Ishan Kishan’s low-grade right adductor strain, sustained during the first T20I on October 23, 2026, forced a change to India’s batting order for the second match at Hagley Oval, Christchurch on Saturday, October 24, 2026. Vaibhav Sooryavanshi was brought into the playing eleven as Kishan’s replacement and was sent in at No. 3 rather than his customary opening slot.
Sooryavanshi’s innings did not go to plan. He looked uncomfortable at the crease during the powerplay, initially offering a chance off off-spinner Michael Bracewell that fielder Bevon Jacobs at point misread. The reprieve was brief: Sooryavanshi was caught at extra cover off Nathan Smith for just 4 runs.
Former India cricketer Sadagoppan Ramesh offered a pointed assessment of the situation on his Instagram channel. He opined that the 15-year-old Sooryavanshi would have panicked after being told by the team management that he would bat at No. 3. However, the cricketer-turned-expert backed the team management’s decision of not breaking the opening pair of Sanju Samson and Abhishek Sharma.
“He should have opened. As a youngster, as soon as the management told him that he would bat at No.3, he would have panicked. He played only because Ishan Kishan was injured. Though it wasn’t wrong of the management not to break the opening combination, Sooryavanshi doesn’t have the experience at No.3. His strength is batting at 0/0 with the anticipation of whether he’s going to hit a six or four off his first delivery,” Ramesh said on his Instagram channel.
Why does Ramesh believe No. 3 was the wrong position for Sooryavanshi?
Ramesh’s concern centred on the mismatch between Sooryavanshi’s natural game and the demands of batting at No. 3. Sooryavanshi had been on the bench for India’s previous six T20Is, returning to the side only because of Kishan’s injury, which added to the pressure of an unfamiliar role in an international fixture.
“His batting style has been one where he smashes it in the powerplay and then continues with that momentum in the middle overs. When he is already young and is new to the pressure of international cricket, it would have been ideal to play him at a position he’s comfortable at,” Ramesh elaborated.
Ramesh’s point was that Sooryavanshi’s strength lies in coming to the crease at the top of the order when only two fielders are stationed outside the ring, allowing him to attack from the very first ball. Placing him at No. 3, where the field and match situation can vary considerably, removed that key advantage.
How did Sooryavanshi’s dismissal reflect the pressure of the situation?
Ramesh drew a clear distinction between batters who are asked to create a situation and those who must react to one already in progress. For Sooryavanshi, arriving at No. 3 meant the latter, and Ramesh felt the teenager was visibly affected by that responsibility.
“Batters like him are best when they are asked to create the situation at 0 But when he is sent out to bat at No.3, he’s asked to react to a situation. He needn’t have reacted, but unfortunately he reacted to it under pressure, and that’s why he got out. Samson has the experience of batting at No.3 in a one-off match. But once Sooryavanshi was tasked with that, it was clear that he came to the crease tense,” Ramesh said.
