Sitanshu Kotak, India men's batting coach, reflects on the 2026 T20 World Cup journey - the reason behind bringing back Sanju Samson, trusting Abhishek Sharma, the high risk-high reward approach, and much more in an exclusive interview with Cricbuzz.

Excerpts from an interview:

Looking back now, how do you reflect on this World Cup campaign? Was the approach to strike a six from the first ball?

No. Honestly, the one thing we knew - and the only thing I felt during that phase - was that with eight good batters, all capable of scoring at any strike rate, our approach had to remain consistent. If we did not lose more than two wickets in the PowerPlay, we would always go at over 10 runs an over from the start. The only real worry for us was what if we lost three or four wickets in three or four overs.

So our thinking was to go hard from ball one. Even if we lost a couple of wickets, we would not slow down or change our intent. What we would do instead is, for the next six to eight balls, play shots with a lower risk percentage. So the idea was to keep attacking, but if two wickets fell in very quick succession, we would ensure that the next six to eight balls were about batting sensibly and building a partnership again.

Another thing we focused on - and something I personally focused on as a batting coach - was partnerships: 40, 45, even 30 runs. If you look at the last two games, we scored over 250. In the semifinal, we had five or six partnerships: things like 22-ball 45, 8-ball 24 and things like that. We often talk about partnerships in Tests and one-day cricket, but I felt that in T20s, with a strong batting unit, you can only lose if there is a big collapse.

Like in the game against South Africa, we lost by 100 (76) runs. In a way, that loss was important for us because it reminded us again that we cannot lose three or four wickets together. If that happens, you simply cannot win a T20 game. So it is equally important to play fearlessly and with a very positive intent. But at the same time, we must remember that we cannot lose three or four wickets together, no matter what. That approach worked really well. The guys were very selfless in the way they batted, and overall it was really satisfying.

Head coach Gautam Gambhir has advocated for high-risk, high-reward style of batting. As a batting coach, how do you get the policy implemented?

Basically, from the openers to No 8, everyone had a role. They knew what they were supposed to do. We knew the match-ups - when we could send (Shivam) Dube, when we could promote Hardik (Pandya) and when Tilak (Varma) could go in. So all that planning was there. We also knew that we had to go hard - the high-risk, high-reward way in T20s.

Gautam and Surya (Suryakumar Yadav) are two of the best leaders anybody can have in this format. They are good in any format, honestly. But if we talk about the World Cup, they both knew exactly what we needed. From my side, I was very sure that we would do well. I told them that if we lose three or four wickets together, we could get stuck. So we had to make sure that if we lost two wickets, we stabilised things a little. Without even saying much, Surya would try to play the first 8-10 balls carefully and build a partnership. He knew his role. Sometimes he even sacrificed his own position for that in certain innings.

Even before the semifinal we discussed that, the way games were going, we did not know what a safe total was. You could score 254 and still be in a fight. The ideology was the same for all of us - that we would play with positive intent. If a player felt confident enough to hit a six off the first ball, he could go ahead and do that. Even if he got out, it was not a crime. Of course, if the team required someone to settle the innings for eight to ten balls, everyone was ready to do that as well.

From a batting perspective, what stood out for you in the last three knockout matches?

What I used to say was: we won four, we lost one - now we will win four again. So we will win the World Cup. That is what was always going on in my mind. Those last four games were obviously knockouts. So we treated the last four matches as a pre-quarterfinal, quarterfinal, semifinal and final.

In the dugout, the atmosphere was very positive and confident. Honestly, there was so much positivity from the players and everyone involved - obviously the support staff as well. It was brilliant. Of course, everybody has nerves - that is natural. But there was far more confidence than doubt. I can tell you that much.

From my side, I always believed that the eight batters we had were unbelievably capable of changing the game at any time. I kept that faith that even if we lost four wickets, somebody would come in and do what was needed.

As a player, you were essentially a red-ball classicist and now you have coached the best T20 side in the world. What did it require you to change or adapt?

Honestly, one thing I learnt when I started coaching - and I have heard this from a lot of experienced people - is that once you start coaching, you should forget that you were a cricketer. Otherwise, if I start coaching with my own cricketing experiences, I will begin asking players to play shots that I felt were easy for me. That is the beauty of coaching. I am not coaching a player to become like me. I am coaching a batsman to become the best version of himself.

