCI can't manage so many players ( as per your theory) so an inform player need to be ready to play in any format. Found that not very logical.

Lets take example of Dhurv Jurel. He is a good player with solid technique- perfect for test and maybe ODI as well. But since he is fit and inform, he "must" play T20 as well. Even though he is inferior to a high impact player like Samson or even Jitesh which the format demands.

SKY was a failure in ODI despite in scintillating form in T20. He played 35+ ODI ( and even 1 Test) based on his form in T20.  Pant was persisted in 75+ T20 games due to his potential & reputation and GUN performance in Test cricket mainly.

 

Lets go in little past. Rahane- was carried in all three formats and look at the return on investment. Infact he was one of the prime reason we lost the 2014 and 2016 T20 WC. He was not suited to the T20 but still played because he was an all format player.
 

End of the day- Form doesn't matter if you are not suited to format. 

 

I will come back with my opinion on format specific captaincy later.

[Chamsi]

19 minutes ago, deepdynamo said:

@Chamsi Although you have been a staunch opposer of format specific teams, but you do have some valid points. But just to be clear, I don't intend a clear division among players of three formats. Don't want 15 players for each of the three formats- 45 players. No, that can't and won't happen. What I want definitely is to identify the player strength and develop him in that format. Just because BCCI can't manage so many players ( as per your theory) so an inform player need to be ready to play in any format. Found that not very logical.

Lets take example of Dhurv Jurel. He is a good player with solid technique- perfect for test and maybe ODI as well. But since he is fit and inform, he "must" play T20 as well. Even though he is inferior to a high impact player like Samson or even Jitesh which the format demands.

SKY was a failure in ODI despite in scintillating form in T20. He played 35+ ODI ( and even 1 Test) based on his form in T20.  Pant was persisted in 75+ T20 games due to his potential & reputation and GUN performance in Test cricket mainly.

 

Lets go in little past. Rahane- was carried in all three formats and look at the return on investment. Infact he was one of the prime reason we lost the 2014 and 2016 T20 WC. He was not suited to the T20 but still played because he was an all format player.
 

End of the day- Form doesn't matter if you are not suited to format. 

 

I will come back with my opinion on format specific captaincy later.

Your first point goes against a general risk-reward policy. If you were a company, would you favour a customer who buys only one product, or one who buys multiple products? The one who buys multiple has more skin the game. From BCCI's POV, investing on a multi-skilled or multi-format player is a better risk/reward compared to a T20 specialist. Ergo, Virat Kohli > Ankit Bawne/Rahul Tewatia. Then, from a player's point of view too, he would love to play all games for India.

The second point is what I mentioned Rinku Singh, Kamindu Mendis, Travis Head, and the more famous, Virat Kohli of 2016 for. In red-hot form, they aced all formats. From such a large pool of players, India can afford to find the 11 in-form or potentially formidable players who can ply for the BCCI year-round. In short, for each format anyone can pick 11 best Ranji performers of the year and make a Ranji 11, but we have Irani Trophy for that. Ankit Bawne, Paras Dogra, Kedar Jadhav, if it was format-specific 20 others would be in contention for a spot in Test team as well. That's why Shubman Gill plays above them.

Edited Tuesday at 03:16 PM by Chamsi

[deepdynamo]

2 hours ago, Chamsi said:

Your first point goes against a general risk-reward policy. If you were a company, would you favour a customer who buys only one product, or one who buys multiple products? The one who buys multiple has more skin the game. From BCCI's POV, investing on a multi-skilled or multi-format player is a better risk/reward compared to a T20 specialist. Ergo, Virat Kohli > Ankit Bawne/Rahul Tewatia. Then, from a player's point of view too, he would love to play all games for India.

 

There is nothing like risk-reward in selection of  a cricket team--sports is not a company product. The analogy is factually wrong as company favours customers who buy more but here we are talking about Indian cricket team players which have different skills. Not every player is same.

 

BCCI should invest in multi-format players only if they have right skills for right format. Also you are comparing average players with a peak 2016 Virat. Thats not how it works. Virat is a proven all format player. Just like Bumrah is currently and Jaiswal is going to be in future. Not everyone can be skilled like these players.

 

Rahul Teotia could have been a useful player in T20 setup in 2021 ( when he was in form) and had its own utiliy. Comparing him with Virat Kohli is not logical though.

 

So, as per your theory just because Virat has made it as all format player, we should give ample opportunities to Gill as well even though he has an average of 35 in 32 tests and proven inferior game to Abishesk/Jaiswal/Samson in T20s.

 

This same obsession also has ruined KL. He was backed for 10 years as an all format player. Look at him now. Maybe he could have been successful if he stuck to a format only.

 

Also Indian cricket shouldn't run on player prefrence of playing all formats. If they are good enough, they will be all format otherwise just be good in what you do best.