![\"'Vaibhav](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-135187932,imgsize-26304,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/vaibhav-sooryavanshi2-2410-.jpg\" "\\"Vaibhav")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nFormer India spinner Murali Kartik<\/a> has criticised the team management for sending 15-year-old Vaibhav Sooryavanshi to bat at No. 3 in the second T20I against New Zealand in Christchurch on Sunday.Sooryavanshi, who replaced the injured Ishan Kishan, scored just four runs off eight balls in the unfamiliar position.Although India won the match, Kartik believes the management could have handled the batting order better. He feels Sooryavanshi is most effective as an opener and that experienced batter Sanju Samson<\/a> should have taken responsibility for batting at No. 3.“I was repeatedly saying this, even before the match started, especially before our batting, when you are playing Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, where is he at his best? He is good as an opener. You have put him in the middle order. He has not played there, he is a young kid, and he has only batted in one way. This is exactly why you have experienced players, so they can play different roles. In my opinion today, although they won the match, which is a different matter, if you are playing Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, he should have opened today,” said Kartik.<\/p>\n Kartik explained that Sooryavanshi and Abhishek Sharma have similar attacking styles that suit the opening position.Moving either player down the order could affect their natural approach, while Samson has the experience and flexibility to bat in different positions.“Because Abhishek Sharma plays similarly, and you have Vaibhav Sooryavanshi who is also a similar player. Sanju Samson is a player who is a banker for you. He can play in different positions. I agree he might be out of position, and people might ask why him, but sometimes when you are a senior and experienced player, you have to take on these roles. This is especially true when you have selected Vaibhav Sooryavanshi,” he explained.<\/p>\n Kartik also suggested that India could have considered Shivam Dube instead of Sooryavanshi if the team needed someone to strengthen the middle order after Kishan’s injury.“If Vaibhav Sooryavanshi was not playing today, that would be a different matter. Then Shivam Dube could have also played if they wanted someone to handle the middle order. So, I think it is about getting the best work out of everyone, and in that regard, Vaibhav Sooryavanshi should have opened,” he concluded.Kartik’s main argument is that India should use Sooryavanshi where he performs best rather than ask the young batter to adjust to an unfamiliar role. He believes Samson’s experience made him a better choice for No. 3, even though India ultimately won the match.<\/div>\nWhy Kartik wanted Samson at No. 3<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Kartik questions India’s replacement choice<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n