He had a recurring back injury which threatened not merely form but longevity. There were questions over his commitment towards domestic cricket. He lost a BCCI central contract. He went from being considered an all-format certainty — and at one point even a leadership candidate — to becoming only an ODI regular.
Shreyas led two different IPL franchises (Kolkata Knight Riders and Punjab Kings) to finals in successive years, winning one and losing the other. He produced one of the greatest World Cup knockout innings by an Indian batter and still found himself outside certain squads months later.
The latest episode
If Indian cricket ever runs out of scripts, somebody only needs to document the past few years of Shreyas’ cricketing life. The latest episode was released last Saturday. The 31-year-old was not just recalled into India’s T20I set-up after two-and-a-half years away from the squad. He was handed the captaincy!
That he returned to the side is understandable. That he returned to the side as skipper is fascinating. Though Shreyas being chosen for the top job may not be surprising, the circumstances under which he became captain certainly are. For years, conversations on Shreyas revolved around leadership potential.
Could he command a dressing room? Could his personality dominate elite players? Could he tactically survive international cricket? Could he transition from an instinctive leader to a traditional one? Over the last 18 months, those questions were answered in the affirmative at the domestic and franchise level.
Providing evidence
Shreyas simply went out and provided evidence. He led KKR to the IPL title in 2024. He guided Mumbai to the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy later in the year. In 2025, he steered PBKS to the IPL summit clash.
Shreyas Iyer led KKR to glory in IPL 2024. | Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO: ANI
He handled dressing rooms full of superstars. He managed retention cycles, changing squads and the increasingly exhausting ecosystem of franchise cricket, where captains are analysed after every over and judged every morning.
The question of whether Shreyas could captain was no longer asked. Could Indian cricket continue ignoring those credentials became the real question.
What made Saturday’s announcement peculiar was not Shreyas’ promotion. It was the man he replaced. Suryakumar Yadav’s removal is what makes this transition feel unusual. Because unlike many leadership changes, India did not replace a failing captain. India replaced a successful captain who had diminishing returns with the willow. A very successful one, for that matter.
When Rohit Sharma’s team ended India’s 17-year wait for a T20 World Cup title in June 2024, it felt like closure. When Suryakumar and Co. defended that crown in March, it felt like confirmation.
India under Suryakumar did not merely win. It established control. The domination in bilaterals continued. The pool of talent expanded.
India in T20Is increasingly resembled what Australia once was in the late 1990s and early 2000s — a side where changing personnel rarely altered results.
And yet only months later, Suryakumar lost not only captaincy but also his place. That perhaps tells us more about the current team administration than anything else.
Indian cricket, just like most other spheres in a country busy hero-worshipping, has traditionally functioned around personalities. But this version increasingly appears to function around timelines.
The current team management — especially the head coach and chief selector axis of Gautam Gambhir and Ajit Agarkar — has repeatedly shown willingness to make difficult calls before circumstances force them.
Sometimes those calls have looked brave. Sometimes unnecessary. Sometimes downright ruthless. But almost always, they have followed a pattern. The team first, individuals second.
Beneficiary and survivor
Rohit experienced the bitter feeling despite clinching an ICC title (Champions Trophy). Now Suryakumar experiences the same despite having lifted one. And somewhere between those decisions sits Shreyas — simultaneously a beneficiary and survivor. Perhaps the most fascinating subplot are Shreyas and Agarkar. Few player-selector relationships have generated as much speculation over the years.
When Agarkar functioned as Mumbai’s chief selector towards the end of the previous decade, stories of friction between him and Shreyas emerged repeatedly. There was the famous incident where the batter was reportedly asked to undergo a fitness test minutes before boarding a flight for a Ranji Trophy game in 2018. Then came the stronger stance around domestic cricket participation. Eventually came Shreyas’ removal from the central contract list.
The word on the street was that there were personal issues. The selection committee meeting held last Saturday complicated that narrative. Because if personal differences truly dictated decisions, recalling someone and trusting him with captaincy directly become difficult to explain.
What came out of the meeting was something else. The selection panels may disagree. They may challenge. They may punish. But increasingly, decisions appear linked more to long-term planning than personality clashes. This does not automatically make every decision correct. But it makes the process easier to understand.
Strange task
Shreyas’ challenge extends far beyond captaincy. The first task is perhaps the strangest one. He must cement his own place. Modern T20 cricket offers captains authority, not security.
Shreyas Iyer has led Punjab Kings from the front. | Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO: ANI
Hardik Pandya remains in the ecosystem. Jasprit Bumrah will almost certainly return closer to the next T20 World Cup.
Axar Patel is an important senior figure. Sanju Samson, Ishan Kishan and Tilak Varma were all discussed as leadership candidates.
It means captaincy does not protect Shreyas. Performance is still a must.
The second challenge is acceptance. Captaining an IPL side and leading India are different jobs. IPL dressing rooms are in place only for about 10 weeks a year. National team dressing rooms last years. Franchise cricket allows resets. But international cricket rarely does.
Added dimension
Managing players who captain franchises themselves creates another dimension. Managing players who may believe that they can captain India at some point creates an even bigger one.
Shreyas must therefore not just lead. He must convince.
The third task is maintaining standards. This might actually be the hardest. Rohit inherited a side recovering from repeated ICC disappointments. Suryakumar inherited a functioning machine. Shreyas inherits something arguably tougher. A champion side expected to remain champion. Expectations are dangerous because they rise faster than the time teams take to evolve.
The next T20 World Cup only complicates matters. Australia and New Zealand will host it in October-November 2028.
Conditions change everything. Larger boundaries compared to Indian grounds, bouncier pitches, possibly more seam movement than flat-beds at home. Different finishing requirements.
Batters who dominate in Asia sometimes appear ordinary there. Twenty-eight months sounds comfortably distant. But international cricket rarely permits such comfort.
Most underrated complication
Then comes perhaps the most underrated complication.
The ecosystem around him may change before the T20 World Cup arrives. Gambhir’s contract, for now, is until the ODI World Cup in 2027.
Agarkar’s stay period is similar unless extensions emerge and the BCCI rulebook is modified. Meaning Shreyas may operate with different selectors, different coaches and perhaps different philosophies.
That effectively leaves him with roughly 15 months to establish authority. Fifteen months to create a leadership identity. Fifteen months to make himself indispensable irrespective of future decision-makers. It perhaps explains why sympathy naturally flows towards Suryakumar.
Irrespective of what one thinks about his form, removing a World Cup-winning captain entirely feels harsh. Especially when it is about India’s most transformative T20 batter.
For a major part of the last five years, Suryakumar raised batting expectations. Perhaps he deserved another series. Perhaps two. Yet harshness increasingly appears central to this regime.
And while criticism exists, results continue strengthening their arguments. Which brings the story back to Shreyas.
Operating at extremes
Few careers in Indian cricket have operated at such extremes.
Too much hype. Too much criticism. Too many injuries. Too many comebacks. Too many questions. Now comes the strangest phase. For the first time in years, Shreyas is not fighting for relevance. He is set to define direction.
If he establishes himself and successfully carries India into another T20 World Cup cycle, Saturday’s call may eventually be remembered as ‘the moment’.
And if India eventually completes a hat-trick of T20 World Cup triumphs while adding the Olympic gold along the way, the Shreyas ‘web series’ may require more than just another season.
It might require a cinematic universe.
