Asian Games 2026: Why 5 Indian Tennis Players Were Left Out; Sports Ministry Sources Explain Selection Stance

New Delhi, August 25: India's top-ranked women's singles players, Sahaja Yamalapalli and Vaishnavi Adkar, along with three other tennis players were left out of the Asian Games 2026 squad despite being part of the All India Tennis Association's (AITA) original longlist. Several big names, including AITA, have criticised the ministry's decision to omit two of the best singles players from the squad.

The Sports Ministry sources, meanwhile, have offered a detailed explanation to myKhel, maintaining that the decision was based on an objective assessment of current medal prospects and not an attempt to discourage or write off the five players.

Sahaja, Vaishnavi, Vaidehee Chaudhari, Manas Dhamne and Prarthana Thombare were among the 12 players originally proposed by AITA for the Aichi-Nagoya Games, starting September 19. However, only seven tennis players figure in the final contingent were cleared by the Indian Olympic Association. Sources informed myKhel, that the sports ministry gave it's nod to the names approved by the IOA.

The omissions have triggered criticism from sections of Indian tennis, with Bopanna - the former world No. 1 doubles player - arguing that the players deserved an opportunity to compete rather than having their chances assessed in advance.

But the Sports Ministry's position is that the Asian Games are not intended to be an exposure opportunity for athletes whose current performances do not place them in the medal-winning bracket.

Why were the five tennis players left out?

The Sports Ministry's selection framework requires athletes to demonstrate a realistic level of competitiveness at the continental level.

For individual events, the benchmark is based on athletes being among the top six in Asia in singles, while doubles players are expected to be within the top eight in Asia, evaluated over a rolling 12-month period.

The ministry sources informed myKhel that the five players who were ultimately omitted did not meet those objective thresholds.

Sources also clarified that the five names - Manas, Vaishnavi, Sahaja, Vaidehee and Prarthana - were not received by the Sports Ministry in the final list shared by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

That is in contrary to the narrative that the ministry simply discarded AITA's selections. AITA had submitted a 12-member proposal, but the final list received by the ministry contained seven names.

The final sanction order issued on August 22 cleared 492 athletes across 35 disciplines for the Aichi-Nagoya Games.

The ranking argument behind the decision

The ministry's primary justification has been that there is a sizeable gap between the Indian players' rankings and the level of competition among the leading Asian players.

In men's singles, the sixth-best ranked Asian player is around World No. 120, while the sixth-best Asian women's singles player is around World No. 72. The three Indian players cited in the women's singles debate, meanwhile, are all ranked outside the world's top 300.

Sahaja, India's No. 1 women's singles player, is around World No. 344, with Vaishnavi around 390 and Vaidehee around 437.

The ministry sources further pointed out that even the 16th-best Asian women's singles player is ranked around World No. 121. Its argument, therefore, is that being India's highest-ranked women's singles player does not automatically translate into being among Asia's leading players.

The same reasoning applies to Dhamne. The ministry sources said the 16th-best Asian men's singles player is around World No. 227, while Dhamne is ranked around World No. 372.

"The government's assessment is consequently not based on whether these players are India's best available options in their respective categories, but whether they currently have a realistic chance of competing for a medal against the strongest players in Asia," sources maintained.

Ministry Sources say young players have time on their side

The Sports Ministry has also been careful to distinguish between non-selection for the Asian Games and a judgement on an athlete's future.

Sources said both Dhamne and Vaishnavi are young players who have only recently started their respective professional tours. "The ministry believes they have sufficient time to improve their rankings and become competitive at future Asian Games and Olympic cycles," sources added.

Their exclusion, therefore, is being positioned as a reflection of their present level rather than their potential.

That distinction is central to the government's policy. "The ministry does not want the decision to be interpreted as withdrawing support from the players or suggesting that they cannot eventually become India's leading international tennis players," sources added further.

What about Vaidehee and Prarthana?

The IOA has applied the same ranking-based assessment to the women's doubles category. It pointed out that the eighth-best Asian women's doubles player is around World No. 30, while Vaidehee and Prarthana are ranked considerably lower, around 426 and 267 respectively, in the doubles rankings.

Even the 16th-best Asian women's doubles player is around World No. 62. The competitive preparation of the proposed Vaidehee-Prarthana combination was also discussed.

The two players, according to the sources, had not competed together as a pair on the WTA or ITF circuit in the build-up to the Asian Games.

That, sources claimed, raises questions about whether the proposed combination had established sufficient competitive credentials to be considered a realistic medal proposition.

AITA sees tennis differently

The disagreement with the government largely stems from the way AITA views the structure of Asian Games tennis. Tennis has five separate medal events - men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles and mixed doubles.

