Mushfiq and Riyad questioned for playing after retirement: Cricketing policies and ethics under scrutiny

Recently, Bangladesh suffered a defeat against Sri Lanka, while the National Cricket League (NCL) T20 began today. Among the participants are Mahmudullah Riyad and Mushfiqur Rahim—two players who had officially retired from the T20 and ODI formats. Since they are no longer available for these formats at the international level, many observers see their participation in the domestic T20 league as questionable, arguing that they are denying opportunities for younger players.

Of course, Riyad and Mushfiqur’s involvement in domestic cricket could benefit youngsters, as they can share their vast international experience. However, their presence also reduces the opportunities for promising players to gain exposure. Many believe the senior duo could contribute more effectively in coaching or mentoring roles rather than occupying spots on the playing field.

Against this backdrop, a Facebook post has sparked widespread discussion. Tapash Baisya, former Bangladesh pacer and once Sylhet’s bowling spearhead, openly criticized not only Mushfiq and Riyad but also the cricket board and local coaching structure.

Tapash wrote, "In a country where the cricket board allows retired players to keep playing, and invests money behind them, it’s unrealistic to expect that team to become the best in the world."

His words carry an undertone of deep frustration. If retirement in cricket means stepping away from a particular format, then the logic of allowing players to participate in that same format at the domestic level is certainly debatable. Tapash believes these opportunities should go to young, promising cricketers who may one day represent the national team. If retirement is meant to mark the end of one’s playing career in a format, then respecting that decision should be everyone’s responsibility—especially the board’s.

His post further stated,"In this modern era of cricket, I have no personal hatred towards local coaches under 50, but it seems they only look for the easiest way to survive rather than building something meaningful."

This makes it clear that Tapash’s criticism was not limited to player selection; he also called out the stagnation in the country’s coaching system. According to him, local coaches have failed to provide strategic leadership, leaving senior players to dominate decision-making both on and off the field.

Perhaps the most discussed part of his post was this blunt remark, "Junior players will learn from playing alongside retired seniors? What exactly will they learn?"

Expressing disbelief, he further added, "To those cricketers who retired from T20s and ODIs, I just want to say one thing to your face: ‘Don’t you have any shame?’"

Here, Tapash’s stance becomes crystal clear. His central question is, if the tournament’s primary goal is to test new talent, how successful is that goal when places are reserved for retired cricketers? What will standby players learn sitting in the gallery, he asked.

While the tone of his words may strike some as harsh, the underlying sentiment reflects years of bottled-up frustration. Many former cricketers outside the national setup also believe that Bangladesh has yet to build a strong pipeline, largely because promising players are being denied consistent opportunities at the domestic level.

Tapash concluded with a striking reminder."The law should be equal for everyone."

This statement resonates beyond cricket, questioning the structural inequalities in the system at large. A retired cricketer can certainly use his experience to guide the next generation—but whether that should be by playing on the field or mentoring from outside is something the board must decide with clarity and fairness.