'Not doing justice to their talent': Yuvraj Singh wants Abhishek Sharma and Vaibhav Sooryavanshi in ODIs

Former India all-rounder Yuvraj Singh has questioned the national selection system, saying that justice is not being done to the talent of Abhishek Sharma and Vaibhav Sooryavanshi. His position is clear: both should be part of the ODI setup. The remark comes at a time when Indian white-ball cricket is in the middle of a generational transition and public debate over selection is intensifying. What stands out is what the statement does not contain — no match, no series, no statistics, no date. That absence matters: the claim can only be read as an argument about selection philosophy, not as a data-backed assertion about performance. The real subject is the ODI format — and it is the hardest one to argue in The format under discussion is the 50-over game. Both players built their reputations in a different format. Abhishek Sharma is an attacking left-handed opener known for his powerplay hitting in the IPL. Vaibhav Sooryavanshi is a teenage left-handed opener who has set age-related records in domestic cricket and secured an IPL contract at a very young age. Their reputations are real, but their source is T20 and domestic cricket, not ODIs. The structure of ODI cricket demands something different. Two new balls — one from each end — mean openers face a harder new-ball phase from both sides, testing technique against swing and seam for far longer than in T20. In the middle overs, strike rotation against spin becomes decisive, a skill that T20 power metrics do not capture. And India plays comparatively few ODIs each year outside ICC events, which makes every ODI cap expensive. Balancing a long queue against a short opportunity list is inherently difficult for any selection committee. Abhishek Sharma: the structural case is in his favour Abhishek's case is fundamentally different from Sooryavanshi's, and this is the least understood point in the whole debate. Abhishek also bowls left-arm orthodox spin. In ODIs, a genuine all-rounder gives the team a sixth bowling option and adds flexibility to the bowling combination. That is not merely an extra skill — it is a structural question of team balance. In other words, a cricketing argument exists in Abhishek's favour. The question is whether he has the multi-season ODI or List A record to convert that argument into numbers. Publicly available information does not establish this clearly, and that uncertainty is often exploited to push the debate onto an emotional register. Vaibhav Sooryavanshi: this is a pathway argument, not a selection argument Sooryavanshi's age changes the picture entirely. Batters typically peak between 27 and 33. A teenager sits more than a decade before that curve — a developmental athlete, not a finished product. There is no question about his talent, but his case is about pathway: Under-19, then A tours, then the Vijay Hazare Trophy and domestic 50-over cricket, and only then ODIs. That is a development sequence, not a selection claim. Yuvraj's statement places both players in a single sentence, even though the arguments in their favour belong to different categories. That distinction matters, because bundling them together implies that both have suffered the same kind of injustice — something the evidence does not establish. 'Not doing justice to their talent' — how to test the claim The phrase is emotionally effective but contains no metric. In any professional selection system, 'talent' is not a currency; format-specific output is. So the claim does not mean the selection was wrong — it means the person making it believes the selection criteria should change. That is a legitimate debate, but presenting it as a data debate is misleading. There is a second, equally important point: Indian cricket's selection problem is one of surplus, not scarcity. When eight to ten credible candidates compete for three or four batting slots, a talented player can be left out without any injustice occurring. That is a consequence of queue length — a symptom of success, not failure. The strongest argument that went unspoken The most defensible reading of 'injustice' is this: India's ODI calendar is thin, so a player whose reputation is built on T20 never gets the ODI exposure needed to earn further ODI exposure. No experience means no selection; no selection means no experience. The loop reinforces itself. That is the strongest version of the argument, and it is precisely what the headlines around Yuvraj's remark left out. The IPL effect: market value is not sporting value The engine behind both players' reputations is the IPL and the wider T20 ecosystem. The IPL rewards skills that are not the primary ODI selection criterion. A high auction price or strong endorsement interest proves marketability under T20 rules, not readiness for 50-over cricket. The louder the IPL signal, the more distorted public assessment becomes — and that distortion is exactly what produces popular narratives like 'justice is not being done'. It is also worth noting that there is no serious league-versus-country conflict here. Neither player is reported to have prioritised league commitments over national duty. Questioning their commitment would be unfair. The direction of risk is inverted The biggest risk in this debate is not that India loses a talented player. It is that a teenage player is over-exposed before he is ready. In a format with two new balls and a long new-ball phase, a young batter's defensive technique can be laid bare. Historically, teenage batters exposed to senior international pace before their defensive game consolidates have had a mixed conversion record. The second risk is workload. Franchise cricket, domestic fixtures and age-group tournaments stacking together place a heavy physical load on a young player. The third and most probable risk is the hype-backlash cycle: heavy promotion, then underperformance, then criticism out of proportion. Indian cricket has seen this cycle repeat with young players. There is a further dimension to placing a teenager at the centre of a senior selection debate — duty of care. The board has tightened safeguarding and workload rules for minors in recent years. Any senior cap decision would therefore trigger internal welfare review rather than being a purely cricketing call. Conclusion: the debate is necessary, the criteria are more so Yuvraj Singh's statement is a legitimate opinion from a former great and should be read as public commentary, not interference in the selection process. But if the debate it sparks is to go anywhere, its basis must be ODI-specific performance, not T20 reputation. For Abhishek Sharma the path is clear — consistent List A and India A output, with his left-arm spin providing the selectors a concrete argument. For Sooryavanshi the path is different — patience, staged progression and workload management. The real improvement would be for the BCCI to state publicly what the ODI selection criteria are for T20-dominant players. Once the criteria are public, concrete discussion will replace phrases like 'justice is not being done' — easing pressure on selectors and clarifying the route for players.