What more can one say? The Indian cricket selectors have made several decisions that still leave many fans puzzled. While the headlines focused on Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli’s news yesterday, many other significant updates got buried — and they deserve attention.
The Indian team, having won their match in Ahmedabad, has now got a much-needed short break before the next Test in Delhi. Players are expected to assemble in Delhi by Tuesday for the upcoming game.
The Sanju Samson Question Returns
Among all the discussions, one point stood out — the remarks of chief selector Ajit Agarkar about Sanju Samson. While Agarkar explained most of his choices well, his logic regarding Samson seemed unconvincing.
He stated that Sanju Samson will not be part of the ODI team because he is a top-order batter. However, this reasoning raised eyebrows since Samson has often batted in the middle order when required — and has adapted wherever the team needed him.
Why This Feels Unfair
Former chief selector Krishnamachari Srikkanth also commented, saying Agarkar has been unfair to Samson. He believes Samson deserved the “first right of refusal” for the wicketkeeper-batter spot in ODIs, especially given his recent record in white-ball cricket.
Sanju has often been the “go-to” flexible player — willing to adjust positions, formats, and even roles. Yet once again, he finds himself on the sidelines without a convincing explanation.
Agarkar’s Contradictory Statement
Agarkar mentioned that Samson “bats at the top of the order,” recalling his century while batting at number three. He then justified picking Dhruv Jurel, who usually bats lower down.
But here’s the contradiction — Samson has also been asked to bat in the middle order before. During the Asia Cup T20s, he was used as a finisher despite never batting in that role before. So why is his versatility being used against him now?
Dhruv Jurel’s Rise and the Unfair Comparison
Let’s be clear: Dhruv Jurel is an excellent cricketer and deserves every opportunity. But comparing his situation with Samson’s doesn’t seem fair. Jurel has played only six Tests and four T20s — and no ODIs yet.
If selectors wanted consistency, they should have maintained clarity — deciding which players fit into which formats rather than mixing them up based on availability or injuries.
The Logic of Keeper-Batters Across Formats
Selectors must maintain a consistent structure across the three formats. For instance:
- In Tests, the priority list is clear: Rishabh Pant (when fit) is No.1, Dhruv Jurel No.2, followed by Ishan Kishan and N. Jagadeesan.
- In T20s, Sanju Samson has a strong record and was backed by Gautam Gambhir, who even said, “Even if you get 25 ducks, you’ll stay in the team.”
- In ODIs, KL Rahul is the first-choice wicketkeeper-batter, meaning Samson should naturally be the second — as a like-for-like backup.
So where’s the confusion?
Samson’s ODI Record Speaks for Itself
Let’s look at numbers, not opinions.
- Matches: 16 ODIs
- Average: 56.6
- Strike rate: Around 100
- Hundreds/Fifties: 1 hundred and 3 fifties in just 14 innings
He has remained not out in multiple matches and scored an unbeaten 108 in South Africa in December 2023. These are world-class stats for any player — especially someone who has never been given a long run.
So how can such a consistent performer not even make the squad as a reserve?
Inconsistency in Selection Logic
Agarkar’s argument about “positions” doesn’t hold when players like KL Rahul, Rohit Sharma, and even Rishabh Pant have all changed batting positions successfully.
Modern cricket demands flexibility. Every batter — from opener to finisher — has to adapt. So why is Samson being penalized for doing just that?
Not Just About Samson — It’s About Clarity
This isn’t just about one player. It’s about India’s selection clarity. With multiple keepers — Pant, Rahul, Ishan, Jurel, and Samson — selectors need to set a proper order instead of rotating players without clear reasoning.
The team should ideally have:
- Tests: Pant, Jurel, Ishan, Jagadeesan
- ODIs: Rahul (1st choice), Samson (2nd), Pant (3rd, when fit), Ishan (4th)
- T20s: Samson (1st), Jitesh Sharma (2nd)
That’s logical and consistent.
Fans Demand Transparency
Fans and former players are simply asking: Why was Samson dropped despite strong form and flexibility?
If he was taken to Australia as a reserve, he’d at least gain experience in those conditions. Instead, he’s been left out entirely — a move that neither helps Samson’s confidence nor India’s bench depth.
The Rohit Sharma Factor and Leadership Talk
The discussion briefly touched upon Rohit Sharma’s captaincy too. Many fans were upset about the uncertainty surrounding his future.
In a past interview, Rohit himself stated that he wanted to play the 2027 World Cup, showing his commitment to Indian cricket.
Despite criticism, his record as captain remains stellar — only 12 losses in 56 matches and consistent success in multi-nation tournaments.
The Bigger Picture
Cricket selection is never simple. Multiple voices — selectors, coaches, and BCCI management — contribute to final calls. But fans deserve clarity and consistency.
When logic seems contradictory — like in the case of Sanju Samson’s omission — it naturally sparks debate.
Final Thoughts: What’s Next for Sanju?
Sanju Samson remains one of India’s most talented, adaptable, and calm cricketers. His statistics speak louder than opinions.
If selectors truly value performance, they must back him consistently — not keep moving the goalpost.
As the debate continues, one thing is certain:
India’s talent pool is rich, but without clear selection logic, even the best players risk being lost in confusion.
