Delhi : In the team selected for Team India's tour of Sri Lanka, after the first choice of the selectors, due to the delay in the injury list, there were two changes: Auqib Nabi came in place of Jasprit Bumrah and Sarfaraz Khan came in place of Sai Sudarshan. One special thing associated with both the newly arrived players is that an attempt was made to remove the misconception that selectors only give importance to IPL records.

Even though Nabi and Sarfaraz were not in the initially selected team, in the end their recent domestic records were taken into consideration.

Both these changes show a different and interesting perspective on Ajit Agarkar's selection philosophy. The interesting thing is that when the time came for change, the two names which were in discussion on social media, finally came to the team. So did Agarkar accept the demand of social media more than his own thinking? In other words, is Ajit Agarkar's selection philosophy now becoming more about meeting the current needs than looking at the future of the team?

Now the big change seen in Ajit Agarkar's selection thinking can be called leaning towards correct selection rather than strict planning. Has his viewpoint really changed or after the 'Rohit Sharma episode' has he also realized that he cannot impose his views on the name of every player. Incidentally, the selection of Jammu and Kashmir's fast bowling all-rounder Auqib Nabi and the recall of Mumbai's Sarfaraz Khan are not just to give importance to their domestic records, these are the two names who have been the subject of one of the longest selection debates in Indian cricket in the last few months due to their non-inclusion in Team India.

The flexibility that Ajit Agarkar and his selection committee are showing in their thinking now compared to the beginning of their tenure is special, but to call it surrender before the general public opinion would be a 'wrong view'. The difference now is that the selectors are ready to rethink those decisions on which they were once adamant. Everyone knows that Sarfaraz's domestic record was very good.

His performance attracted attention again and again. When he finally got a chance in Test in 2024, he did not appear to be a 'misfit' in international cricket. Even then his Test career stopped as quickly as it had started. Everyone kept asking why he was kept out but he could not fit into the selectors' plan again.

Now he is back. Not that there was no other option. Even then Sarfaraz was chosen. If Sarfaraz is good enough now, why was he not so good earlier? Ajit Agarkar was never a selector who listened to social media. That is why such decisions are often taken which are not necessarily 'popular'.

In this philosophy neither the young players nor the seniors are left out. The impact of these decisions was more visible in white ball cricket but even the Test team was not saved. For example, whatever campaign is going on about Mohammed Shami, there is no impact on Ajit Agarkar. Therefore, it will not be said that now Agarkar is just choosing the team as per the choice of the fans.

India's Test team has gone through a very difficult period of change. The departure of Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma left a huge void in both batting and leadership. Young players got more responsibility than expected. Therefore, the selectors deserve praise for being forward thinking. Future preparation and current performance must go hand in hand. Sarfaraz was the clearest example of this. From his case it would seem that the decision taken earlier by the selection committee did not mean that the door was closed forever.

Nabi's entry into the senior team is not a story of replacing a player merely due to injury. This shows that the selector already had an eye on him. More importantly, it shows that the pathway from India A to the senior Test team is working. His promotion shows that the selectors are prepared to reward performance, even if the player has not previously been part of India's established system. This will also raise the question that if he was so good then he should have been in the starting team only. This difference will definitely come with the thinking of the selection committee. The Sri Lanka series will reveal whether these changes are a real change in the selection thinking or just emergency changes made due to injury?