Ravichandran Ashwin has publicly criticised Gautam Gambhir's utilisation of Washington Sundar, arguing the all-rounder has been deployed without a clear role across formats. According to Cricket Addictor and Times of India reports, Ashwin termed it 'wrong utilisation,' exposing a systemic role-ambiguity problem under Gambhir's coaching tenure that has cost India in critical moments, including the Ireland T20I disaster.
The 5W+H: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How
- Who: Ravichandran Ashwin (retired India off-spinner) criticising head coach Gautam Gambhir over the deployment of all-rounder Washington Sundar.
- What: Ashwin publicly questioned Gambhir's 'wrong utilisation' of Sundar, saying the player lacks a defined batting or bowling role in the team setup.
- When: In the aftermath of India's T20I series against Ireland in 2026, during which Sundar's unclear role was highlighted.
- Where: India's ongoing white-ball campaigns and the Ireland T20I series.
- Why: According to Ashwin (via Cricket Addictor), Gambhir's 'back everyone' philosophy avoids hard selection calls, leaving all-rounders like Sundar without clarity on whether they are picked as batters, bowlers, or finishers.
- How: Ashwin made his views public through media commentary, pointing to Sundar's inconsistent batting positions and fluctuating bowling workloads as evidence of systemic role confusion under Gambhir's coaching.
Ashwin's critique of Gambhir over Washington Sundar's role ambiguity in Indian cricket lands with the weight of a man who lived the same confusion — and walked away from the game rather than endure it any longer. When a recently retired legend publicly calls out a sitting head coach for 'wrong utilisation' of a current player, the cricketing world pays attention. But the real story here isn't the friction between two proud men. It is the pattern the friction reveals.
According to Cricket Addictor, Ravichandran Ashwin questioned India's use of Washington Sundar after what the report described as the 'Ireland disaster' — the T20I series in which India's much-hyped squad stumbled in conditions that exposed every ambiguity in the team's planning. Ashwin's charge was specific and damning: Sundar, he argued, has been backed by Gambhir without ever being told what he is backed to do.
This is not a new complaint. It is a chronic condition, and it has a name: role ambiguity. In the Gambhir coaching era, Washington Sundar has floated between batting positions like a man who keeps arriving at a party but is never told which room is his. Is he the lower-order enforcer who can finish innings with muscular hitting? No — his T20I strike rate in death overs has rarely suggested he is wired that way. Is he the holding off-spinner who bowls through the powerplay and the middle overs? Sometimes, but then he vanishes from the attack for stretches that suggest even the captain is unsure of his workload. Is he the batting all-rounder at No. 5 or 6 who anchors while others swing? He has been tried there, but seldom persisted with long enough to own it.
As the Times of India reported, Ashwin framed the issue not as personal dissatisfaction but as a structural flaw in Gambhir's coaching philosophy: a tendency to 'back everyone' that, in practice, becomes a refusal to make the hard calls that define roles. Backing a player, Ashwin implied, is only meaningful when it comes with a clear mandate — a defined slot, a defined workload, a defined expectation. Without that, backing is just sentiment dressed up as strategy.
The Ashwin Mirror: A Man Who Lived the Same Confusion
There is a reason Ashwin's words carry unusual credibility on this subject. His own final year in Indian cricket, before his mid-series retirement during the Border-Gavaskar Trophy in late 2024, was defined by precisely this kind of role fog. Selected for squads but often left out of playing elevens; told he was valued but given no clarity on when, or in what capacity, he would be called upon. Ashwin did not leave because he could not bowl. He left because the team management — under Gambhir — could not or would not tell him what his role was.
Now he watches Washington Sundar navigate the same fog, and the frustration is unmistakable. According to Cricket Addictor, Ashwin's criticism centred on Sundar's deployment across formats — not just T20Is, but the broader question of what Indian cricket's coaching setup sees when it looks at the 26-year-old Tamil Nadu all-rounder. A Test prospect? A white-ball utility player? A specialist off-spinner who can bat a bit? Or a batting all-rounder who can bowl a bit? The answer, under Gambhir, appears to be: yes. All of it. None of it clearly.
Gambhir's Philosophy: Loyalty Without Architecture
Gautam Gambhir's tenure as India head coach has been marked by one consistent trait: fierce loyalty to his selected players. That loyalty is admirable — and it is also, increasingly, the problem. Loyalty without architecture is chaos wearing a reassuring smile. When every player is 'backed,' no player knows where the boundaries of their role begin and end. The all-rounder, in particular, suffers most in such a system, because the all-rounder's value depends entirely on clarity: are you the third seamer who bats at eight, or the fifth batter who bowls four overs? The answer changes everything — the field settings, the batting order, the match-up strategy.
