The No.3 Curse: Team India's 'Flexibility' from Kishan's Groin to Sooryavanshi's Crease

In February 2026, when I was covering the first IPL auction at the Hilton on Juhu Tara Road, I did not know that one day Indian cricket's biggest debate would move from 'who was bought for how much' to 'who bats at which position'. Last week, when Vaibhav Sooryavanshi looked out of sorts at No.3 in the second T20I against New Zealand, I opened my old diary — the same one in which 'The Longest Afternoon' from Old Trafford in 2026 was written. The 119 not out that a twenty-year-old Sachin Tendulkar scored there had also begun with this same question: should he be sent at No.4 or should he open? Cricket never answers this question; it only changes clothes.

Ishan Kishan's groin injury opened a door that the team management did not want to open themselves. The Sanju Samson–Abhishek Sharma pair was retained, and Sooryavanshi was pushed to No.3. This was not a strategic 'flexibility doctrine' — it was a least-disruption decision forced by injury. When Sooryavanshi lost his rhythm at No.3 and a record powerplay show followed his return to opening, it became clear that the team had protected the seniors by sacrificing the junior player.

In my 44 years of experience, what stings most is that this debate has never been presented in its true form in the world of numbers. Kishan at No.3 has scored at an average of 35.9 and a strike rate of 171.2 across 28 matches, while as an opener he has averaged 35.2 but with a strike rate of 193.4 in 5 matches. He is the only player with a credible record in both positions. Samson has played only 3 matches at No.3 with an average of 9.0 — a sample so small that it proves nothing. But Tilak Varma's numbers refuse to stay quiet: 145.0 strike rate at No.5 across 17 matches, and only 108.5 at No.3 across 7 matches. This 36-point gap tells us that his game is built for middle-overs accumulation and death-overs finishing, not for the pace of the new ball. Flexing Varma would be akin to destroying his utility.

One thing needs to be made clear here, because I learned during the winter of 2026 while writing investigative pieces that statements and facts must never be put in the same boat. Three former internationals — Jaffer, Amre and Raman — are in favour of flexibility, but their argument rests more on authority than on data. Raman's assertion that 'a senior should absorb the change' is a moral and leadership argument, not a performance one. This is where the idea of trying Samson at No.3 comes in — and the truth is that his 3-match data neither proves he fits there nor proves he doesn't. Indian cricket's biggest problem is not that we have too few batters, but that we have too many who prefer positions 1 and 2.

The least discussed aspect of this entire debate is development. Sooryavanshi, the youngest, was pushed to No.3, while seniors like Samson were protected. Raman says seniors should absorb the change — but the team did the opposite. Both cannot be right. This is a genuine cultural fork, and its answer is not written in any rulebook because batting order is codified nowhere — it is merely a soft convention. What is not codified is decided by performance outcomes, not by compliance.

I have always felt that pitches keep a ledger of boys who became headlines too soon. One bad innings at No.3 for Sooryavanshi is not a trend — it is just one innings. But the sample-size problem is the spine of the entire debate: Samson at No.3 in 3 matches, Varma at No.3 in 7, Kishan opening in 5. Building any policy on these numbers is building a castle on sand. Media and commentators are presenting a single innings' failure as a verdict on a young star, which is neither fair nor useful for the future.

I do not think this debate is 'modern cricket's necessity' versus 'needless tinkering'. It is about who flexibility should be applied to. Kishan is the only player with a credible record in both positions — he is the real pivot of flexibility. Varma should stay fixed at No.5. If Samson is to be tried at No.3, he must be given at least 15 matches so that the ghost of 3 matches is buried forever. And Sooryavanshi should remain at the top, because his game is built for the pace of the new ball, not for the accumulation of a changing situation.

Next time the Indian team sheet comes out, do not just look at who is playing where. Look at who is being sacrificed to save whose place. Because when I look back at seventy, I will not remember only the scorecard — I will remember the moment when a young batter was fighting to prove himself at No.3, while outside the field the seniors' experience was being invoked. Is experience really always right, or does it sometimes become an excuse to block the new?