Former India captain and ex-chief selector Kris Srikkanth has publicly challenged India’s team management over its continued backing of opener Abhishek Sharma, while World Cup Player of the Tournament Sanju Samson sits out of the XI during India’s ongoing T20I series in Zimbabwe. India already lead the three-match series 2-0 heading into the final game in Harare, but the selection question has overshadowed the result on the field.
Two failures in two matches
Abhishek Sharma has managed just 1 run off 8 balls and 8 runs off 8 balls in the first two T20Is against Zimbabwe — a pattern that extends further back, with Abhishek failing to pass 20 in five of his last six international innings. For an opener whose entire value proposition is aggressive, high-strike-rate scoring at the top of the order, back-to-back single-digit dismissals in a series India was expected to dominate has been enough to reopen a selection debate that had quieted since the World Cup.
The MVP sitting on the bench
What has sharpened the criticism is the contrast with Samson, who was named Player of the Tournament at the 2026 T20 World Cup earlier this year — arguably the most prestigious individual honor available in the format — yet was dropped from the XI after only three low scores this series. Srikkanth didn’t mince words on the double standard: “Samson was the MVP of the World Cup. Why does he not get the chance, and Abhishek gets chances like this?” The question cuts to a tension in Indian team selection that predates this series: how many failures does a World Cup match-winner get before being dropped, versus how many does an incumbent opener get before facing the same scrutiny.
Advice, not just criticism
Srikkanth’s comments weren’t purely critical of the team management — he also had direct advice for Abhishek on how to salvage his place. Rather than attacking from the first ball regardless of match situation, Srikkanth suggested Abhishek needs to either find alternate scoring options early in his innings or be willing to “cool down for a few balls” when conditions aren’t in his favor. The subtext was a warning: continuing to play the same high-risk game that has produced back-to-back failures risks his spot in the side if the pattern doesn’t change soon.
The counter-argument: opposition quality matters
Team management’s likely defense, and the argument some observers have made in Abhishek’s favor, rests on the quality of opposition he’s performed against previously. His stronger innings this year — a half-century and two scores above 40 — came against tougher opposition in England and Ireland, not against a Zimbabwe attack considered weaker on paper. Under that reading, failures against a lower-ranked side carry less selection weight than a string of failures would against a top-tier attack, and the team may be prioritizing broader squad balance and Abhishek’s proven ceiling over a strict “last innings” standard. It’s a genuine cricketing debate rather than an obvious case of favoritism, even if Srikkanth’s framing suggests otherwise.
What the series decider will settle
The final T20I in Harare gives India’s think tank one more data point before selection questions carry into their next assignment. If Abhishek fails again with Samson still out of the XI, the pressure on team management to explain the imbalance will only grow louder — particularly with Srikkanth’s remarks already circulating widely in Indian cricket media. A strong knock, on the other hand, would at least temporarily quiet the noise, though it wouldn’t fully answer why a World Cup Player of the Tournament is watching from the sidelines in the first place.
Why this matters beyond one series
Selection debates like this one are rarely just about a single series in Zimbabwe — they’re proxy fights over how much credit past performance (a World Cup MVP award) should carry against present form (recent single-digit scores), and how quickly a struggling incumbent should make way for in-form alternatives. With India’s next major assignments on the horizon, how the team management responds to this specific controversy will likely shape expectations for how flexible — or how loyal — the selection panel is willing to be when current form and reputation collide.