Bhuvneshwar Kumar’s Selection Questioned As World Cup Winner Calls It A Mistake

Pathan believes the selectors missed an opportunity to give younger fast bowlers valuable international exposure by bringing back the experienced pacer. His comments came after India lost the fifth and final T20I by seven wickets on Sunday. Although India won the series 3-2 after taking an unassailable lead earlier in the contest, Bhuvneshwar’s performances became a talking point following his expensive spells during the tour.

Bhuvneshwar returned to India’s T20I setup after nearly four years, having last represented the country in the shortest format against New Zealand in November 2022. The 36-year-old earned his recall following an impressive Indian Premier League 2026 campaign, during which he claimed 28 wickets for Royal Challengers Bengaluru. His experience with the new ball and ability to generate swing were among the factors supporting his selection. However, his return did not produce the expected results in New Zealand, where he struggled to contain the opposition batters on surfaces that offered opportunities for aggressive stroke-making.

Pathan, speaking on his YouTube channel, argued that selecting Bhuvneshwar for the series was questionable because the next T20 World Cup was not immediately approaching. He said the selectors could have used the five-match contest to develop younger fast bowlers who are part of India’s longer-term plans. According to Pathan, including Bhuvneshwar meant that another young pacer lost the opportunity to play regularly in overseas conditions and gain experience against an international batting lineup. He suggested that the management should have prioritised the development of emerging bowlers rather than recalling a senior player for a series that did not have immediate World Cup implications.

The former all-rounder also mentioned Mayank Yadav and Prince Yadav while explaining his argument. He believed Mayank could have played all five matches instead of featuring in only two games, allowing him to understand the demands of bowling on New Zealand pitches. Pathan also felt Prince should have received more opportunities to develop his skills during the tour. He explained that young fast bowlers need exposure to different conditions, particularly pitches where there is little margin for error. Such opportunities, he argued, can help them improve their execution, understand international batting approaches and become more confident when defending totals under pressure.

Pathan clarified that his criticism was not directed at Bhuvneshwar’s bowling ability or experience. He acknowledged that the veteran pacer remained a skilled bowler and described him as unlucky during the fifth T20I, particularly because his initial overs had been relatively encouraging. However, Bhuvneshwar conceded 41 runs without taking a wicket in his four-over spell in the series decider. Across the four matches he played, he managed only one wicket and recorded an economy rate of 11.25. His performances included figures of 0/49 in the opening match, 1/50 in the second and 0/40 in the third, while he was left out of the fourth T20I.

India’s decision to recall Bhuvneshwar had earlier been defended by batting coach Sitanshu Kotak, who highlighted the importance of experience in a relatively inexperienced bowling attack. The team management had also considered his successful IPL performances and the conditions expected during the New Zealand tour. India ultimately secured the series despite losing the final two matches after winning the first three. Pathan’s criticism has therefore brought attention to a broader selection question facing Indian cricket: how to balance experienced players with opportunities for emerging talent. With preparations continuing for future international tournaments, the management will have to assess whether overseas bilateral series should prioritise immediate results, player experience or a combination of both.