Bangladesh cricket has once again opted for a multi-captain approach, a decision that has immediately sparked fervent debate among former players and pundits. The appointment of Mehidy Hasan Miraz as the new One Day International (ODI) skipper means the Tigers now boast three distinct leaders across formats, a strategy last attempted, and swiftly abandoned, just two years ago.
The move marks a return to the three-captain model briefly adopted in 2022, which saw Shakib Al Hasan lead the Test side, Tamim Iqbal the ODIs, and Mahmudullah the T20Is. That particular experiment proved short-lived, leading to a swift consolidation of power as Shakib was handed the reins for Tests and T20Is, with Tamim retaining the ODI captaincy until Shakib dramatically reclaimed it ahead of the 2023 ODI World Cup.
The leadership carousel has continued its spin in recent times. Last February, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) controversially handed Najmul Hossain Shanto an all-format mandate, despite Shakib's well-known desire to continue in the ODI role. However, a string of indifferent T20I performances led Shanto to step back from the shortest format's leadership, citing a need to focus on his batting. This paved the way for Litton Das to assume the T20I captaincy, earmarked to lead through to the 2026 T20 World Cup.
While major cricketing nations predominantly favour a two-captain structure – typically one for red-ball and another for white-ball cricket, as seen with Australia's Pat Cummins and Mitchell Marsh, England's Ben Stokes and Harry Brook, or New Zealand's Tom Latham and Mitchell Santner – Bangladesh's latest gambit finds it in a minority alongside India's enforced three-captain system (following Rohit Sharma's Test retirement).
The wisdom of this three-pronged approach has brought mixed opinions. Former Bangladesh captain Rajin Saleh expressed significant reservations, suggesting that having just two skippers across the three formats would be more beneficial. He highlighted concerns over potential ego clashes among multiple leaders, believing that three captains could lead to disparate opinions and attempts to mould entirely different types of teams.
On the other hand, Roquibul Hassan, another former skipper, supported the three-captain policy as a necessity in modern cricket. He pointed to the relentless international calendar, which includes numerous bilateral series, tournaments, and franchise leagues, leading to significant physical and mental fatigue for players. Roquibul contended that burdening a single individual with all captaincy responsibilities in a cricket-mad nation like Bangladesh, where pressure on technical, mental, and physical aspects of the game is immense, makes it exceedingly difficult for them to cope.
The debate draws parallels with global trends. While some major cricketing nations, notably India, have found themselves with three different captains. The prevailing trend among powerhouses like Australia, England, and New Zealand leans towards a two-captain structure, typically separating Test leadership from white-ball command.
Ultimately, the question of which captaincy model will prove more successful for Bangladesh remains a subject of intense speculation. Proponents of the two-captain policy point to the virtues of consistency and unified direction, suggesting it minimises potential internal conflicts and streamlines player management. The three-captain approach counter by emphasising player welfare, specialisation, and the ability of captains to dedicate their focus entirely to one or two formats.
The success of either strategy will undoubtedly hinge on a multitude of factors beyond the number of captains alone – including the individual leadership qualities of Miraz, Shanto, and Litton, the synergy with the coaching staff, the backing from the BCB, and critically, the team's ability to consistently perform under pressure.
