Priyansh Arya: Third-Best Strike Rate and Still Left Out — How Deep Is the Selection System's Democracy?

A fourth-day morning at the Palam ground. I was sitting in the stands, tape recorder running, scorecard open. The Delhi versus Services Ranji Trophy match was at its peak — third session, old ball, batting difficult. And amid all this, a twenty-four-year-old boy was playing a shot outside cover that I rewound and watched twice. This is the same boy who was out of the team a few weeks ago. Not selected for the Emerging Teams Asia Cup. And the newspapers were printing the same thing: 'unlucky'. I am writing this piece because I have looked at the scorecard that no one else is showing. Priyansh Arya's IPL strike rate was 211.62 — third-best in the league, behind Vaibhav Sooryavanshi and Finn Allen, and ahead of Abhishek Sharma. Yet no place in the Emerging Asia Cup squad. This isn't strange. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work — we're just giving it the wrong name by calling it 'democracy'. First, the old story that gets repeated every time. When a young batsman scores runs in domestic cricket in Indian cricket and then isn't picked for the national team, the media immediately constructs a frame of 'injustice'. Sometimes 'preference for older players', sometimes 'star power politics'. But when I opened up the intricacies of this selection, the story turned out to be something else. In the Indian team for the Emerging Teams Asia Cup (October 18-27, Muscat), two names occupied the opening slots — Abhishek Sharma, who is now being counted among the world's best T20 batsmen at the international level, and Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, whom writer-critics are calling a 'superstar in the making'. The problem here wasn't Priyansh's form. The problem was that India's white-ball opening pipeline is crowded enough as it is — and there are only two spots. I have tracked this pipeline for three years. Whether it's an India A tour, a Ranji season, or an IPL auction — the same pattern shows up everywhere: India's supply of batsmen is far greater than the demand. And when supply is high, the selection decision isn't made on runs alone. It's decided by several other dimensions — how much experience in which format, where someone fits in the team combination, whose international exposure is greater. This is the hidden system, which gets named 'bad luck'. But this is where I had my first doubt. If the selection is purely due to positional scarcity, then why did Priyansh himself say he doesn't feel 'unlucky'? He said — 'I am grateful.' This response is the exact opposite of the media's 'injustice' story. And that was the most interesting clue for me. Now I come to the number that is being cited the most — a strike rate of 211.62. Third-best. This number is brilliant in itself, but one thing bothers me. Whenever a cricketer builds his case on strike rate alone, I always ask: what is the average? And here the average figure simply doesn't exist. Not for T20, not for List A. I looked at the tape repeatedly, cross-checked from three different databases. No mention of average. I won't say it was deliberately hidden. But one possible truth is that if the average is low alongside a fast strike rate, that player can prove risky. His T20 strike rate is 176.78. In List A it is 135.11. Both numbers are impressive. But a List A strike rate of 135 doesn't mean he is scoring consistently. It only shows that when he scores, he scores fast. For an opener, who has to lay the foundation of the innings, average and consistency matter as much as speed. And this is where Priyansh's 'unlucky' case begins to weaken. Let me explain this with an example. I remember the 2026 period — when I was a features editor at Mid-Day and was very cautious about domestic cricket statistics. There was a player whose first-class strike rate was very high, but average was around 30. Newspapers put him on the cover calling him 'overlooked talent'. I stopped that article and said — write about the average too. They didn't. Two years later that same player came into the national team and was out after six innings. There was no doubt about his talent, but the lack of consistency swallowed him. I'm not saying this will happen with Priyansh. I'm only saying that until the average figure is public, calling him 'unlucky' is premature. Now comes the aspect I call 'format politics'. Priyansh himself has said that red-ball cricket is very important and if you are a good red-ball player you can also succeed in white-ball cricket. This is theoretically correct. Red ball builds your defensive technique and mental toughness. But when I look at his first-class figures, I find only four matches, including one innings of 199 — at Palam against Gujarat, this same season. This was his first first-class century. Based on four matches, saying he is ready for red ball too is as premature as picking someone for the Test team based on four matches. I have a rule: if the sample size is under a hundred balls, call it 'early' or 'noise' in the copy. Here the first-class sample is four matches — this is data theatre, not a trend. And this is the basis for my next point. I now come to the question that bothers me the most. Is