Whom should you bet on: Potential or Proven Performers?

(2 mins read)

unsplash@thor1991

The other night, I was talking cricket with a few close friends, and the conversation turned into a debate. We were discussing India’s new Test captain: Shubman Gill. With Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli retired, Cheteshwar Pujara and Ajinkya Rahane out of the picture, and even KL Rahul and Jadeja getting older, Gill seemed the obvious pick. But was it the right pick? His Test record doesn’t scream "next great captain". The room quickly split, some felt he hadn’t done enough to earn it, others (like me) argued that potential sometimes matters more than past numbers.

This whole debate isn’t new. I quoted a few examples from the past where potential was given preference. Graeme Smith was just 22 when he became South Africa’s captain. He had played only a handful of Tests, but the board saw leadership in him. It was a bold move, but Smith ended up captaining for over a decade, leading South Africa to the top of the Test rankings. In politics, Barack Obama had only been a U.S. Senator for four years before running for President. People doubted him. But his fresh ideas and calm presence inspired a generation and led to two successful terms in office. In both cases, potential was given a platform, and it delivered big.

So what really makes a good leader? Someone who has done it all? Or someone who could do it all, if trusted early? I think there’s no perfect formula. But I believe in backing potential, especially when it comes with hunger, clarity, and the ability to grow. Experience can steady a ship, but potential can change its course. As someone once said, “Leadership is not about being the best, it's about bringing out the best in others.” And maybe that’s what we really need - not just a captain who leads from the front, but one who lifts everyone around him.