Fifteen-year-old Vaibhav Sooryavanshi found himself in an unfamiliar position during the second T20I against New Zealand on Sunday (October 25) at Christchurch, batting at No. 3 after being brought in as a replacement for the injured Ishan Kishan. The teenager, who had been left out of the entire T20I series against the West Indies and also missed the series opener against the Kiwis, managed only four runs off eight deliveries in the role, drawing sharp criticism of the team management's decision.
Former India spinner Murali Kartik was quick to defend Sooryavanshi personally, placing the responsibility squarely on the management. Speaking during the post-match show on the Sony Sports Network, Kartik argued that Sanju Samson, as a senior member of the side, should have stepped up to bat at No. 3 rather than the 15-year-old being pushed into an unfamiliar position in the middle order.
"I was repeatedly saying this, even before the match started, especially before our batting, when you are playing Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, where is he at his best? He is good as an opener. You have put him in the middle order. He has not played there, he is a young kid, and he has only batted in one way. This is exactly why you have experienced players, so they can play different roles. In my opinion today, although they won the match, which is a different matter, if you are playing Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, he should have opened today," said Kartik.
Why did Kartik single out Samson for the No. 3 role?
Kartik's reasoning centred on the contrasting profiles of the players available to India's T20I management. Abhishek Sharma and Samson are the two designated openers in the current T20I setup, but Kartik pointed out that Abhishek and Sooryavanshi share a very similar style of play, one that is best suited to opening the batting. Samson, by contrast, is a far more versatile batter who can adapt to different positions in the order, making him the logical candidate to absorb the No. 3 responsibility when the situation demanded it.
"Because Abhishek Sharma plays similarly, and you have Vaibhav Sooryavanshi who is also a similar player. Sanju Samson is a player who is a banker for you. He can play in different positions. I agree he might be out of position, and people might ask why him, but sometimes when you are a senior and experienced player, you have to take on these roles. This is especially true when you have selected Vaibhav Sooryavanshi," he explained.
The former spinner's point was straightforward: asking Abhishek to drop down the order would create the same problem, since his game is built around opening. Samson's broader range of skills, in Kartik's view, made him the only realistic option to fill the vacancy left by Kishan's injury without disrupting the balance of the top order.
Should Shivam Dube have replaced Ishan Kishan instead?
Beyond the question of batting positions, Kartik raised a broader selection concern about how India's management handled Kishan's absence. He argued that if the plan was always to use Sooryavanshi in the middle order, then the management should have considered picking Shivam Dube as Kishan's replacement from the outset, since Dube is a player specifically suited to that part of the innings.
"If Vaibhav Sooryavanshi was not playing today, that would be a different matter. Then Shivam Dube could have also played if they wanted someone to handle the middle order. So, I think it is about getting the best work out of everyone, and in that regard, Vaibhav Sooryavanshi should have opened," he concluded.
The former spinner's overall position was consistent throughout: Sooryavanshi's value to the side lies at the top of the order, and placing him at No. 3 without prior experience in that role was a planning error by the management, regardless of the match result. India did win the second T20I against New Zealand, but Kartik maintained that the outcome did not justify the decision made with the young batter.