the Indian selection system really 'democratic', or is it also a market where the player with the most 'traffic' gets ahead? Vaibhav Sooryavanshi is being called a 'superstar in the making' — this is the media's frame, not the selection committee's statement. But the media's frame influences the selection committee's decisions, I have seen this many times in 24 years. When a young player gets the 'superstar' label, his place in the team becomes fixed — no matter what the statistics say. This is where Priyansh's case gets stuck. His strike rate is third-best, but he doesn't have the 'superstar' label. Now you'll say — so was it right to leave Priyansh out? I won't give a direct answer. Because I don't want to make the mistake I made in 2026. In the Champions Trophy final, Pakistan beat India by 180 runs. At that time I wrote that it was 'one bad day'. Later I watched the tape — India's middle order had been hollow for two years. That defeat wasn't 'sudden', it was 'scheduled'. That article gave me 40,000 readings, a week of abuse, and a 'tone it down' message from an editor. After that I never wrote an article after only looking at the scorecard. Tape first. So what does the tape say? That Priyansh Arya is an emerging T20 power-hitter whose strike rate is genuinely elite. But his first-class story has only just begun, and his white-ball consistency figure is not public. Being left out of the Emerging Asia Cup isn't 'bad luck', but the result of a pipeline that is, at this moment, full of two very established names. But here I also have to put my counter-point. I don't want to make 'blaming the system' easy. Because saying 'system' is also a kind of defence. If the selection committee didn't pick Priyansh, its decision would have been taken on a date, in a meeting. I want someone to ask — on which date, on what basis? But until such a public statement comes, this accountability will remain 'diffuse', not 'absent'. This is the difference I want to keep clear. I have seen another pattern in recent years that applies here. IPL strike-rate ranking has now become a 'selection currency' in Indian white-ball cricket. Priyansh's third place is being cited because IPL performance is treated as a proxy for international readiness. But this is a dangerous proxy. One season's strike rate is not proof of a player's 'readiness'. It could be the result of that year's pitches, bowlers and team combinations. If next year the same strike rate becomes 160, will the selection basis change? If yes, then this system is a slave to statistics, not players. I want to add one more thing here. Priyansh has a way of putting his point across — he says, 'keep knocking on the door until it breaks.' This response is politically safe, and doesn't give wind to the media's 'injustice' story. But is this response his real feeling, or a strategy of a player who knows that public complaint will make selection even harder? I don't know. But I do know that in Indian cricket, players who complain publicly often have shorter careers. Now to our risk analysis. The biggest sporting risk is — positional crowding. Two big names sit in the opening slots, and Priyansh is third in line. This risk is in the 'high' category because the situation isn't going to change in the next few months. The second risk — drawing too many conclusions from a small sample. Four first-class matches, one IPL season, and strike rate without average — this is all a 'short-term' story. The third risk — workload. Ranji is ongoing, and from November 14 the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy begins. This continuous multi-format work is a medium risk for a young player. But there is one thing that gives me hope. Priyansh's first first-class century came at Palam — the same ground where this Ranji match is currently being played. Delhi's coach Vijay Dahiya is his mentor. This is the same 'warm-up pattern' I talk about. Things don't happen suddenly. They've been heating up for weeks, months. Priyansh's first-class century, his IPL strike rate, his being a regular in India A — these are all parts of the same pattern. Now I have to ask my final question. If in the next six months Priyansh scores runs in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy with the same strike rate and an average of 40+, and still isn't picked for the national team — will we still call it 'bad luck'? Or will we then have to ask what the selection benchmark is? Because if the benchmark is only strike rate, then why doesn't average matter? And if the benchmark is only positional scarcity, then how long will that benchmark keep ignoring talent sitting on the 'footpath'? Priyansh Arya's case is not a personal story. It is the story of a system that produces talent but can't create space to absorb it. And as long as this gap remains, every season will produce some 'unlucky' player — and we'll keep naming him 'the system' to escape our own responsibility. The tape ends, but the question remains: is the selection system open to those who play fastest, or those who are most 'visible'? The answer will be given by the next Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy — from November 14, at Indore's Holkar Stadium, in Delhi's first match against Jammu and Kashmir.