Ruturaj Gaikwad at No. 4 and the growing problem of role confusion in Indian cricket

Ruturaj Gaikwad belongs to a rare category in Indian cricket: a batter who averages consistently above 55 in List A cricket. His elegance, tempo control and technical clarity have long made him one of the country’s most reliable 50-over batters. Yet on Sunday in Ranchi, as he returned to India’s blue jersey after 16 months, Gaikwad experienced something he had never been asked to do before.

In his 87th List A innings, Gaikwad batted at No. 4 for the first time. Until then, he had batted at No. 3 on just five occasions; every other knock was as an opener. His rise as a List A force has been built almost entirely on opening the innings.

But with Shreyas Iyer still recovering from a lacerated spleen sustained in the final ODI in Australia last month, the No. 4 slot was vacant. When the squad was announced, the selection committee labelled Tilak Varma, Rishabh Pant and Dhruv Jurel as primary contenders for the spot. Nowhere did it indicate that Gaikwad, picked as a reserve opener, was in that conversation.

What complicated matters further was that had vice-captain Shubman Gill recovered from his neck spasm in time, Gaikwad would not even have been in Ranchi. He would have continued leading Maharashtra in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy.

Yet there he was, walking in at No. 4 in the den of his IPL mentor Mahendra Singh Dhoni, wearing a role he has never owned in domestic white-ball cricket. In doing so, the 28-year-old joined a growing list of Indian players being experimented with in untested roles under head coach Gautam Gambhir.

India’s recent assignments have shown an unmistakable trend: frequent shuffling, unclear roles and little continuity.

During the home Test series loss to South Africa, India’s second home Test whitewash in 12 months, two different batters were asked to bat at No. 3 across the two Tests. B. Sai Sudharsan, who had scored his highest Test score of 87 against West Indies weeks earlier, was suddenly dropped for the first Test. In his place, Washington Sundar, a capable batter but primarily picked for his all-round skills, was sent to bat at No. 3 on a pitch nightmarish for batters.

As soon as India conceded the series lead, Sudharsan returned to the XI and batted at No. 3 again, while Washington was pushed down the order.

This constant reshuffling has left players unsure about how secure they are, or what their defined role is. And when uncertainty begins affecting performance, teams fall into a familiar danger: players start batting for survival, not impact.

For a country with enormous talent, that is the fastest route to stagnation. Not surprisingly, the public conversation has shifted as well. In tea stalls or commentary boxes, on fan forums or X timelines, criticism is increasingly directed not at the players but at the think tank: Gambhir and chief selector Ajit Agarkar.

This shift is significant. It reflects a belief that the on-field talent is not the issue; clarity and conviction in planning are. And that belief is not entirely unfounded.

Traditionally, in Indian cricket, the selection system is simple. The captain and coach can recommend players, but the selection committee finalises the squad. The team management then picks the playing XI; the selectors may advise but not enforce XI decisions.

In practice, however, the lines today appear blurred. According to those familiar with recent meetings, the longest discussion of the Gambhir era occurred during the Champions Trophy squad selection, where a middle-order slot became a negotiation, not a consensus.

Technically, head coaches are not permitted to attend selection meetings as per Supreme Court-directed reforms. But that rule appears today to be treated as a formality rather than a boundary.

Gambhir and Agarkar now function not unofficially, but effectively, as two wheels of the same chariot. If their alignment holds, the structure moves smoothly. If either wheel shifts direction even slightly, the entire unit, be it Shubman Gill, K. L. Rahul, Suryakumar Yadav or anyone else reining the horse, risks wobbling.

Gaikwad walking in at No. 4 is not a standalone case. It is symbolic of a deeper concern: lack of role stability. India has often struggled with role clarity between formats. Now, post-2023 transition, the uncertainty appears heightened. Decisions feel experimental rather than strategic, reactive rather than progressive.

If Gaikwad, a proven opener, is unsure whether he will remain one or become a floating batter, how do Pant, Tilak and Jurel interpret their standing when benched? If a hierarchy or role framework exists, it is neither visible nor consistent. In elite sport, ambiguity slows growth.

India stands at a crucial transition juncture. Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli, the generational pillars, stepped away from T20Is last year and from Test cricket earlier in 2025. Their absence has created space not just for new talent but for a new identity.

Handled carefully, this could become a golden inflection point, like Australia post-Ricky Ponting or England post-Alastair Cook. Handled chaotically, it risks becoming another prolonged rebuilding chapter.

Despite the setbacks, India still remains among the strongest cricketing nations across formats. A T20 World Cup title defence awaits next year. An ODI World Cup challenge follows the year after. The ongoing World Test Championship offers an opportunity to get the team’s act in place ahead of the next Test cycle beginning in 2027.

For all three, one requirement stands above selection, talent or system: clarity. Clarity in role definition, in selection philosophy, in player communication and in tactical consistency. Without it, promising players become passengers, squad depth turns to indecision, and momentum becomes memory.

If Gambhir and Agarkar align with each other and communicate that alignment clearly to the team, the Indian cricket system remains strong enough to thrive. If not, Sunday’s scene in Ranchi will stop being an exception and become the norm: a talented cricketer performing well, still unsure of his role, not because the system lacks players, but because it lacks direction.

For now, Gaikwad waits, not just for runs, but for clarity. And in many ways, so does Indian cricket.

Published on Dec 01, 2025