Washington Sundar's career numbers under Gambhir's coaching tell a story of fluctuation rather than development. His bowling economy in T20Is has hovered in the mid-sevens — respectable but not devastating — while his batting average in the same format sits in the low twenties, a number that reflects a player who has never been given a settled role long enough to build a case in it. Compare this with how Australia have managed Cameron Green, or how England have handled Liam Livingstone — players with comparable dual skills but whose roles are defined, communicated, and consistently applied across series.
The Ireland Flashpoint
The Ireland T20I series was the catalyst for Ashwin's public comments, but the seeds were planted across months of ambiguous selection. In Ireland, Sundar batted at different positions across games, bowled varying lengths of spells, and was never used in a way that suggested a pre-match plan for his specific skill set. The result, as Cricket Addictor reported, was a disjointed performance that highlighted everything Ashwin was talking about. It was not that Sundar played badly — it was that no one, perhaps including Sundar himself, seemed sure what 'playing well' would even look like for him in the given setup.
This is the quiet crisis of Indian cricket's all-rounder policy under Gambhir. The team management has access to one of the most versatile talent pools in world cricket — players who can bat, bowl, and field at international standard — but versatility without direction is just confusion with options. Ashwin, who spent two decades understanding the precise relationship between role clarity and performance, sees this more clearly than most.
The Question Gambhir Must Answer
The deeper issue Ashwin's critique surfaces is not really about Washington Sundar at all. It is about whether Gambhir's coaching philosophy has an architecture — a framework that translates loyalty and belief into specific, measurable, accountable roles for every player in the squad. The best coaches in cricket history — Gary Kirsten, John Buchanan, Duncan Fletcher — were not just motivators. They were architects. They told players not just 'you are in' but 'you are in to do THIS, in THIS phase of the game, against THIS type of opponent.'
Under Gambhir, India's all-rounders — and Sundar is the most visible case, but not the only one — seem to exist in a permanent state of audition without ever being told what part they are auditioning for. That is not coaching. That is hoping.
Ashwin, to his immense credit, has framed this not as a personal attack on Gambhir but as a structural concern for Indian cricket's future. The question is whether anyone in the BCCI or the team management is listening — or whether, as so often in Indian cricket, the messenger will be remembered long after the message is forgotten.
Because here is the uncomfortable truth: Washington Sundar is 26 years old, enormously talented, and running out of time to be defined. Every series that passes without role clarity is a series in which a potential match-winner is reduced to a roster filler. And that is not just wrong utilisation — it is waste. The kind of waste Indian cricket, for all its riches, cannot afford.
By the Numbers
- Washington Sundar's T20I batting average sits in the low twenties under Gambhir's coaching tenure, reflecting role instability across series.
- Sundar's T20I bowling economy has hovered in the mid-sevens — respectable but underdeployed, with spell lengths varying significantly across matches.
Key Takeaways
- Ashwin publicly criticised Gambhir for 'wrong utilisation' of Washington Sundar, saying the all-rounder has no defined role across formats (Cricket Addictor, Times of India).
- Ashwin's own retirement was shaped by similar role ambiguity under Gambhir's coaching tenure, giving his critique firsthand credibility.
- Sundar's T20I batting average remains in the low twenties and his bowling economy in the mid-sevens — numbers reflecting persistent role instability rather than declining skill.
- Ashwin framed the issue as systemic, not personal — arguing Gambhir's 'back everyone' philosophy lacks the architectural framework that defines roles, workloads, and expectations.
- The Ireland T20I series was the flashpoint, with Sundar batting at different positions and bowling inconsistent spells across games.
- The critique raises a broader question about Indian cricket's all-rounder policy: whether versatility without defined direction is an asset or a liability.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Ashwin criticise Gambhir over Washington Sundar?
According to Cricket Addictor and Times of India, Ashwin argued that Gambhir's coaching has deployed Sundar without a clear role — neither as a defined batter, bowler, nor finisher — calling it 'wrong utilisation' that reflects a systemic coaching flaw.
What is Washington Sundar's current role in the Indian cricket team?
Sundar's role remains ambiguous under Gambhir's coaching. He has batted at multiple positions and bowled varying spell lengths across T20Is, with no consistent mandate as either a batting all-rounder or a specialist off-spinner.
Why did Ashwin retire from international cricket?
Ashwin retired mid-series during the Border-Gavaskar Trophy in late 2024, with reports indicating frustration over unclear role definition and selection uncertainty under the Gambhir-led coaching setup.
What is Gambhir's coaching philosophy for Indian cricket?
Gambhir's tenure has been characterised by fierce loyalty to selected players — a 'back everyone' approach — but critics like Ashwin argue this philosophy lacks the architectural framework needed to define specific roles and expectations for each player.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel