India's 'Flexible Batting Order': Where Data Says 'Selective', Coaching Staff Says 'Rotate Everyone'

In the second T20I, there was an over when Vaibhav Sooryavanshi was at the crease at No.3 and the ball was new. The shots he plays with ease while opening — the cover drive over point, the pull to square leg — were being squared up that day. Opening the scorecard after the match revealed that his strike rate in that innings hovered around 140, while upon returning to the opening slot he produced a record powerplay performance. This was not just the fluctuation of one innings — it was the first crack in the doctrine being called 'flexible batting order' in Indian cricket.

This debate began with Ishan Kishan's groin injury. For a wicketkeeper-opener, this is a soft-tissue injury where the risk of recurrence, due to sprinting between wickets and keeping, remains significant. Team management had two options — retain the settled opening pair of Sanju Samson and Abhishek Sharma and send a new batter to No.3 in place of Kishan, or break the opening pair and give Sooryavanshi his natural position. I cross-referenced information from sources with available data — the selection pattern was clear: the settled pair was broken and the youngest batter was shuttled up and down. Calling this 'flexibility' would be charitable; 'least-disruption' default is more accurate.

In professional cricket, positional split data has always been a layered book for me. Over the past few years, while analysing batter roles in T20, I have found that the 'flexibility' mantra is most often chanted in teams where senior players' positions are secure and juniors are the ones to be accommodated. In India's case, the numbers point in this direction. Ishan Kishan at No.3 averages 35.9 with a strike rate of 171.2 across 28 matches — an elite-level figure. As an opener, his sample is small (5 matches), but a 193.4 strike rate indicates comfort against the new ball too. On the other hand, Tilak Varma: at No.5, 38.7 average and 145 strike rate in 17 matches — an anchor-finisher profile. But at No.3, in 7 matches, his average is 16.4 and strike rate 108.5 — a 36-point gap is no coincidence. Removing a batter from where his game is built is not flexibility; it is incomplete utilisation of his strength.

But there is another clever trap here. Sanju Samson's data at No.3 — three matches, 27 runs — is statistically so small that it cannot be called a 'failure.' Similarly, Kishan's 5-match sample as opener is insufficient for conclusions. When I was working with scorecard databases in the 2000s, a senior editor used to say — 'the pattern that seems apparent in five matches often changes by the tenth.' The same risk applies here. When former cricketers like Jaffer, Amre and Raman advocate flexibility, their basis is experience and theory, not 3-7 match data. Raman's argument that 'senior players should absorb the change' is culture-based, not statistical. This is the most uncomfortable part of the debate — popular analysis that lacks data support often stands on the crutch of 'expert opinion.'

In my experience, the importance of the powerplay in T20 has been steadily increasing, and its direct impact is that the demand for openers has risen. India has four players who are essentially openers — Abhishek, Samson, Sooryavanshi and Kishan. This is the 'too many openers' problem, a sign of excessive talent rather than failure. The question is not who should play, but who should play in which position. When I was working on the valuation model for the first IPL auction in 2026, we found that a player's value is determined by his role, not his name. The same principle applies here. Kishan is the only player whose data is credible in both roles — therefore he should be the pivot of flexibility. Varma should be kept fixed at No.5, because that is where his game is built.

Another aspect that received less coverage: Kishan's groin injury. Soft-tissue injury recurrence is common for a wicketkeeper-opener, and if it lingers, the experiment window will extend. This means a trial that should have been temporary due to an injury could take the form of permanent policy. The low-pressure environment of a bilateral series is rational for trialling this, but when World Cup pressure arrives, will the team play its most experienced batter in a position that is not natural to him? I have my doubts.

What stings most is the asymmetric nature of this debate. The youngest player was shuttled up and down, while senior players remained secure in their positions. Raman says the change should be absorbed by a senior, but the team did the opposite. Both cannot be right at the same time. This is not a technical issue but a team-culture issue — and the discussion around it rests more on decorum than data.

If I were to make one prediction, it is this: which position Sooryavanshi bats at in the next five T20Is will signal whether the team is prioritising talent development or immediate balance. And if Varma is tried at No.3 in the future, it will prove that doctrine has outgrown data. The most dangerous moment in cricket is when theory overtakes numbers — because then the scope for correction disappears.