Sanju Samson and the Selection Question: Is Indian Cricket Giving Talent a Fair Chance?
By Samiksha Media Sports Desk
The Sanju Samson Question Is Back — And This Time, India Cannot Simply Look Away
Indian cricket has never suffered from a shortage of talent. What it increasingly appears to struggle with is giving every talented player an equal and consistent opportunity to prove that talent at the international level.
The latest debate surrounding Sanju Samson has once again raised an uncomfortable question: Does every player receive the same patience, backing and number of opportunities from Indian cricket’s decision-makers?
Samson’s international career has been a stop-start journey for more than a decade. He has repeatedly entered the Indian squad, spent periods on the sidelines, received limited opportunities, and then found himself outside the team again.
Yet the contrast with Rishabh Pant’s treatment has become a major talking point among cricket supporters.
Pant Was Backed — Even Before His Comeback Was Proven
Rishabh Pant undoubtedly possesses extraordinary ability. His match-winning performances have established him as one of India’s most exciting wicketkeeper-batters.
But the question is not whether Pant is talented.
The question is why some players appear to receive extraordinary patience while others are expected to prove themselves almost immediately.
In January 2024, even while Pant was still recovering from his serious accident and had not played competitive cricket since December 2022, Indian legend Sunil Gavaskar publicly backed him strongly. Gavaskar said that if Pant was fit, he would put his name first as India’s wicketkeeper for the T20 World Cup.
Pant subsequently returned through the IPL and was selected for India’s 2024 T20 World Cup squad. The ICC and Reuters both reported that Pant’s IPL form played an important role in his selection.
That is what backing looks like.
And Indian cricket supporters are entitled to ask:
Where was the same level of backing for Sanju Samson?
Samson Was Not Even Given a Clear Run
Samson was also selected for India’s 2024 T20 World Cup squad, alongside Pant. But when India played Ireland in its opening match, Pant was selected in the XI while Samson was left out.
This is not an argument that Pant should have been dropped.
It is an argument that Samson deserved a genuine opportunity to establish himself.
The problem with Indian cricket’s selection culture is not necessarily that one player is selected over another. Competition is normal.
The problem arises when one player receives a long runway to fail, learn, recover and return, while another player is repeatedly judged on a much smaller sample.
And Then Came 2026
The debate became even more complicated after Samson’s performances during India’s successful 2026 T20 World Cup campaign.
According to recent Indian media reports, Samson played a decisive role in India’s title-winning campaign and earned Player of the Tournament recognition after a remarkable run that included three consecutive fifties.
Yet only months later, Samson was omitted from India’s Zimbabwe T20I squad.
The explanation reported was that he had been rested, rather than dropped, while selectors wanted to give opportunities to younger players such as Prabhsimran Singh.
Giving opportunities to youngsters is absolutely the right policy.
But that creates another question:
Why does developing new talent sometimes appear to mean moving away from a player who has just demonstrated that he can perform at the highest level?
India Has Talent — So Why Does Opportunity Look Unequal?
India has an extraordinary cricket talent pool.
That makes selection even more difficult.
There is nothing wrong with selecting Pant. There is nothing wrong with selecting Samson. There is nothing wrong with testing a new youngster.
The real issue is consistency in the selection philosophy.
If performance is the primary criterion, then the same standards should apply to everyone.
If experience is the criterion, it should be applied consistently.
If potential is the criterion, young players should be given enough matches to demonstrate it.
And if failure is acceptable for one player because selectors believe in his long-term potential, that same patience should be available to another player with comparable talent.
Is There Lobbying in Indian Cricket?
This is where the debate becomes sensitive.
There is widespread public discussion about former players, commentators, cricket personalities and influential voices expressing strong opinions about particular players. Gavaskar’s public backing of Pant is a documented example.
But public advocacy is not proof of an organised selection lobby.
That distinction is important.
There is currently no credible evidence establishing that Sanju Samson is being deliberately excluded because of a coordinated lobbying operation.
However, the perception of unequal backing is real enough to generate legitimate debate.
Indian cricket authorities should therefore not dismiss these concerns simply as social-media noise.
Former Greats Are Advisors — Not Owners of Indian Cricket
Indian cricket legends deserve enormous respect.
They built the history of the game.
But former greatness should not become an unofficial selection passport.
A former player can express an opinion. A commentator can analyse. A cricket legend can recommend a player.
Ultimately, however, selection must be based on transparent sporting criteria rather than influence, reputation, relationships or public pressure.
No individual — regardless of how many runs, wickets or trophies he accumulated in the past — should be perceived as having ownership over the future of Indian cricket.
Samson’s Decision to Stay
Another emotional dimension of the Samson story is his continued commitment to representing India despite the repeated uncertainty surrounding his place.
Rather than pursuing opportunities elsewhere, he continued fighting for a place in the Indian setup.
His recent comments suggest that the constant selection battle has affected his approach. Indian Express reported that Samson said he had decided to play the remainder of his career on his own terms rather than continue chasing the national-team selection “rat race.”
That statement should make Indian cricket think.
A player should be desperate to represent India.
But the system should never make a player feel that he has to beg for the opportunity to demonstrate what he can do.
This Is Bigger Than Sanju Samson
The Samson-Pant debate should not become a fan war.
It should not become Kerala versus Delhi.
It should not become North India versus South India.
It should not become Pant versus Samson.
It should become a discussion about fairness, transparency and merit.
Pant has earned his place through outstanding performances.
Samson has also demonstrated that he belongs at the highest level.
India should be strong enough to recognise both truths simultaneously.
The Real Test for Indian Cricket
The strongest cricket system is not the one that produces eleven stars.
It is the system that creates equal opportunity for the next hundred stars.
If India wants to develop new talent, excellent.
Give youngsters opportunities.
But do not sacrifice proven performers merely because the system wants to experiment.
Likewise, do not keep established names indefinitely because of reputation.
The principle should be simple:
Perform → receive opportunity → perform again → retain your place.
And if a player fails, give him the same reasonable opportunity to recover that another player receives.
The Final Question
Sanju Samson’s story has exposed a much larger question about Indian cricket:
Are we selecting players purely on performance and team requirements — or are reputation, influence and lobbying perceptions beginning to shape the conversation?
There is no evidence that a formal lobbying system decides India’s selections. But when supporters repeatedly perceive unequal treatment, the selectors have a responsibility to make the process clearer.
India has too much talent to allow questions of favouritism to overshadow cricket.
The Indian jersey belongs to the country — not to an individual, a group, a former legend or a particular camp.
Players should earn their place.
Selectors should explain their cricketing logic.
Former stars should advise, not dictate.
And talented players should not have to wait for years simply to receive the opportunity that others receive almost automatically.
**Because Indian cricket does not need favourites.It needs fairness.**
Leave a Reply