India have benched, for a single match, a player they have already picked ahead of the man replacing him for the Zimbabwe tour that follows it.
That is the contradiction sitting underneath Southampton, where the fifth T20I between India and England got underway a short while ago.
FOLLOW LIVE: IND vs ENG 5th T20I
Teenager Vaibhav Sooryavanshi was left out of the playing XI, with Sanju Samson returning to the side. Samson, however, is not part of India’s squad for the three-match T20I series in Zimbabwe later this month. Sooryavanshi is.
On the face of it, the decision to drop Sooryavanshi seems justifiable. He has recorded scores of 13, 14 and 15 in his first three T20Is. With the team struggling for form and down 3-0 in the series, young players are not guaranteed a longer rope, and the management may have felt experience was the safer option.
But set against India’s recent decisions, this latest change raises a larger question about the direction Gautam Gambhir and the team management are trying to take.
It was only a few days ago that Samson himself was dropped, after the second T20I in Manchester. In came Sooryavanshi, who became India’s youngest international cricketer. The move signalled India were willing to look beyond immediate results and invest in a player they believe could become part of their future.
Southampton presented another opportunity for that investment to pay off, against a strong English attack, on conditions not conducive to batting. For a 15-year-old thrown into the deep end, three matches is not a large enough sample to draw conclusions either way. Instead, India have gone back to Samson.
Captain Shreyas Iyer offered an explanation at the toss. “I feel this is the time we need to try what’s the best going forward for us as a team. So based on that, we decided this.”
If the priority is finding “the best going forward,” Sooryavanshi, not Samson, was the more logical choice, given he is the one still in the frame for Zimbabwe.
This is not to suggest Sooryavanshi should never be dropped. Selection should always be based on performance, conditions and team balance. But there needs to be consistency in the message that accompanies those decisions. Constant chopping and changing risks a camp that is insecure, and always second-guessing its abilities.
Sooryavanshi may well have failed again in Southampton. Samson may go on to score heavily and justify the recall. Neither outcome answers the actual question: whether India’s selections reflect a clear and consistent vision, or a team management still working it out in public, one match at a time.
