South Africa v/s India, 2nd Test: Is captain Virat Kohli slowly losing the plot?

You ask any top sportsperson whether they pay attention to what 'people' are saying about their performance, be sure to get a standard answer.

Athletes not paying heed to what critics have to say is expected. Virat Kohli too lived up to that expectation before the start of the second Test against South Africa. But the Indian captain made one critical mistake.

When a player says he isn't listening to what is being said about him or his team, one expects the guy to at least be aware of the general consensus. One statement by Virat on Friday exposed how utterly clueless he is at the moment.

India lost the first Test in Cape Town after being in the driver's seat. The visitors stole defeat from the jaws of victory entirely because of their failed batting. Naturally, question marks were raised on the team selection, with the focal point being Rohit Sharma's inclusion ahead of Ajinkya Rahane.

Rohit made the cut on the pretext of 'current form'. While Ajinkya paid the price for an uncharacteristically poor run against Sri Lanka at home, his Mumbai state-mate reaped dividends for his rich vein of form in the same series.

Virat and the team management might have had their reasons for benching India's 'most consistent and solid player away from home' (in Virat's own words), but pundits weren't at all pleased with the decision.

As India headed into the must-win second Test on Saturday, Virat was once again asked if Ajinkya would be picked ahead of Rohit. After all, the 'Hitman' returned with modest scores of 11 and 10 in the first game.

The skipper's reaction, though, was baffling to say the least: "It's funny how things change in a matter of weeks, or just about five days. Before the first Test no one thought that he should be in the eleven and now suddenly people are looking at the other option."

'Before the first Test no one thought that he should be in the eleven'? Is Virat delusional? Ajinkya's exclusion was as big a shock as it gets! The skipper went on: "For us as a team, it's all about finding the right balance. If players fit in the kind of balance we want to go in with as a side, then they will fit in. We certainly don't go on opinions that are created outside, and talk of the town and all those sort of things."

It's understandable to assume the captain and coach know what's best for the team, but it's disappointing to note just how disconnected Virat is from the 'talk of the town'.

Another decision by the Indian camp that drives home this point is the exclusion of Bhuvneshwar Kumar for Ishant Sharma in the ongoing second Test.

If 'current form' is the basis for selection - going by the explanation for Rohit's presence - why was Bhuvi left out? The Uttar Pradesh lad was India's best bowler by a mile in Cape Town. If it wasn't for his devastating opening spell on Day 1, the visitors would've never been in the game right till the end. And let's not forget, he brings a considerable amount to the table with his bat too. Not only did Bhuvi help in stitching together crucial partnerships in both innings, he was also the one who played most deliveries for Team India - a telling stat to prove his prowess with the bat.

The thinking behind dropping Bhuvneshwar in the second Test is, perhaps, the lack of swing at the SuperSport Park in Centurion, combined with the extra bounce that Ishant could exploit. This is a flawed argument too. Bhuvi has done enough in the past couple of years to prove he is not a one-trick pony. Would South African captain Faf du Plessis have dropped Vernon Philander, who relies greatly on movement in the air too, for the same reasons? No, you simply don't bench your best bowler.

Forget the critics, the fans, the 'town' and everything else, one wonders how great a role the team management plays in influencing the captain's decision-making. 'Horses for courses' to include Ishant and 'current form' when it comes to Rohit? Doesn't quite add up, does it? With yes-man/head coach Ravi Shastri offering little checks and balances, the fear of Virat turning into an autocrat seems real.