Ravichandran Ashwin’s quiet retirement has sparked widespread debate among fans and pundits, with many speculating that his decision was influenced by frustration and a sense of humiliation at the hands of the Indian team management. Questions are being raised about whether the legendary spinner was sidelined unfairly, despite his significant contributions to Indian cricket.
#1 Ashwin Paid the Price for Batting Failures
Ashwin, instead of being a permanent fixture in overseas Tests, often found himself benched. While most teams would have revolved their spin strategy around a player of Ashwin’s caliber, India’s batting inconsistencies in tough conditions often dictated the inclusion of extra batters, even at No. 7 or No. 8.
Despite his proven ability with the bat, including multiple Test centuries, Ashwin was frequently overlooked in favor of Ravindra Jadeja, who offered more consistent batting performances. The emergence of all-rounders like Shardul Thakur further diminished Ashwin’s chances, as team balance required prioritizing batting depth over bowling variety.
In an ideal scenario, India’s core batting unit would have delivered reliably, allowing the inclusion of a specialist spinner like Ashwin. However, frequent collapses forced the management to compromise, prioritizing batting resilience over Ashwin’s world-class spin skills.
#2 The Wrist-Spin Revolution and Ashwin’s White-Ball Decline
Ashwin’s white-ball career, overshadowed by his Test exploits, also saw a premature decline. By 2017, he was dropped despite impressive numbers—150 wickets in 111 ODIs at an economy rate of 4.91. Comparatively, Harbhajan Singh, in his first 111 ODIs, had similar stats, yet played almost double the number of matches.
Ashwin’s exit was driven largely by two factors: his limited fielding capabilities and the rise of wrist spinners like Kuldeep Yadav and Yuzvendra Chahal. Wrist spinners were favored for their attacking potential, and Ashwin’s more defensive style fell out of sync with modern ODI cricket.
Even in situations where three spinners could have been accommodated, Jadeja or Axar Patel’s batting prowess often tipped the scales. By the time Ashwin made a white-ball comeback, emerging talents like Washington Sundar had already filled the void, leaving little room for the veteran.
#3 SENA Performance: A Complicating Factor
Ashwin’s record in SENA (South Africa, England, New Zealand, and Australia) countries has also drawn scrutiny. In 26 matches, he claimed 72 wickets at an average of 39.55—comparable to Ravindra Jadeja’s 52 wickets in 22 matches at an average of 39.05.
For the management, this statistical parity, combined with Jadeja’s superior batting, made Ashwin the easier choice to bench. This decision-making mirrors Harbhajan Singh’s decline, who faced a similar fate when Ashwin himself emerged as the younger, more versatile option in the early 2010s.
#4 Management’s Dilemma: Bold Choices for Progress
While Ashwin’s sidelining has drawn criticism, the management often had no choice but to make tough decisions. India’s batting collapses in SENA countries left little room for experiments, forcing the inclusion of players who could contribute with the bat.
Similarly, in white-ball cricket, the success of Kuldeep and Chahal as a pair justified Ashwin’s exclusion. Dropping a successful combination for an experienced player, however skilled, would have risked upsetting the balance of the side.
Ashwin’s struggles to adapt to the modern game further complicated matters. Despite his immense skill and innovation, the pace of contemporary cricket sometimes left him behind, making it easier for the management to prioritize younger players or versatile all-rounders.
Timing: The Crucial Factor
Much of Ashwin’s challenges boil down to timing. In another era, his skillset and leadership qualities might have made him a guaranteed starter and even a captain. However, he lost his place in white-ball cricket long before concepts like split captaincy and workload management became prevalent.
Even if he had stayed in contention, the management’s inclination to groom younger leaders would have likely worked against him. Ashwin’s career, defined by brilliance, was also marked by unfortunate timing and circumstances that prevented him from cementing an irreplaceable spot in the Indian team.
While Ashwin’s treatment by the team management raises valid questions, their decisions were often dictated by the need for balance and evolution. In the end, Ashwin’s legacy remains untarnished—a testament to his resilience and unmatched cricketing mind, despite the challenges he faced.
