Sunil Gavaskar, the former Indian cricketer, has raised questions about the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) decision to exclude Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer from the list of centrally-contracted players. Gavaskar expressed his confusion regarding Kishan’s absence from Jharkhand’s Ranji Trophy matches, suggesting that the punishment might have been too harsh on Iyer. The exclusion of both players has sparked discussions amongst the cricketing community, with opinions divided on the matter.
Gavaskar expressed his concerns in a column for Mid Day, where he expressed his lack of understanding regarding Kishan’s failure to turn up for Jharkhand in the Ranji Trophy. He highlighted that while Iyer may have faced consequences for not featuring in domestic cricket, he had still participated in the Ranji Trophy before the England series, possibly indicating that the punishment was unwarranted for him.
The former World Cup winner also emphasized that the exclusion of the two players was evident when the BCCI announced its list of 30 centrally-contracted players for the 2023-2024 season. While star players like KL Rahul, Shubman Gill, and Mohammed Siraj were among those who received A grade contracts, Iyer and Kishan were notably absent from the list.
This controversy has sparked debates within the cricketing fraternity, with many questioning the stringency of the punishment and the rationale behind the BCCI’s decision. Gavaskar’s support for Iyer and query about Kishan’s absence has added significant weight to the discussions, echoing sentiments of others who suggest that the punishment may not align with the players’ actual circumstances.
The exclusion of Iyer and Kishan signifies the importance of playing domestic cricket for Indian cricketers, highlighting the BCCI’s emphasis on active participation in domestic tournaments. The consequences faced by the two players have drawn attention to the oft-debated issue of balancing international commitments with domestic responsibilities and raised questions about the fairness of the punishment meted out by the BCCI.
As the matter continues to unfold, Gavaskar’s remarks have brought greater focus to the policies and decision-making processes of the BCCI, prompting broader conversations about the treatment of players who balance international and domestic cricket commitments. The cricketing world eagerly awaits further developments and potential clarifications from the BCCI regarding this contentious issue.
