Experience used as an excuse: BCB reverting to old ways?

Reporters present during the Bangladesh squad announcement in Mirpur yesterday, ahead of the upcoming T20I series against the UAE and Pakistan, may have felt a strong sense of deja vu.

The proceedings bore a striking resemblance to the methods of the previous selection panel, led by Minhajul Abedin Nannu.

The press conference -- attended by chief selector Gazi Ashraf Hossain Lipu, cricket operations committee chairman Nazmul Abedeen Fahim, and selector Abdur Razzak -- often lacked clarity and was filled with questionable reasoning, particularly regarding key inclusions and low-profile omissions. And, as usual, the parroting of inconsequential buzzwords like "process" and "long-term planning" was quite prevalent.

The return of "experience" as a justification for selections further underlined a stale and uninspired approach -- something that experts have often criticised and the Bangladesh cricket fans have become all too familiar with.

Former T20I captain Najmul Hossain Shanto's inclusion in the T20 side, for example, has undoubtedly raised a few eyebrows. The explanation behind his selection is far more perplexing. Despite unimpressive career numbers and ongoing struggles to adapt to the demands of the shortest format, the selectors used the left-handed batter's experience of 49 T20Is as a shield to rationalise his selection.

"If you look at the team, you'll notice we're lacking experience. There are players like Soumya [Sarkar], who has played around 90 matches, or Liton [Das], but after them, there's a visible gap. Shanto has played roughly 50 matches, so he brings in some experience," Lipu explained on Monday.

Given the squad's composition, Shanto's inclusion makes little sense. The Tigers have several top-order options and the left-hander falls way down the pecking order considering his recent form, and overall T20 numbers.

Considering all that, how does Shanto's grim numbers qualify as the kind of "experience" that could help the Tigers? His inclusion seems redundant at best, misguided at worst.

When has the experience argument ever truly helped Bangladesh in T20Is? Has it helped with cases such as Liton Das or Soumya Sarker, who have nearly a decade of international experience under their belts? They remain examples of seasoned players whose careers have ebbed and flowed between brief highs and extended lows, never quite justifying the persistent faith placed in them.

Liton, recently named the T20I captain, has played 95 matches. Soumya, 87. Both have frequently been dropped due to form, only to continue to return on the basis of "potential" and "experience." The fact that this cycle persists, despite neither cementing themselves as consistent match-winners, makes one thing clear for players trying to break into the national side: show a few glimpses, and the selectors will milk those for the foreseeable future.

"In Liton's case, experience is crucial. We don't have many experienced cricketers at the moment. There have been discussions about his form, but he has the potential. If he can organise his game, he'll be a key asset. Everyone is optimistic about his tactical abilities, and we believe he'll play an important role once he starts performing," cricket operations chairman Fahim said.

Fahim's reasoning falls flat. Liton was dropped from the ODI squad ahead of the 2025 Champions Trophy after a miserable run -- 13 innings without a fifty, and seven consecutive single-digit scores. The notion that after nearly a decade of international cricket, the board must still speak in terms of "potential" as a reason to include a player with almost the experience of 100 T20Is reflects a deeper systemic failure. They are now publicly hoping that a 30-year-old cricketer will start becoming an asset by delivering regularly for the team. It is a sobering reality of the mediocrity that persists in Bangladesh's cricketing culture. The problems run deeper than individual players. The issue is not solely on the ones who get selected, but the rationale behind those selections.

When the absence of a unified standard, the lack of accountability, and the acceptance of underperformance have already been set as the norm, it is not surprising that selectors often are faced with the "Sophie's Choice" -- forced to pick from a shallow pool of underachievers and resorting to baffling logic to justify it.