Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
Vaibhav Sooryavanshi failed to make an impact on his return to the Indian T20I team, but former India spinner Murali Kartik believes the teenager was not used in the right role. Kartik questioned the team management’s decision to send Sooryavanshi in at No. 3 instead of allowing him to open in the second T20I, arguing that the youngster should have been played in the position where he is most effective.
advertisement
Sooryavanshi featured in the second match of the series after the absence of injured Ishan Kishan created an opportunity for him. However, the 15-year-old could not make the most of his chance, scoring just four runs off eight balls before being dismissed in the seventh over of India’s chase of 181 runs.
His dismissal was one of three wickets India lost in the first 10 overs, leaving the team under pressure in the chase. India eventually got over the line, thanks to a late flourish from Tilak Varma, Naman Dhir and Nitish Kumar Reddy. Tilak remained unbeaten on 51 off 26 balls, while Dhir contributed 31 off 17 and Reddy finished unbeaten on 26 off 13 as India chased down the target with one ball to spare.
Despite the victory, Kartik questioned the decision to bat Sooryavanshi at No. 3, insisting that the youngster’s strengths were best suited to the opening position.
“Where is Vaibhav Suryavanshi good? He is good as an opener. He has not played in the middle. He is a young kid. He has batted only one way. That’s why you keep experienced players, so that they can play different roles,” Kartik said on the broadcast after the match.
“It’s a different thing that you won the match, but if you are playing Suryavanshi, he should have opened today,” he added.
SENIOR PLAYERS SHOULD ADAPT: KARTIK
Kartik argued that India’s experienced players should be prepared to adjust their batting positions to accommodate a young talent such as Sooryavanshi. He pointed to Sanju Samson as a player capable of taking on different roles, suggesting that the team could have used the experienced batter to make room for the teenager at the top of the order.
Samson, according to Kartik, is an established option who can adapt to the team’s requirements. The former spinner felt that if India had decided to include Sooryavanshi in the playing XI, it should have allowed him to bat in his natural position rather than asking him to take on a role he was less accustomed to.
“Sanju Samson is your banker. He can play at a different position. People might ask why only him. If you are an experienced player, you will have to play such roles, especially when you have picked Vaibhav Suryavanshi,” Kartik said.
He also suggested that India’s options would have been different had the team not selected Sooryavanshi for the match. In that scenario, Kartik felt Shivam Dube could have been considered for a middle-order role.
“It would have been different had Suryavanshi not played today. Then Shivam Dube could have played if you had to make him bat in the middle order,” he added.
SOORYAVANSHI FAILS TO CAPITALISE
Sooryavanshi’s brief stay at the crease meant he could not influence India’s chase, although the team eventually secured the win through contributions from its middle and lower order. Tilak led the recovery with an unbeaten half-century, while Dhir and Reddy provided the late acceleration needed to take India across the line.
For Sooryavanshi, who returned to the line-up for the first time since the Asian Games final, it was a missed opportunity to make another impression on Gautam Gambhir.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
