Vaibhav Sooryavanshi at No. 3: Former India Cricketer Questions Team Management's Call

Vaibhav Sooryavanshi batted at No. 3. A former India cricketer, unnamed in the report, said he should have opened. The report gives no format, no team, no score, no venue and no date. The paper trail begins where the handshake ends, and here even the handshake is missing—only a headline remains.

Sooryavanshi is a teenage Indian batter. According to the report, the team management sent him in at No. 3. The former player’s objection is that he should have opened. On the surface, the complaint sounds simple: why keep an opener away from opening? My first questions as a reporter are different: which match, which team, which format, and what did Sooryavanshi actually do in that innings? Without those four answers, the criticism is an opinion, not an analysis.

I have spent three decades reading Indian cricket through selection rooms, contract files and auction-purse arithmetic. In the first IPL auction in 2026, I tracked base price against hammer price on a spreadsheet. The lesson was clear: every public bid has a private preparation behind it. Selection works the same way. Sending a batter in at No. 3 is not just a batting-order change. It reveals what the team wants from him, which bowler it wants to test him against, and how much protection it is willing to give him.

The value of No. 3 changes with the format. In T20, an opener gets the powerplay, when only two fielders are outside the ring. For a teenage batter, that is often the easiest scoring environment. At No. 3, he frequently faces spin with the field spread, which is harder. In ODI, No. 3 is often the anchor slot, and the new ball can move. In Test cricket, No. 3 is the most technically exposed position: facing the best seamer inside the first ten overs. In franchise T20, No. 3 can be a deliberate match-up or protection slot. Without naming the format, saying ‘No. 3 was wrong’ is a perception, not a thesis.

The former player’s criticism cannot be dismissed outright. If this was a Test or an ODI, and Sooryavanshi was exposed to the new ball, the question is legitimate. A teenage batter’s technique and confidence can both be tested harshly in that position. But there is another possibility: the team management chose No. 3 to shield him from the new ball, to match him against a particular spinner, or to manage his workload. In the auction room, the bidding paddle tells half the story. In the selection room, the public statement tells half the story too. The deal was never about the fee; it was about who controlled the room. Here the real question is who made the call—coach, captain, selector or franchise match-up desk. The report does not say.

My notebook from the Chepauk press box taught me one habit: first write who signed the file, then write how the player performed. In 2026-03, when I tracked TNCA NOC files, every ‘rest’ and every ‘change’ had a process behind it. A press box rumor is only a lead until the NOC file opens. This report has no NOC, no match sheet, no team list. It has an unnamed former cricketer’s remark. That makes the story more about media amplification than about cricket on the field.

The real risk here is developmental, not tactical. A teenage player needs a settled role, consistent exposure and controlled workload. If he opens in one match, bats No. 3 in another and drops into the middle order later, his technique and self-concept can both suffer. Indian cricket’s media market builds expectations around young talent very quickly. One good innings creates a ‘next superstar’ frame; one failure creates a ‘mishandled talent’ frame. That double pressure is heavier than any single batting position.

If this involves the senior India team, the board and selection committee should answer a larger question: is there a written development plan for the player? Is there a protocol for role changes, rest and match load? Is there coordination between the national team and any franchise over his workload? The report does not touch these questions. That is its biggest gap. Batting order is not governed by the Laws of Cricket; it is pure strategy. So there is no rule violation here, only a selection argument to test.

The next time the team management sends Sooryavanshi in at a new position, the score alone will not be enough. The more useful question is whether the decision was communicated in advance, and whether it was workload management or experiment. A teenage talent is not judged by one innings but by three seasons of consistent handling. The question is not where he should have batted. The question is who is setting the number for his career—selectors, coaches, a franchise, or a headline?