I've never once seen a premature selection result in a longer career (shorter plenty often enough - sometimes much shorter - but never longer). I've never once seen a player learn from being out of his depth. By talking to those currently better than he? Sure. But you don't need to play to do that - the best young players have always seeked-out and picked the brains of their elders and betters.He'll learn a hell of a lot from the experience and possibly develop faster as a result. A player's record is something that only non-participating fans of game care about, the players and selectors don't give a monkey's about their record, what matters to them is whether they'll get another game, and whether the player is doing the job they were selected for, respectively. The selectors couldn't care less if his average ends up 2 runs higher than would otherwise be the case because they pick him now rather than in a year's time. Especially if doing so brings along his development and results in him having a longer career.
And generally a player should and will care about his record. Likewise the selectors should care about it, because a player who's done poorly has done poorly for the team as well as himself.
I think most people, if they think about it, think having an effective attack is most important. I don't really understand how anyone can possibly claim with seriousness that a spinner who hardly bowls and takes 1-50 or so when he does adds anything desireable to an attack, in India or anywhere.Given they, like 99% of the cricket world, think that having some variety in your attack is a highly desirable aim, and especially that having a slow bowler in India is essential, their hand was forced.
The rule which virtually no-one ever enforces and which even with spinners most teams don't come remotely close to abiding by?And the rule regarding over-rates does virtually force you to have at least one spinner in your attack.