Former India all-rounder Irfan Pathan has questioned the selectors' decision to bring Bhuvneshwar Kumar back into the T20I team, calling his inclusion in the recent series against New Zealand a mistake and arguing that the opportunity should have gone to a young fast bowler. Pathan's criticism, delivered in a video on his YouTube channel, has reopened the debate about how India balances experience and youth in its shortest-format side.
Bhuvneshwar, 36, returned to India's T20I side after a gap of nearly four years, but struggled to make an impact against an aggressive New Zealand batting line-up. Across four matches, he managed just one wicket while conceding 180 runs in 16 overs, at an economy rate of 11.25 and a bowling average of 180.00.
According to reports, it is the worst bowling average recorded by any bowler in a T20I series, surpassing Kyle Jamieson's previous mark of 175.00 against Australia in 2021.
The numbers tell the story of a difficult comeback. In the opening T20I in Christchurch, playing his first T20I in four years, Bhuvneshwar went wicketless and conceded 49 runs in four overs at an economy rate of 12.25. He picked up his only wicket of the series in the second match, dismissing Daryl Mitchell for six, but still conceded 50 runs in his four overs.
In the third match in Wellington, he went wicketless again, giving away 40 runs. He was left out of the fourth T20I in Auckland, which India lost by 87 runs, before returning for the series finale in Hamilton, where he conceded 41 runs in four overs without taking a wicket.
India, led by Shreyas Iyer, started the five-match series with three consecutive wins but lost the final two games, eventually taking the series 3-2. In the finale, New Zealand chased down India's 191 for 8 with seven wickets to spare, with opener Tim Seifert smashing 93 off 50 deliveries and Glenn Phillips remaining unbeaten on 65 off 38 balls.
One expensive over from Bhuvneshwar in that match cost 20 runs as Seifert went on the attack, underlining how the veteran seamer struggled to contain batsmen in form.
Pathan was careful to say that his criticism was not aimed at Bhuvneshwar's ability. "In my opinion, where did the selectors go wrong? They made a mistake by playing Bhuvneshwar Kumar in this series. Look, there is no doubt that Bhuvneshwar is a good bowler and a senior player. However, playing him here, when the T20 World Cup is nowhere near, was questionable. If you were preparing Bhuvneshwar for the 50-over World Cup, which is closer, that would have made sense," he said.
The core of Pathan's argument is about timing and opportunity. With the next T20 World Cup not immediately approaching, he argued, the series in New Zealand was an ideal chance to test young fast bowlers on challenging pitches where the margin for error is minimal. "By including him in this series, however, you missed out on giving young fast bowlers an opportunity. A youngster could have played in his place and gained valuable experience. Mayank Yadav could have played all the matches and gained that exposure, while Prince Yadav could have played too," Pathan said.
"The question is definitely about the timing. Would this have been a better opportunity for a young fast bowler? I believe it would have been."
The point carries weight because Bhuvneshwar's domestic and franchise form had suggested he still had something to offer. He claimed 17 wickets in the 2025 Indian Premier League season and followed it up with 28 wickets in the 2026 edition for Royal Challengers Bengaluru, numbers that made his recall defensible on form alone. International cricket, however, proved a different examination.
Against New Zealand's aggressive batting, his lack of recent international exposure showed, and the economy rate of 11.25 across the series reflected how often he was targeted.
The contrast between franchise success and international struggle is a familiar one in modern cricket. The IPL rewards bowlers who can execute plans against familiar opponents on familiar grounds, while a bilateral series in New Zealand presents different pitches, different conditions and batsmen in home form. Bhuvneshwar's experience, built over more than a decade of international cricket, was expected to help him adapt.
Instead, the series became a reminder that a long absence from the format can leave even a senior bowler short of rhythm at the highest level.
Pathan's intervention also raises a wider question about India's fast-bowling pipeline. The selectors have long faced the challenge of managing workloads, developing depth and keeping senior players involved, all at once. Giving a young bowler a full series in New Zealand, Pathan argued, would have provided experience that could pay off in future tournaments, even if the immediate results were mixed.
By contrast, playing a 36-year-old in a T20I series far from the next World Cup offered little long-term return, whatever his pedigree.
It is worth noting that Pathan himself acknowledged Bhuvneshwar was occasionally unlucky during the series, and he stressed that his critique was directed at the selectors' broader vision rather than at the bowler personally. That distinction matters, because the debate is less about one player's figures and more about the planning behind the selection.
Should a team use bilateral series to blood youngsters, or should it reward domestic form with recalls regardless of age and tournament cycles? Different selectors have answered that question differently over the years, and the Bhuvneshwar series is likely to be cited in future arguments on both sides.
For Bhuvneshwar, the series leaves his T20I future uncertain. A comeback after four years that ends with one wicket at an average of 180 will inevitably raise questions, even if his IPL record remains strong. Selectors will have to weigh whether his experience still earns him a place in future squads or whether the New Zealand series marked the end of his time in the shortest format.
His white-ball career has already shown remarkable longevity, and few bowlers sustain international careers into their late thirties, but the manner of this series makes a further recall harder to justify.
India's next T20I assignment is a three-match home series against Sri Lanka, beginning on December 22. That series will offer the selectors another chance to show their thinking, and the names Pathan mentioned, Mayank Yadav and Prince Yadav, will be among those watched closely.
If young pacers are given the opportunities Pathan believes they were denied in New Zealand, the debate sparked by this series may yet produce the outcome he wanted, even if it comes a series too late for the argument itself.
For now, the New Zealand series stands as a cautionary tale about recalls: form in one competition does not always transfer to another, timing matters as much as talent, and a series won 3-2 can still leave questions that linger long after the trophy photographs are taken.
(Reporting based on The Times of India, Outlook India and Sports Now.)