Sunil Gavaskar Confused About Ishan and Shreyas Iyer Losing BCCI Contracts

Gavaskar’s Confusion

Sunil Gavaskar, the cricket legend, recently shared his confusion about why Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer were left out of the BCCI central contracts. In a column for Mid Day, Gavaskar expressed his bewilderment, particularly about Ishan Kishan not playing in the Ranji Trophy for Jharkhand.

Solving the Puzzle:

Gavaskar highlighted the mystery of Ishan Kishan not participating in the Ranji Trophy. He admitted uncertainty about the reasons for Kishan’s absence, leaving fans and experts puzzled.

Tough Punishment for Iyer?

Gavaskar hinted that the penalty for Shreyas Iyer could be too severe. He clarified that Iyer didn’t reject playing in the Ranji Trophy and participated in a match as requested by the Indian team management before the Test series against England.

Iyer’s Tough Situation

The former World Cup winner explained Iyer’s situation, mentioning that the player informed the team management about his back pain, preventing him from playing the third Test. Despite getting approval from the National Cricket Academy (NCA), Iyer was excluded from the central contracts, raising questions about how fitness assessments consider individual pain thresholds.

ALSO READ: Ishan Kishan Declines BCCI’s Offer of Redemption: Report

BCCI’s Strong Message

In a bold move, the BCCI removed both Iyer and Kishan from the annual contract list to send a stern message about their refusal to play in domestic cricket. This decision followed a strong directive from BCCI Secretary Jay Shah, urging contracted players to actively participate in domestic tournaments.

Pandya Keeps Grade A Status

Interestingly, Hardik Pandya, recovering from an ankle injury and not playing since the World Cup, retained his Grade A status in the annual contracts. This decision showed the BCCI’s careful approach to managing players’ contracts based on their unique situations.

Selector’s Advice

The exclusion of Iyer and Kishan from the contract list resulted from a collective decision, with the selectors recommending their removal. This move emphasized that commitment to domestic cricket plays a vital role in determining a player’s contractual status.