Rohit's self-drop: Act of decency or running away from responsibilities?

Rohit Sharma’s decision to drop himself from the team for the final Test of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy series in Sydney was hailed by observers with adjectives ranging from “decent” to “ultimate act of selflessness”. The Indian captain faced sustained criticism for his inability to come good with the bat during the three Tests that he played during the series after missing the first one when he was attending the arrival of his child into this world. Hence, not many eyebrows were raised when Jasprit Bumrah accompanied Pat Cummins to the toss at the start of the final match.

While it is not in doubt that Rohit was going through a bad patch, scoring a total of a mere 31 runs in five completed innings and unable to get even into double figures except on a solitary occasion, was this decision in the larger interests of the side? What were the precedents in this regard, and how did a step of this nature affect the team? What was the role of the team management and the national selectors in this regard and did they fulfil it properly?

These aspects merit a detailed discussion while arriving at a value judgment of Rohit’s decision to exclude himself from the side for the game and whether this set a good example worthy of being followed.

To date, there has only been one precedent of a captain dropping himself from the playing eleven in a Test match when the side was playing an away series because of poor form. All other instances where captains chose to step aside had taken place in the limited overs’ cricket. The skipper who took this step was Mike Denness, who led England in the six-Test series against Australia in 1974-75. Denness, appointed as the captain of England in September 1973, was a decent middle-order batter as the 1,667 runs from 29 Tests at an average of 39.69 would indicate. He struggled with the bat scoring only 65 runs when confronted with the pace of Jeff Thomson and Dennis Lillee in the first three Tests, of which England lost two and managed a draw in the third.

At his juncture, he dropped himself from the side for the fourth Test, which England was led by John Edrich. England lost this match as well, and Denness decided to take over the reins again in the fifth Test. In the last match, when Thomson was absent and Lillee could send down only a few overs, he hit top form to score 188 runs and led his side to an innings win.

It would be seen from the above that the decision to drop himself did not help either Denness or the team. England lost the fourth Test in which Edrich sustained a rib injury that forced him to miss the next match. One does not know whether the injury to Edrich or a rethink on the matter made Denness come back to the side for the fifth Test. In any case, he managed to salvage some pride by hitting a half-century in this game, and his hundred in the final Test helped him to retain the captaincy for the inaugural World Cup in 1975.

But Denness was neither an automatic nor a popular choice to lead the side. Apprehensions were raised in many quarters when he was chosen for this post, mainly because he might not command a place in the side as a batsman. This criticism was to hound him throughout his tenure at the top, except during the home series’ against India and Pakistan in 1974, when England made mincemeat of the former and drew the Tests with the latter.

Did the same or similar set of facts apply in the case of Rohit? First, Rohit is widely respected for his success as captain of the national side. India won the ICC T20 World Cup a mere six months ago and reached the finals of the ICC World Cup last year. He has been leading India in Tests since February 2022, when he succeeded Virat Kohli. He is also one of the most successful captains in the history of the Indian Premier League (IPL), leading Mumbai Indians to the title on five occasions since he took over the mantle of skipper in 2013.

It is not in dispute that Rohit is still one of the most destructive batsmen in white-ball cricket. He had led India’s challenge by batting at the top of the order in ODIs and T20 matches, where he invariably gave the side an excellent start with his quick scoring and dominance over the bowlers. However, his performances in the red ball game have been mixed; while he has scored well inside India, his returns with the willow never reached similar levels of proficiency when playing outside the country. But it cannot be denied that he always commanded his place in the side by virtue of the runs that flowed from his bat.

Ironically, Rohit’s loss of form in Test cricket began in July 2024 after he led the side to T20 World Cup win. He did not score many runs in the two-Test series against Bangladesh, which did not worry anyone as India won the series effortlessly. The 0-3 whitewash by New Zealand, where Rohit could manage only a half-century, gave ammunition to his critics. For the first time, India played like a losing side at home, and the skipper appeared completely clueless about how to reverse this trend. The run of poor scores added to his misery, and the mounting barrage of criticism in print, visual, and social media also contributed to his discomfiture, ultimately leading to this fateful decision.

The sad fact was that while Rohit may gave the pen pushers in media something to cheer about, it did not help to improve the fortunes of the side in terms of runs scored. Even without the benefit of hindsight, its was evident that neither Shubhman Gill nor KL Rahul had the technical accomplishment nor were in the sort of form that would have set the Georges river on fire. Ultimately, the decision to bring back Gill and allow Rahul to open the innings did not provide the visitors with the tall scores that they desperately needed to gain the upper hand over the Aussie bowlers. Thus, in cricketing terms, Rohit’s decision did not provide any dividends to the side in terms of runs scored.

The more important aspect that merits consideration is the psychological impact that the stepping down of a captain had on the morale of the side. Rohit’s was not the first instance of a captain losing form while on tour, nor would it be the last. Vagaries of form are part of the game and have existed since the game was played. When the side is going through a bad patch, it is the task of the skipper to lead from the front and put up a fight. This is even more important when the side is on tour playing test cricket and taking on a tough opponent. Stepping down to make way for a colleague may appear like a “selfless act”, but in reality, it amounts to running away from the challenge of holding the side together when confronted with a crisis. One expects the captain to face the bull and take it by the horns rather than cool his heels in the pavilion.

There are numerous instances of captains continuing to play despite not being in the best of form. Even the great Sunil Gavaskar went through a lean phase when India toured Australia and New Zealand in 1980-81, but no one suggested that he should step down. Mohammed Azharuddin, too, did not score heavily during the tour to Australia in 1991-92 and the visit to South Africa that followed, but he did not drop himself. Off-spinner Venkataraghavan had paltry returns with the ball (6 wickets in 4 Tests) in the only series he captained- a tour of England in 1979- but no one dared to tell him that he should leave himself out of the side. Though Mike Brearley’s contribution with the willow seldom justified a place in the playing eleven, England’s selectors did not let that cloud their understanding that he was the best person to lead the side.

Rohit himself took the lead to tell the world that the decision to step aside was his own and not influenced by any factors other than his poor form with the bat.

He also stated categorically that he was not hanging up his boots but would continue to play the game at the international level for some more time. Though this helped dispel many rumours floating about the role of coach Gautam Gambhir and the skipper’s retirement from the game, it did not take away the feeling that his action dealt a huge injustice to the side. The side appeared rudderless when Bumrah was forced to leave the field due to a spasm of the back muscle, and they had to fall back on Virat Kohli to lead the side.

The role of team management and national selectors also come into focus at this stage. The team management and the national selectors were responsible for standing by the captain and telling him in simple words that they had confidence in his abilities, which was why they chose him to lead the squad in the first place. He should also have been instructed not to worry about adverse reports in the media and comments of observers and experts and to carry on with the task entrusted to him. Unfortunately, the concerned authorities do not appear to have done this. It will be interesting to see whether the same set of national selectors will retain him as skipper for the white ball international matches that are around the corner.

In the final analysis, Rohit Sharma did more harm than good by leaving himself out of the playing eleven for the Sydney Test. One hopes that captains will not emulate this precedent when confronted with similar situations in the future.