Ahmedabad, March 7 When Ajit Agarkar took over as chairman of India's senior selection committee, the circumstances were far from ordinary.
His appointment followed the controversial exit of Chetan Sharma (due to comments made in a TV channel's sting operation). The transition came with the intense scrutiny that accompanies any high-profile position in Indian cricket.
Over the next three years, his tenure can be described as eventful, marked by difficult decisions, strong convictions, and the understanding that the role of a selector rarely brings public acclaim.
A selector is like a wicketkeeper.
While successful catches might draw applause, a missed opportunity will attract criticism. Agarkar's journey has a certain symmetry.
In 2020-21, when the top selector's position opened up, Chetan Sharma had been appointed despite Agarkar being a candidate.
When the opportunity finally came his way in mid-2023, he inherited the responsibility of rebuilding trust in a selection process that is constantly under public scrutiny.
In the broader history of India's selection committees, particularly in the years following the influential tenures of Dilip Vengsarkar and Krishnamachari Srikkanth, Agarkar has arguably been one of the most talked-about chairpersons.
This attention has come not only from his position but also from the decisions he has been willing to make.
Over the past three years, the Indian team has played four ICC finals (2023 ODI World Cup, 2024 T20 World Cup, 2025 Champions Trophy, and 2026 T20 World Cup), winning two and losing one. This could increase to three wins if India wins on Sunday against New Zealand in the T20 World Cup final.
While players and support staff rightfully receive the spotlight for their performances, the selectors' role in shaping squads for global tournaments cannot be overlooked.
Agarkar's tenure has been characterized by calls that demand conviction and the ability to withstand criticism. One such decision was his strong backing of Suryakumar Yadav as a long-term T20I captain, despite Hardik Pandya's potential.
A more sensitive decision was replacing the highly successful and sentimental favourite Rohit Sharma as ODI captain.
In both cases, Agarkar did not shy away from taking responsibility.
If success were solely based on statistics, every cricket fan could pick their own playing eleven. But selection is rarely this straightforward.
It requires the ability to identify players, understand their roles, and visualize how individuals fit into a larger tactical framework. In this regard, Agarkar and his panel, which previously included S Sharath (now replaced by Pragyan Ojha), along with Subroto Banerjee (now replaced by RP Singh), SS Das, and Ajay Ratra, have done a commendable job in white-ball cricket.
This could be attributed to the impact of the IPL, but India today boasts a formidable talent pool.
New Zealand's Glenn Phillips remarked ahead of Sunday's final that India has enough players to field "three T20 teams."
Managing a large pool of talent can be challenging, but it also presents opportunities. For a selection committee, every opportunity given to one player inevitably means disappointment for another.
Perhaps the most crucial realization for Agarkar has been that a selector cannot afford to be a people-pleaser.
The role demands distance, clarity, and the courage to make decisions, even when they are unpopular. This has not been an easy path.
One can confidently say that Agarkar has rarely had anyone to back him when he made difficult decisions.
The criticism and accompanying questions have largely come his way, and he has faced them head-on.
One less visible aspect of his tenure has been his insistence on maintaining respect for players who have been dropped.
In an era where dressing-room conversations quickly become public, this discretion has been crucial.
There have, of course, been questions. Some have wondered why Agarkar spends more time travelling with the national team rather than watching domestic cricket.
There have also been questions about whether his presence alongside the Indian think-tank helps in providing balance to decision-making that might otherwise be skewed.
No tenure is without its flaws.
There could be criticism over whether Shubman Gill needed to be brought back into the T20I side for the Asia Cup, made vice-captain, and then dropped later.
However, context matters. Sanju Samson had endured a poor run of form in the preceding T20 series against England in early 2025. When decisions are made in real time, they are rarely as simple as they appear in hindsight.
Overall, the percentage of Agarkar's successful calls has far outweighed the ones that might be viewed as errors.
As the cricketing calendar moves forward, there is a strong buzz that Agarkar could move on after the T20 World Cup. However, his tenure still has a year remaining.
For the sake of continuity, he might continue at least until the 2027 World Cup cycle to complete the full tenure.
Agarkar has shown that selection is not merely about numbers on a spreadsheet. It is about judgment, conviction, and the willingness to stand alone when the call demands it.