For long, India have been comfortable with one leader across formats, while the idea of split captaincy has been met with disapproving eyes. Now, to adapt to changing times, Indian cricket may be staring at a tectonic shift in ideology, and the flexibility to have different captains may not be a far-fetched idea after all, writes Aadya Sharma.
MS Dhoni, often a reliable word on most things cricket, said in January 2017 that split captaincy cannot work in India. Whether he was right can be debated, but history was on his side. For decades, India had largely been a one-leader team, banking on one person to be the unchallenged figurehead of the side. Vice-captains were worthy deputies, but there was invariably one person leading the rest across formats.
Dhoni’s comments had come ten days after he had relinquished captaincy of the ODI and T20I sides, bringing an end to a storied stint at the helm. The baton passed to Virat Kohli, who had, led the Test team for three years until then, having assumed duties after Dhoni’s sudden retirement from whites.
Australia were probably the first team to opt for split captaincy, on their 1996/97 tour of South Africa. Mark Taylor and Ian Healy played under each other, Taylor leading in the Test series and Healy in the ODIs. Other teams have, over the years, embraced the concept by choice, but India have always shied away from such a setup.
In a country where cricket’s underlying sentiment has been about larger-than-life superstars, the idea of having two strong figures with clashing ideologies is difficult to digest. It would only cause a great divide, you would think. An extreme version of it came in play when John Buchanan experimented with four captains in the Kolkata Knight Riders squad in 2009. Termed revolutionary by some and ridiculous by others, it ended with burnt effigies of Buchanan, and a last-place finish for KKR.
Buchanan later said that Sourav Ganguly’s game for not suited for T20 cricket. For the ardent fans who burnt the effigies, their fabled leader could not be questioned in his native state. Reputations are big in India. Egos bigger.
Times, however, are changing. Indian cricket can be at the cusp of a seismic leadership shift. The news of the entire selection committee being sacked was accompanied by whispers of India looking at a split-captaincy system. Rohit Sharma would not be the chieftain of all three tribes. If reports are an indication, Hardik Pandya could take up the T20I job.
It makes complete sense from an overall perspective. It is not about Rohit’s leadership credentials: since taking over as full-time captain, he had led India to 24 wins in 32 T20Is, including a semi-final finish at the T20 World Cup. However, he will be 38 by the next edition, in 2024. And while he still might be fit at that point, there needs to be a clear timeline, and room for a new process to begin.
It is also probably fair to say that India are in a position to move away from Rohit the T20I batter. He has struck at a run a ball or more in only five out of his last ten innings, and looked a jaded shadow of his sparkling self during the World Cup. His struggles mirrored his team’s inadequacies: the inertia at the top, heavily populated by anchors, has no place in modern-day T20 cricket. It has been a long-drawn discussion now, but the abject pounding at the hands of England could have finally shaken those in charge from the archaic mindset, and reconfirm that India needs a fresh, independent outfit for T20 cricket.
It might not have been the case in the past. T20Is were often clubbed alongside ODIs in India’s conservative planning, rarely requiring the need for a new outlook and a new leader. Leading ODIs and T20Is seemed to be the role of one person. Probably not anymore.
Another aspect of this discussion is workload management, which is perhaps more relevant now – in the post-pandemic landscape of high-frequency cricket – than it has ever been. Bio-bubbles came and went, but they opened everyone’s eyes to the physical and mental fatigue players face in the increasingly dense cricket calendar. Things are only going to get busier, and the recent one-format retirements of Ben Stokes and Quinton de Kock is likely to be a template for others going forward.
Rohit, or any other leader, is likely to pick and choose. Leading in all three formats can become an obsolete concept; even two may be a stretch after a point. In such a dynamic, India can’t possibly cling on to their older ideologies.
Lastly, split captaincy does not seem to be a bad deal at all, with other teams being a ready example. T20 world champions England have embraced the each-format-is-different approach wholeheartedly, to the point of even having different coaching setups. Test captains like Joe Root or Ben Stokes do not come in the way of white-ball skipper Jos Buttler’s workings. Until Aaron Finch’s form gave way, Australia were working just fine with him and Pat Cummins handling different setups.
As India catches up with the evolving dynamics of the sport, it is likely to shed behind its obsolete one-leader ideology. The pool of Indian international cricketers is larger than ever, as is the group of those waiting in the fringes. It is no longer a team being driven by a handful of individuals, but one with a core set around which the team can build their leadership group and move ahead.
Pandya is not the only option either. India have Under-19 World Cup captains in Ishan Kishan and Prithvi Shaw, full-time IPL captains in Rishabh Pant, Shreyas Iyer and KL Rahul, and state captains like Shubman Gill, to name a few, among their leadership options. Going forward, it could be an assortment of them wearing the captain’s armband.
Dhoni’s comment might have made sense at a time when India had been looking at one voice, one direction ahead. Now, it needs three different directions – one that builds on the existing success of the Test team, another that brings together the right resources for the 50-over Cup next year, and a third that brings a fresh perspective and a new beginning for the T20I team.
