"He Should Have Gotten Another Chance": Ajinkya Rahane Questions BCCI Over Karun Nair's Exclusion Ajinkya Rahane has questioned the BCCI's treatment of Karun Nair following the batter's exclusion from India's Test squad, arguing that the Karnataka star deserved more opportunities despite a modest performance during the England tour. The former India vice-captain's criticism highlights growing frustration within the cricket fraternity over inconsistent and what many perceive as premature selection decisions.

The Case Against Rapid Exclusion

Nair's journey back to international cricket represents one of cricket's more poignant stories—after 3,000-plus days in the wilderness following his triple-century against England in 2016, he finally earned a recall for the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy (England tour) on the back of two exceptional domestic seasons. In 2024, he accumulated 863 Ranji Trophy runs from 16 innings at an average of 53.93, including four centuries—performances that essentially forced the selectors to recall him.

However, his Test return in England proved disappointing. Across four Tests, Nair scored just 205 runs at an average of 25.62, managing only one half-century (57 at The Oval). This moderate showing saw him dropped from India's next Test squad for the West Indies series barely three weeks later—a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from cricket veterans.

Rahane's Measured But Firm Critique

In a video shared on X (formerly Twitter), Rahane expressed surprise at the speed of Nair's exclusion, particularly given India's stated philosophy of rewarding domestic excellence.

"We have seen it in the last two-three series: Karun Nair performed consistently in domestic cricket, won matches, and was rewarded with a Test call-up. Though I think he should have gotten another chance. You also spoke about Abhimanyu Easwaran. He has also performed well in domestic cricket for years and scored runs with a good average. But he has not made his debut yet. I am sure it will happen soon," Rahane said.

His comments underscored a fundamental question: if consistent domestic cricket is the criterion for selection, shouldn't it also be the criterion for retention? More broadly, Rahane appeared to be questioning why players with proven red-ball pedigree are discarded after a single unsuccessful tour.

Cheteshwar Pujara's Broader Perspective

Former Test batting mainstay Cheteshwar Pujara, who himself suffered the vagaries of selection during his career, reinforced Rahane's sentiments with a passionate plea for selection consistency.

"When players perform well in domestic cricket, they deserve to be rewarded. If a player performs well in domestic cricket and then gets picked in the Test team, it encourages them, and I believe that this should continue. The Test team's selection should be purely on the basis of performance in domestic cricket," Pujara stated.

Pujara's words carry weight, given that he was occasionally dropped despite maintaining exceptional domestic credentials—a bitter experience that informs his advocacy for consistency.

Nair's Own Disappointment

Nair himself has been vocal about his disappointment. Speaking to reporters during Karnataka's Ranji Trophy match against Goa on October 27, he expressed frustration with the rapid exclusion.

"It's quite disappointing being dropped, but I know that I deserve to be there after the last two years in domestic cricket. People might have their opinions, but personally, my opinion is that I deserve a lot better," Nair said.

The batter added: "All I can do is keep scoring runs, that's my job. I just keep telling myself that I deserve more than a series. That's all I can tell myself, and not let that go into my head."

True to his words, Nair responded magnificently, smashing an unbeaten 174 in Karnataka's next Ranji Trophy match—his fourth century of the season and a 25th in First-Class cricket. The knock further illustrated his class and consistency at the domestic level.

The Selection Philosophy Under Question

Chief selector Ajit Agarkar had justified the exclusion, stating: "We felt Karun didn't do enough in England to warrant continuation. Devdutt has been with the squad and has shown consistent form with India A. We thought it was the right time to back him."

However, critics argue this explanation masks a deeper inconsistency. If India's philosophy is truly to reward domestic form, then Nair's two exceptional domestic seasons should have earned him a longer rope—particularly given that he was batting out of position and hadn't played Test cricket in eight years.

The Broader Pattern

Nair's case is not isolated. Abhimanyu Easwaran, despite six years of Ranji Trophy excellence with an average exceeding 50, has never been given a Test opportunity. Sarfaraz Khan, by contrast, was fast-tracked to the team based on limited domestic exposure. The inconsistency suggests that factors beyond pure domestic performance are influencing selection decisions.

A Question of Trust and Consistency

What Rahane and Pujara are essentially asking is this: If the BCCI and selectors genuinely believe in rewarding domestic cricket, then shouldn't that principle extend to giving proven performers multiple opportunities to succeed at the international level?

For Karun Nair—who scored a triple century, has been among the leading Ranji Trophy run-getters for years, and is still performing at an elite domestic level—the message from Delhi appears to be: one series, one shot, no second chances. As Rahane aptly summarized: "He should have gotten another chance."