Sunil Gavaskar Backs Gautam Gambhir's Decision to Promote Axar Patel to No. 5 Amid India's Selection Debate

A question in front of Axar's bat, and another behind Gambhir's decision

In Indian cricket, sometimes the debate over a batter's position begins before he reaches the crease. The expectations attached to the No. 5 position are distinct. Supporters often expect the batter there to steady an innings, build partnerships and increase the scoring rate when required. When a player such as Axar Patel, a spin-bowling all-rounder, is sent in at that position, questions are inevitable.

Gautam Gambhir's decision to promote Axar to No. 5 attracted criticism. Former India great Sunil Gavaskar, however, defended the move, making clear that he saw nothing wrong with it. His brief remark, 'There was nothing wrong', became the centre of the discussion. Gavaskar rejected the criticism of Gambhir's decision and expressed support for the team management's right to make selection and tactical choices.

The interesting part of this episode is not simply that Axar was sent in at No. 5. The larger question is why a batting-order decision in Indian cricket is so often judged against public expectations before its actual circumstances are understood. A player's name, established role and position in the order can generate more discussion than the options available on the field.

In my years of watching matches and studying scorecards, one lesson has repeatedly emerged: a batting position cannot be evaluated in isolation. It is more important to understand what kind of innings the team needed at that particular moment.

The responsibility of No. 5 and Gambhir's strategic thinking

The fifth position is a point in an innings where its direction can change. If early wickets fall, the batter coming in may have to repair the innings. If the top order has provided a strong start, the same batter may be required to maintain momentum against spin and prepare a platform for the closing overs. The responsibility of No. 5, therefore, cannot be confined to one particular batting style.

Axar Patel is primarily known as a left-arm spin bowler who can contribute useful runs. His all-round ability gives India options when constructing a team combination. He can contribute with both bat and ball. That versatility may encourage team management to experiment beyond a conventional batting order.

Gambhir's decision deserves to be viewed within that broader context. Promoting an all-rounder to No. 5 may be unconventional, but unconventional and incorrect are two different things. Team management sometimes looks beyond specialist batting credentials and considers left-right combinations, opposition bowling styles, available batters and bowling options together.

There is, however, an important qualification. The available analysis does not identify the match format, opposition, venue, pitch, complete Indian batting order or match situation. It would therefore be inappropriate to claim that Gambhir promoted Axar to counter a particular bowler, attack spin or create a left-right partnership. These are possible tactical explanations, but they remain unverified.

The responsibilities of No. 5 differ considerably between Test cricket, ODIs and T20s. In Tests, a batter may have to deal with the new ball, extended bowling spells and the need to build a substantial innings. In ODIs, the challenge is to balance the middle overs with the closing stages. T20 cricket moves faster still, with a handful of deliveries capable of changing the direction of a match. Judging Gambhir's decision by applying one standard across all three formats would be a technical mistake.

Gavaskar's backing and the real test of the selection decision

Sunil Gavaskar's comment adds an important dimension to the debate. His experience and understanding of batting give his public observations considerable weight in Indian cricket. When he says that there was nothing wrong with Gambhir's decision, he offers an alternative perspective to those questioning the selection. Yet the support of a respected former player cannot, by itself, prove that a strategy has succeeded.

The real value of a selection decision depends on how effectively it balances the team's immediate requirements with the abilities of the available players. Axar's promotion to No. 5 must be judged against that standard.

At least four pieces of information are needed for such an assessment. First, what was India's wicket situation at the time? Second, which types of bowlers were operating for the opposition? Third, what kind of batting contribution was expected from Axar in that position? Fourth, which specialist middle-order alternatives were available to the team?

Without these details, judging the decision solely by the batting order produces an incomplete analysis. If the team needed a left-hander to negotiate spin in the middle overs, promoting Axar could have been useful. If India needed a specialist batter capable of building a long innings, the same decision could invite different questions. Both possibilities depend on the circumstances.

Another aspect matters here. An all-rounder's batting contribution should not be assessed solely through his ability to score runs. His presence also influences the bowling combination. Sending a player such as Axar higher in the order may provide greater batting depth, but it can also alter the responsibilities and positions of specialist batters. If he is expected to carry a full bowling workload alongside additional batting responsibilities, his usage and physical workload deserve attention. The available information contains no workload figures from which to draw a conclusion about that risk.

The most important question surrounding Gambhir's decision is whether team management viewed Axar as an available alternative or intended to give him a regular middle-order responsibility. A one-off experiment and a repeatedly used change in the batting order communicate different strategic intentions. If Axar is regularly sent in at No. 5, that could indicate a longer-term plan for his role. If the move occurred only in one particular match, a situation-specific explanation becomes more likely.

The other side of the criticism: evaluating the role before the result

Selection debates in Indian cricket often revolve around results. If a player scores runs, the experiment is declared successful; if wickets fall quickly, the same decision comes under scrutiny. The reaction is understandable, but it makes objective evaluation of strategy more difficult. A batter's early dismissal does not always prove that the batting order was wrong. Equally, a useful innings does not automatically establish that the selection was correct in every circumstance.

In Axar Patel's case, the available material provides no score, batting average, strike rate or record of his performances specifically at No. 5. It would therefore be inappropriate to make a definitive claim about the success or failure of his promotion. This absence matters because the real test of a batting-order experiment lies in the evidence available from the field.

Gavaskar's support brings a necessary balance to the discussion. If a coach must wait for public approval before every tactical experiment, the scope for creativity in team selection can become limited. Changing players' roles can sometimes give a side better options in unexpected circumstances. But freedom for team management does not mean freedom from accountability. If an experiment repeatedly fails, questioning the strategy behind it is entirely reasonable.

It is also necessary to understand the nature of the criticism. The available information does not identify who questioned Gambhir's decision. There is no confirmation of whether the criticism came from former players, media analysts, supporters or another group. It would therefore be premature to describe the episode as evidence of widespread discontent in Indian cricket or disagreement within the dressing room. Public debate and an internal team dispute are two different matters.

For me, the most interesting contradiction in this episode is that the discussion appears to focus more on the number five written beside Axar's name than on his actual batting ability. Roles can become permanent identities in cricket, but good teams must also be capable of changing those roles according to their needs. A batting order is a plan, not an unchangeable social contract.

The next clue will be in the team sheet as much as the scorecard

The next chapter of this debate may be determined by Axar Patel's subsequent batting position. If he is sent in again at No. 5, it will provide a clearer indication of Gambhir's strategic thinking. If team management moves him back down the order, the original promotion may be understood as a decision made for particular circumstances. His runs, deliveries faced, strike rate and the timing of wickets must also be considered together.

Sunil Gavaskar has defended Gambhir's decision, but the final answer will not be found in a television comment. It will be found in the team sheet for that day, the conditions at the ground and the deliveries Axar has to face. Some decisions do not reveal their meaning immediately. Understanding them sometimes requires waiting for the next innings and, occasionally, the next selection meeting.

India's real challenge will be to maintain a balance between experimentation and stability. If Axar fulfils the team's requirements at No. 5, the experiment may continue. If circumstances demand something different, changing the order will be equally reasonable. Ultimately, the question is not who owns the fifth position, but what kind of batter the team needed there on that particular day. When Axar next walks out of the dressing room wearing his pads, the answer to that question may take this debate forward.