'It's a Joke' — Srikkanth and Badrinath Torch Dube's Selection While India's Real All-Rounders Watch From Home

The sixth over of the fifth T20I at Southampton. Harry Brook, three off the bat, top-edging a pull shot. The ball hung in the air for what felt like an eternity — long enough for Shivam Dube to get under it, long enough for every fielder on the ground to expect a regulation dismissal, long enough for 15,000 spectators to half-rise from their seats.

Dube dropped it. Brook went on to make an unbeaten 95 and England won by 56 runs to complete a 4-0 whitewash. And two former India cricketers decided they'd seen enough.

Krishnamachari Srikkanth, the man who once opened the batting in a World Cup final with the approach of someone attacking a piñata, called Dube's status as an international cricketer "a joke." Subramaniam Badrinath, who averaged 54 in Test cricket and still couldn't hold down a spot, demanded that Krunal Pandya replace him. Between them, they did something rare in Indian cricket's ecosystem of diplomatic non-answers: they said out loud what the selection data has been screaming for months.

Srikkanth's frustration didn't come from one dropped catch. It came from a body of evidence that would make any selector uncomfortable — if they were looking. Across the five-match T20I series against England, Dube batted at an average of 21.25 with a strike rate of 130.76. In a format where India's top order regularly strikes at 150-plus, that's not a contribution — it's an anchor dragging across the deck.

But it's the bowling that makes the case prosecutorial. Dube's economy rate in the series was 16. Sixteen runs per over. In a format where an economy of 9 is considered expensive, Dube was haemorrhaging runs at a rate that would embarrass a part-timer in a corporate cricket tournament. And yet he was trusted with the 19th over — the death over that can decide a T20I — and was predictably carted.

Badrinath's observation was surgical: "Shivam is bowling the 19th over and getting hit around the park. Team's defeats haven't helped the cause." The defeats, of course, being a 4-0 whitewash by England that erased India's 16-series winning streak in T20Is.

Badrinath's sharpest line wasn't about Dube at all. It was about the players who aren't there. "You have removed the T20 World Cup-winning captain and player of the tournament," he said. "Why isn't the same yardstick being used for other players as well? It should apply to the likes of Axar and Dube as well."

The reference is unmistakable. Hardik Pandya — who took nine wickets and scored two half-centuries at the T20 World Cup 2026, who was named to the ICC Team of the Tournament — was dropped from the T20I squad for the England series. The official explanation was workload management and a path to the 2027 ODI World Cup. The unofficial explanation, as chief selector Ajit Agarkar acknowledged, was partly about IPL form: Pandya managed 206 runs in 10 IPL 2026 matches at an average of 22.88 and an economy of 11.42 with the ball.

But here's where the logic collapses. Dube averaged 21.25 in the T20I series — worse than Pandya's IPL average that supposedly wasn't good enough. Dube's bowling economy of 16 makes Pandya's 11.42 look like peak McGrath. And yet Pandya was dropped, and Dube was not only retained but promoted: he replaced the injured Nitish Kumar Reddy in the ODI squad for the same tour.

That quote is the one that lingers. "No one is sure what the system exactly is." In seven years under the new selection regime, India's all-rounder slot in white-ball cricket has become a revolving door with a bias toward certain names. Srikkanth went further, alleging that some selections are influenced by franchise affiliations and regional networks rather than domestic or international performance.

He also named names — not to pile on Dube, but to point out who should be ahead of him. Krunal Pandya, who has reinvented himself at RCB and was integral to back-to-back IPL titles. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, whose experience makes him a safer bet for death overs. Mohsin Khan, a left-arm seamer with genuine pace. Even Gurnoor Brar, the 23-year-old who took 3 for 27 on his ODI debut against Afghanistan and then dismissed England openers Duckett and Bethell in the same over at Edgbaston just two days ago.

The contrast with Brar is particularly damning. In his first ODI in England, Brar triggered a collapse from 61 for 0 to 80 for 5. In his post-match interview, he credited Jasprit Bumrah for coaching him through English conditions ball by ball. At 23, Brar is bowling death overs and taking coaching from the best in the world. At 31, Dube is bowling the 19th over at an economy of 16 and dropping catches.

Dube is now in India's ODI squad for the remaining matches against England — Cardiff on July 16, Lord's on July 19. Whether he plays is another question. Axar Patel's all-round masterclass at Edgbaston (4 for 62 and an unbeaten 57) has made the selection conversation even more awkward: India already have a spinning all-rounder who can bat at six and bowl death overs without leaking 16 an over.

The deeper issue isn't Dube. It's what Badrinath called "the system" — a selection framework that applies one standard to World Cup heroes and another to players who "fit" a profile that nobody outside the committee room can articulate. When your T20 World Cup champion gets dropped for workload management while a player averaging 21 with an economy of 16 gets promoted to the ODI squad, you don't have a selection policy. You have a preference.

Srikkanth and Badrinath have said it. The numbers confirm it. The only question is whether the selectors are listening, or whether "the system" has already decided.