India vs West Indies: Karun Nair's repeated exclusions raise fresh doubts over team management's selection policies

Do you remember India’s tour of England? After victory in the Asia Cup final on Friday night, Kevin Pietersen interviewed coach Ravi Shastri and asked if victory in the ‘desert tournament’ had soothed the hurt of that 4-1 defeat? Shastri spoke about how it was a different setting, with conditions and format favouring the Indian team, but not before touching again upon how that ‘scoreline’ didn’t reflect how bravely his wards fought in England. Funny as this repeated defensive stance might seem from the team management, it does underline how badly they are hurting from that Test series’ loss. [caption id=“attachment_3165628” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Karun Nair warmed the bench in England, and has been dropped from the squad for the home series against England. AP/File[/caption] Even so, India didn’t move on from that tour after the Asia Cup finished. That happened as soon as Shikhar Dhawan struck form against Hong Kong in their opening match of the tournament in Dubai. That hundred helped form a narrative for the ensuing two weeks — Dhawan is not a Test cricketer suited to England, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. In sub-continental conditions though, he can be quite a handful for the opposition, and it remained to be seen if the selectors had the will-power to ignore his mountain of ODI runs when picking the Test side against West Indies. Surely then, Dhawan was dropped but the set narrative has left a deep imprint on the changes India have made to their Test top-order. Prithvi Shaw and Mayank Agarwal will try to build for the future, in the company of KL Rahul, as the team looks ahead to the tour of Australia later in December. In all this debate and discussion, stretching even to the continued absence of Rohit Sharma from the longer format, another name has been conveniently forgotten – Karun Nair. If your first thought here is ‘Karun who?’, you won’t be held in contempt. If your thought instead is ‘Oh, yes, Karun, what happened to him?’ it won’t be considered wrong either. Nair failed to make the cut for the Test series against the West Indies, and there was no explanation coming forth as to why this happened. In fact, it followed a recent pattern where mysterious selections have become the norm and there is no rational explanation. Throughout the tour of England, there was a cloud over India’s top-order and who would make the cut. Gut feeling, poor form, and forced hand meant that they used three different pairings in five Tests. It was much like the tour of South Africa where an unsatisfactory explanation was given to first include Rohit in the playing eleven ahead of Ajinkya Rahane, and then unceremoniously drop him after two Tests. At least the selectors made their intent clear with regards Rohit’s Test future. Omitting him for the Afghanistan Test as well as the England tour meant they were ready to look ahead, and Nair was the obvious choice. He has silently bidden his time since that triple hundred in 2016, making odd appearances as substitute batsman (or filler if you will) when someone has been out injured (Virat Kohli against Australia in 2016-17). A feat such as equalling Virender Sehwag in the record books should have helped Nair attain a long rope, but for some reason, it hasn’t transpired. Throughout the England tour, he was never really in contention for a spot in the playing eleven because the team management was intent on playing Hardik Pandya (read all-rounder) and a five-bowler attack. Kohli and Shastri will insist that it worked to an extent, but India’s batting charts will disagree. The truth is there was a need for sixth batsman in England, and once again, it raised uncomfortable questions about the team composition. So what did the team management do? They picked Hanuma Vihari as the middle-order/all-round option for the fifth Test at the Oval, leaving Nair — and everyone else watching — dumbfounded as to how this selection transpired. Let it be said here that Vihari did his bit, in scoring a half-century and proving he could be a solid bet for the future. Yet, the all-rounder argument fell flat for he bowled more as a back-up to the injured Ishant Sharma and a tired Jasprit Bumrah/Mohammed Shami than as a fifth bowler. And thus, it raises a few questions. First, was Vihari informed that he played as an all-rounder or a sixth batsman who could bowl a few overs? Was Nair informed of the same? Second, if Vihari did play as an all-rounder — never mind the justification — was Nair told why this decision, albeit unfair, was necessary? Further, was he told — whether by the team management or the selectors — that his place was under immediate threat for the next series despite not having faced a single angry ball in England? Only on two occasions, Nair had serious nets during the English series (on pre-match days) because there was a chance he could have played — in Southampton and in London. On other occasions, he was restricted to bowling in the nets and batting last or not at all, instead, doing fitness drills as he was clearly out of contention. As such, Vihari’s inclusion mid-series further raised questions as to what truly was going on. It leaves room for a third question herein, and perhaps it is the most pertinent one. Did selectors talk to Nair when dropping him for the Test squad against West Indies? If the answer to this is no (and it is, in all probability), then like the team management, even they have descended to making silly selection calls. All of it is simply inexplicable, and not just to Nair alone.