Ashwin’s Bold Call: ‘Play Sanju Samson at No. 3’ Ignites Heated Cricket Debate

Just when you thought India’s T20 batting order was settled, in walks Ravichandran Ashwin—not with a ball, but with a bombshell opinion that’s got fans, pundits, and selectors scrambling.

Following India’s narrow win over South Africa in the first T20I—rescued by Hardik Pandya’s unbeaten 59—Ashwin made a startling suggestion during a post-match commentary stint: “Play Sanju Samson at No. 3.”

The remark, seemingly simple, cuts to the heart of a growing selection crisis. Sanju Samson, one of India’s most elegant and statistically consistent T20 batters, was left out of the playing XI entirely. Meanwhile, Shubman Gill anchors the top, Jitesh Sharma thrives as a finisher, and the No. 3 slot remains a revolving door. Ashwin’s comment isn’t just tactical—it’s a direct challenge to India’s current team structure.

Table of Contents

• Why Sanju Samson Was Dropped
• Sanju Samson No. 3: Ashwin’s Bold Vision
• The Current No. 3 Crisis in India T20s
• Samson vs. Sharma: The Keeper-Batter Dilemma
• What the Stats Say About Samson at No. 3
• Conclusion: Should India Listen to Ashwin?

Why Sanju Samson Was Dropped

Samson’s omission wasn’t random. It reflects a strategic shift by the Indian team management.

Shubman Gill has cemented himself as the ideal opener alongside Yashasvi Jaiswal—providing stability and big scores. At the death, Jitesh Sharma has emerged as a dynamic finisher with a strike rate over 145 in pressure situations . With both roles locked, Samson—a middle-order batter best suited for No. 4 or 5—was left without a natural fit.

But here’s the rub: in the recent T20I, India’s No. 3 (likely Ruturaj Gaikwad or Suryakumar Yadav, depending on fitness) failed to build momentum, leaving the team at 45/3 in 6 overs. That’s when Hardik Pandya walked in—and saved the day.

Sanju Samson No. 3: Ashwin’s Bold Vision

Ashwin didn’t mince words. “Samson isn’t getting game time at No. 5,” he noted. “But he’s technically sound, calm under pressure, and can rotate strike while accelerating when needed. That’s the perfect No. 3 profile.”

In Ashwin’s view, the solution isn’t to bench Samson—it’s to reposition him. Move him up to No. 3, where he can build an innings after the powerplay, shield the middle order, and set up finishes for players like Hardik or Jitesh.

It’s a radical idea because India has traditionally used No. 3 as a “consolidator” role—think Virat Kohli or Suryakumar Yadav. But with SKY’s form uncertain and no clear long-term No. 3, Ashwin is betting on Samson’s temperament over reputation.

The Current No. 3 Crisis in India T20s

Let’s face it: India’s No. 3 spot has been unstable since the 2024 T20 World Cup.

• 2024 World Cup: Suryakumar Yadav struggled with form and fitness.
• vs Zimbabwe (2025): Ruturaj Gaikwad opened, leaving No. 3 to Deepak Hooda (inconsistent).
• vs South Africa (2025): No. 3 batter scored 12 off 15 before perishing.

The role demands a hybrid: part anchor, part accelerator. Few batters in the world do it well—David Warner, Babar Azam, maybe Mohammad Rizwan. In India’s current setup, Samson might be the closest fit, even if it defies convention.

Samson vs. Sharma: The Keeper-Batter Dilemma

At the core of this debate is a philosophical question: what do you want from your wicketkeeper in T20Is?

Player	Role	T20I SR (last 12 months)	Key Strength
Sanju Samson	Builder/Accelerator	132	Elegant strokeplay, high conversion rate
Jitesh Sharma	Finisher/Enforcer	148	Power-hitting, death-overs specialist

Samson averages 32 in T20Is with 3 fifties in 20 innings—solid, not explosive. Jitesh, in contrast, averages 22 but strikes at nearly 150, perfect for the last 5 overs.

You can’t play both. So the choice becomes: do you prioritize stability in the middle (Samson) or firepower at the death (Jitesh)? Ashwin’s suggestion cleverly sidesteps the dilemma: make Samson the No. 3 builder, and let Jitesh finish. But that requires a seventh batter—and risks weakening the bowling attack.

What the Stats Say About Samson at No. 3

While Samson hasn’t batted much at No. 3 for India (only 4 innings), his domestic and IPL record tells a different story.

For Rajasthan Royals, he’s often batted at No. 3 or 4, scoring 1,108 runs in 2023–24 across two seasons at a strike rate of 141 . He’s particularly strong between overs 7–15—the “middle phase” where most T20 matches are won or lost.

As [INTERNAL_LINK:t20-batting-phase-analysis] shows, batters who control the middle overs are more valuable than pure openers or finishers in modern T20 strategy. Samson’s ability to rotate strike and find boundaries without taking undue risk aligns perfectly with that phase.

Conclusion: Should India Listen to Ashwin?

R Ashwin isn’t just talking—he’s diagnosing. His “Sanju Samson No. 3” idea may seem disruptive, but it addresses a real tactical void.

India doesn’t need more finishers. It needs someone who can take the game deep after the powerplay collapse—a role Samson is uniquely equipped for. Yes, it means reshuffling the batting order. Yes, it might delay Jitesh Sharma’s finisher role by an over or two.

But in a format where innovation wins trophies, Ashwin’s suggestion might just be the spark India needs. The real question isn’t whether Samson can bat at No. 3—it’s whether the team has the courage to try.

Sources

• Times of India: ‘Play Samson at No. 3’: Ashwin sparks massive debate
• ESPNcricinfo Stats: Sanju Samson T20I Batting Records
• IPL Official Website: Rajasthan Royals Player Stats
• International Cricket Council (ICC): https://www.icc-cricket.com/