It’s somewhat curious that there’s never been a reasonable argument in favor of restricting the participation of Indian players in global T20 competitions. That this restriction interferes with a player’s freedom to choose in what kind of cricket he wishes engage is enough of a reason for the burden of proof to shift on to those supporting the restriction to justify this interference. On top of it, there are various benefits to having your country’s players play competitive cricket all around the world. Let’s look at a few of those.

This one is a no brainer. While exposure can be one those vague terms meaninglessly thrown around, it’s pretty specific in this scenario. Indian players participating in the BBL, Ram Slam, CPL or the BPL will be exposed to foreign conditions more frequently. To be competitive, the batsmen will have no option but to improve their batting on bouncy tracks and against fast bowlers if they’re participating in the BBL or Ram Slam. It’s not unlike how most Indian batsmen of the earlier generation were expected to spend some time playing county cricket to hone their game against the seaming ball.

[interaction id=”5725cdebf070832f107241ea”]

In the aforementioned case, the players who have been identified as talented or those with potential were expected to spend time playing abroad. The most recent example of this was Cheteshwar Pujara’s stint with Yorkshire. Freeing up all players to play globally would mean that all players can perhaps benefit from increased potential and not merely the ones identified by BCCI as being “promising.” This, in turn, also improves overall quality of the talent pool from which the selectors would go on to choose the national team. Often, taking new players abroad entails a significant risk because they are unknown quantities in different conditions (read: Gurkeerat and Rishi Dhawan in the recent Australia tour). Whilst certainly more frequent India A or Emerging XI tours will help the most at this front, exposure in global leagues can also be a decent indicator.

Allowing players to play globally would also provide greater control to players who wish to put in the extra effort to make their game better rounded. Someone like a Shreyas Iyer who did exceedingly well in the Ranji Trophy could further improve his capabilities by going global before he’s selected to play for the national team.

In addition to generally allowing your players to play in different conditions more frequently against a more diversified group of players and as a consequence, improving your talent pool, there’s the pertinent question of “why not?” Why shouldn’t someone like a Praveen Tambe or a Rajat Bhatia, neither one of whom stand the remotest of chance to play for India, be allowed to earn money in their profession if there’s a demand for their skill in the Caribbean or Bangladesh?