Murali Kartik questions team India’s decision to bat Vaibhav Sooryavanshi at No. 3 in 2nd T20I

Murali Kartik Questions India’s Batting Order After Thrilling T20I Win Over New Zealand

India secured a second consecutive victory in the five-match T20I series against New Zealand, but the narrow chase also raised questions about the team’s batting order. The Men in Blue eventually overhauled a target of 181 in the final over, with important contributions from Tilak Varma, Nitish Kumar Reddy and Naman Dhir. Yet, former India spinner Murali Kartik believes one selection decision may have disrupted the top order: promoting 15-year-old Vaibhav Sooryavanshi to No. 3.

Sooryavanshi entered the side after Ishan Kishan was ruled out through injury. With the young left-hander usually opening the innings, India’s decision to place him one spot lower prompted Kartik to question whether the change gave the teenager the best chance to play his natural game.

Sooryavanshi’s Unfamiliar Role Raises Questions

Sooryavanshi has built his reputation as an aggressive opener, showing an instinct to attack from the beginning during appearances for India, Rajasthan Royals and India A. His ability to put bowlers under pressure early is a major part of his appeal. In the Christchurch match, however, he struggled to find his rhythm at No. 3.

The teenager made four runs from eight deliveries and did not hit a boundary before being dismissed. One short innings is not enough to judge a young player’s ability, particularly in the fast-moving environment of T20 cricket. But it did underline the challenge of asking a batter to adjust to a new position without much experience in that role.

Kartik argued that the change may have taken Sooryavanshi away from the conditions in which he is most comfortable. Speaking on Sony Sports Network, he said the youngster should have opened because that is the position where he has consistently played and performed.

“When you are playing Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, where is he good? He is good as an opener,” Kartik said, explaining that the team should consider a player’s established role, especially when that player is still developing at the international level.

Kartik Says Experience Should Bring Flexibility

Kartik’s criticism was not simply about one batting position. It reflected a broader question facing India’s selectors and team management: who should adapt when the preferred combination changes? In his view, a young batter who has primarily opened should not automatically be asked to move down the order when an established player is available to take on a different role.

He suggested that Sanju Samson could be the more suitable batter to adjust if India want to include both Sooryavanshi and Abhishek Sharma at the top. Samson has experience batting in multiple positions, Kartik noted, giving the team more options to rearrange the middle order without moving the teenager away from his natural role.

“He is a young kid. He has played in the same manner. This is why you have experienced players who can play different roles,” Kartik said. He added that Samson could be asked to bat further down the order because senior players are often expected to provide flexibility when a team backs a young talent.

Should Sanju Samson Bat Lower Down the Order?

The suggestion that Samson should move down is likely to prompt debate among India supporters. Batting position can shape a player’s responsibilities: openers may have the freedom to attack during the powerplay, while middle-order batters often need to manage pressure, rebuild after early wickets or accelerate against specific match-ups.

Samson’s experience across different roles may make him a practical option for a reshuffle, but flexibility has its limits. Regularly changing a batter’s position can also affect confidence and consistency. India will need to weigh the value of preserving Sooryavanshi’s preferred role against the importance of giving Samson a clearly defined position in the side.

There is also a tactical consideration. If both Abhishek and Sooryavanshi are selected as openers, India would have two left-handed batters at the top. That could offer attacking potential, but opponents may look to exploit the pairing with particular bowling match-ups. Samson’s placement would then depend on the team’s desired balance, the opposition’s attack and the situation in each game.

A Win That Still Offers Lessons

India’s successful chase ensured the team took another step forward in the series, but the route to victory was far from straightforward. The batting order lost momentum, leaving the middle and lower-order contributors to complete a demanding chase. Tilak Varma, Nitish Kumar Reddy and Naman Dhir helped India get over the line, demonstrating the value of depth and composure under pressure.

That result should not obscure the questions raised by the innings. A successful outcome can still reveal areas for improvement, including how the team responds to injuries and whether replacements are used in roles that suit their strengths. With Ishan Kishan unavailable, India had to make a change; the debate is whether moving Sooryavanshi to No. 3 was the best solution.

For the teenager, the innings can be treated as a learning experience rather than a definitive verdict on his readiness. Young players often need time to adapt to international cricket, and a flexible batting order can be useful over a long series. At the same time, Kartik’s argument highlights the importance of giving emerging players a stable role in which they can build confidence and contribute consistently.

India’s Batting Order Prediction for the Next T20I

India’s next selection decision will offer a clearer indication of how the team views its top-order combination. If Sooryavanshi remains in the XI, Kartik’s prediction is that he should return to the opening position, with experienced batters such as Samson asked to adapt if necessary. The team could also choose a different combination depending on Kishan’s fitness and the balance it wants across the batting lineup.

Ultimately, the best order will depend on more than reputation or seniority. India must consider recent form, match conditions, left-right combinations and each batter’s ability to handle different phases of a T20 innings. Kartik’s comments have put the spotlight on one central principle: when a young player is selected for a specific strength, the team should think carefully before asking him to abandon the role that brought him into the side.

India’s consecutive win gives the team momentum, but the debate over Sooryavanshi, Samson and the top order is likely to continue. As the series progresses, the management’s choices will show whether it prioritizes role stability, tactical flexibility or a balance between the two.