One Rule for Kohli, Another for SKY?

When Virat Kohli retired from T20 internationals after India’s 2024 T20 World Cup victory, many (including yours truly) believed the decision was not entirely voluntary but was also influenced by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the team management’s desire to transition toward a younger T20 side. Though I was sad, the reasoning sounded logical and not out of place. I had the same opinion. T20 cricket has evolved into an extremely aggressive format where, these days, even 200 is no longer considered safe. I recall when Manish Pandey scored the century in IPL in 2009, the total team score was around 160 runs and it was considered a good score back then. Players from Kohli’s generation had to adapt to this format later in their careers, whereas today’s youngsters are growing up naturally suited to this style of cricket.

That is why Kohli’s retirement, while emotional, did not feel entirely unreasonable. The argument was simple - T20 cricket is now a young man’s game, and India must prepare the next generation. 

But...if that was truly the philosophy...and there was no ulterior motive...then the same standards must apply to everyone equally. Which brings us to the curious case of Suryakumar Yadav aka SKY.

SKY is currently 35 years old, the exact same age Kohli was when he stepped away from T20Is. If age and transition were the criteria then, how can they suddenly stop mattering now? The argument cannot change based on convenience or personal preferences within the system. If players like Bhuvneshwar Kumar or Mohammed Shami are no longer seriously considered for T20 cricket largely because of age and long-term planning, then the same logic must also apply to SKY. Selection policies cannot have different versions for different individuals.

Some may argue that SKY must continue because in March this year, India won the last T20 World Cup under his captaincy. But if success is the yardstick, then Kohli should never have been nudged toward retirement in the first place. He retired immediately after India won a T20 World Cup and after being the Man of the Match in the final. More importantly, his recent IPL performances clearly show that he still has plenty to offer to T20 cricket. If a player performing at that level could be moved aside in the name of transition, then success alone cannot suddenly become the justification for extending someone else’s T20 career.

This is not about disrespecting SKY or denying his contribution to Indian cricket. It is about consistency and fairness in selection philosophy. In few months, SKY would be 36 years old. India has enough young talent emerging every IPL season to build the next T20 core. If the management truly believes that the future of T20 cricket belongs to younger players, then that principle must apply uniformly, irrespective of success, captaincy, dressing-room influence, or proximity to the current leadership. Otherwise, the message becomes very clear - some players are asked to move on because of policy, while others continue because of preference.