AITA, therefore, argued that selection should not be determined solely by an individual ranking threshold, but should also consider the specific requirements of each event and the combinations available to India.

The association had also highlighted India's mixed doubles prospects, pointing out that three Indian combinations were among the top eight accepted entries and that India was entitled to field two pairs.

AITA had consequently sought the inclusion of established doubles specialist Prarthana Thombare alongside Ankita Raina, while also backing the women's singles players.

Ankita has previous Asian Games pedigree, having won women's doubles bronze at the 2018 Games and reached the quarterfinals in singles and mixed doubles at Hangzhou 2022.

AITA's argument was essentially that ranking alone cannot capture India's medal opportunities across all five tennis events.

The government, however, has chosen to apply its broader medal-prospect framework rather than make event-specific exceptions.

Why the ministry is refusing to make exceptions

This is where the government's larger selection philosophy comes into play. The Sports Ministry administers selection across more than 40 sporting disciplines and says the same principle has to apply across sports.

Its decision is straightforward: if an athlete ranked ninth in Asia in another discipline is excluded because the selection framework requires a top-eight continental standing, allowing a tennis player ranked substantially lower to enter on discretionary grounds would undermine the consistency of the system.

"The ministry believes such exceptions could also open the door to challenges from other National Sports Federations. The government's position is therefore that the criteria cannot change simply because the sport is tennis or because a player is India's highest-ranked athlete in a particular discipline," the sources added.

Asian Games are not 'exposure trips': Ministry Sources

The most important part of the Sports Ministry's rebuttal is its philosophy on the purpose of the Asian Games.

Sources further told that the government does not want to discourage athletes. But it is equally clear that it does not regard the Asian Games as a tournament where athletes should be sent primarily to gain experience.

The ministry sees the Asian Games, alongside the Olympics, as a high-performance, medal-oriented competition.

Exposure, according to the government's thinking, should come through the ITF and Challenger circuits and other international competitions, where players can build rankings, gain experience and gradually close the gap with the leading Asian and global players.

The Asian Games, on the other hand, are being treated as a podium mission. That is why the ministry is willing to leave out India's highest-ranked women's singles players if their rankings still place them well outside the competitive zone at the continental level.

The message from the government is not that Sahaja, Vaishnavi, Vaidehee or Dhamne cannot become medal contenders. It is that they are not considered medal contenders at this particular point in their careers.

₹10.05 crore tennis investment from Government

The sources also pointed to government's financial commitment to Indian tennis as evidence that the exclusion of five players should not be interpreted as a lack of support for the sport.

The approved Annual Calendar for Training and Competition (ACTC) allocation for tennis for 2026-27 stands at ₹10.05 crore.

The allocation includes ₹3.91 crore for international competitions in India, ₹2.14 crore for foreign exposure and international tours, ₹2 crore for grassroots and junior development, ₹1 crore for coach and technical official development, ₹70 lakh for a High-Performance Director and ₹30 lakh for wheelchair tennis development.

Sources argued that athletes who are not currently considered Asian Games medal prospects can still use this wider support structure to compete internationally, improve their rankings and work towards future multi-sport events.

Bopanna's criticism highlights the other side of the debate

Rohan Bopanna, a multiple Grand Slam titles winner, after the announcement of the pruned tennis squad argued that the athletes had earned their rankings through international competition and deserved the opportunity to test themselves at the Asian Games.

The 46-year-old's central objection was to the idea of determining a player's outcome before they step onto the court. The former doubles world No. 1's criticism essentially reflects AITA's position: that rankings and medal projections should not completely eliminate the possibility of an athlete outperforming expectations at a major multi-sport event.

That argument is particularly relevant in tennis, where draws, match-ups and short-term form can produce results that do not necessarily follow rankings.

Sports Ministry, however, is taking the opposite view - that selection for a national contingent cannot be based on the possibility of an upset but has to be based on the probability of winning medals.

The real issue: opportunity versus medal probability

The dispute, therefore, is bigger than the five players who have been left out. It is a debate over what the Asian Games are supposed to represent.

AITA's approach puts greater weight on the opportunity to compete across multiple events and the possibility of athletes exceeding expectations.

The Sports Ministry's approach is more conservative and data-driven: send athletes who have already demonstrated that they can compete at the required continental level and have a realistic medal chance.

For the five players who missed out, the immediate consequence is that they will not get the Asian Games opportunity they were hoping for.

For the ministry, however, that is precisely the point of having a selection benchmark. The Asian Games should not become an exposure trip, and that selection must remain anchored to current performance, continental competitiveness and medal prospects - even if that means leaving out India's highest-ranked player in a particular event.

The debate, therefore, is not simply over who was left out. It is over whether the Asian Games should reward current medal probability or provide a platform for athletes to prove that the projections can be wrong.