India’s four-wicket victory over New Zealand in the second T20I may have strengthened their position in the series, but the decision to send Vaibhav Sooryavanshi in at No. 3 has become a major talking point.
The 15-year-old left-handed batter scored four runs off eight deliveries at Hagley Oval in Christchurch on October 24. Drafted into the playing XI after Ishan Kishan was ruled out with a groin strain, Sooryavanshi was asked to bat in an unfamiliar position rather than open the innings.
India retained Abhishek Sharma and Sanju Samson at the top after the pair helped provide a strong start in the series opener. The management’s decision was intended to preserve that combination while accommodating Sooryavanshi in the side.
Ravichandran Ashwin Questions Batting Position
Former India spinner Ravichandran Ashwin questioned whether No. 3 was the right position for the young batter at this stage of his career.
Ashwin suggested that Sooryavanshi appeared uncomfortable after arriving at the crease during the sixth over. He also stressed the importance of giving a young player reassurance and allowing him time to settle rather than expecting him to maintain an attacking approach immediately.
Ashwin proposed that India could consider moving Samson to No. 3 if the team wants to accommodate Sooryavanshi alongside Abhishek Sharma.
Former India spinner Murali Kartik also questioned the decision, arguing that Sooryavanshi’s attacking strengths are better suited to opening, where he can take advantage of the Powerplay restrictions.
Why India Chose No. 3
The team management faced a selection challenge after Kishan’s injury. Changing the opening combination would have meant breaking up a partnership that had worked well in the first match.
Captain Shreyas Iyer confirmed at the toss that Sooryavanshi would bat at No. 3. The decision offered the teenager an opportunity to experience a different role in international cricket while allowing India to retain their established openers.
However, adapting to the middle order requires different skills, including managing the timing of an innings and adjusting to the match situation. Sooryavanshi’s brief stay provided limited evidence of how effectively he can perform in that role.
India’s Middle Order Delivers
Despite Sooryavanshi’s early dismissal, India completed their chase of New Zealand’s 180/5, reaching 181/6 in 19.5 overs to win by four wickets.
Tilak Varma scored an unbeaten 51 off 26 balls, while Nitish Kumar Reddy contributed an unbeaten 26 from 13 deliveries. Their late partnership helped India take a 2–0 lead in the five-match T20I series.
What Happens Next?
The debate is now centred on whether India should continue experimenting with Sooryavanshi in the middle order or give him opportunities in his preferred opening role.
One low score does not establish whether the experiment has failed. The more important question is how India intend to balance their successful opening combination with the development of a young batter whose natural game is built around attacking from the start.
The team’s selection and batting-order decisions in the next T20I will provide a clearer indication of its plans for Sooryavanshi.