Once you do these courses - Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 - and I have done quite a few of them, you learn that what I used to do as a player is not really important anymore. Every player is different. For example, if you see Abhishek (Sharma), he is completely different from Ishan Kishan. If you look at Sanju, he is completely different from Tilak. Tilak is different from Surya. The shots each of them plays are different. Even Hardik is different from Shivam. And if you see Rinku, he is different from the others as well.

So coaching is not about one style. For me, when I am coaching a player, I look at his strengths. Then I see which areas might be a concern and where I can help him improve, or technically how we can help him cover those areas where he might be troubled. So it becomes a very individual thing. Batting coaching, for me, is a very individual process.

How do you fine-tune a ramp shot that you have never played?

That is the technical side of it. I have completed BCCI Level 1 and Level 2 coaching courses. I have also done Cricket Australia Level 2 and Level 3 - I went to Australia for those. In addition, I have completed ECB Level 2 and several other courses. Those courses teach you a lot about biomechanics and the technical aspects of batting.

Then comes the practical side of it, which is obviously about being on the ground, working with teams, gaining experience and sharing ideas with players and coaches. You discuss things with people and keep learning. For me, I have been very lucky. I came into the NCA when Rahul Dravid was there. I learnt a lot from him. Over the last year and a half or so, working with Gautam has also been a big learning experience. His psyche, how he thinks about the game and how he feels Indian batting should approach games, all of that gives you new ideas.

So I actually feel lucky that I have been able to absorb the ideas of these great batters. And of course, when you work with players - from junior cricketers to senior India players - that also becomes a strength. I try to learn from them as well. When they talk about certain things that I may not have thought about, I am very open to accepting that. I want to know what they do, what they think and what they would have done in a particular situation. All that has taught me a lot technically. Through these courses and over the years working with different players, I have continued to learn a great deal about the technical side of the game.

That is learning for all of us - for me as well. I have learnt a lot in that way. So I don't really think about whether it is T20 or something else. I have actually played quite a bit of T20 cricket over the last six or seven years, starting from the DY Patil T20 tournament. And in England, where I played for over 20 years, T20 cricket has always been part of the league structure. From the very first year I played there, there was always a T20 league. And when it comes to shot selection or the technical side of it, I don't think I have any issue because I understand how these shots are executed. I can probably explain that in one word.

The first four wins were comprehensive, if not all convincing. And then in the last four matches, India scored close to 1000 runs. Can you explain the sudden transformation?

After the South Africa game, every match was like a knockout for us. But what I felt was that in all the bilateral series - since I have been part of the team, if you see the Asia Cup and even before that the England T20 series - as a batting unit we were creating momentum right from the start. We were batting unbelievably well.

The things that happened during the tournament were that Sanju was a little out of form and Abhishek fell ill and also went a little out of form. So, in my mind I felt that the momentum we had created in the Asia Cup and the bilaterals wasn't coming through 100 percent. In one of my press conferences I had said that as well - that I am not worried, but I am just hoping that momentum comes back as soon as possible. For that, the key thing was not to lose more than two wickets in the powerplay, or if we went through the powerplay losing only one wicket, we were absolutely brilliant. If you see the data, whenever we lost more than two wickets quickly, then obviously we had to hold back a little.

So we planned for that. The USA game was a bit of a wake-up call for us - that such situations can arise. Surya's amazing temperament took us to an above-par score in that match. Then the game we lost against South Africa again reminded us that from that point onward all the remaining matches were knockouts. We couldn't afford another game like that. A lot of credit must go to the players - the way they handled everything and the way they dealt with the pressure. Obviously the leadership of Gautam and Surya also deserves a lot of credit because they were under a lot of pressure and had huge responsibilities. My contribution is very small. I just try to do whatever I can. So from my side, a lot of credit goes to the captain and coach.

How did you keep Sanju Samson initially and Abhishek Sharma later motivated?

The belief was always there, I remember before COVID-19, during the India A vs South Africa series in 2019, Sanju had been sidelined but Rahul bhai selected him for the last two one-dayers against South Africa. I still remember the game in Thiruvananthapuram. In the fourth game, which was his first match in the series, he got out off the first or second ball. The last game was rain-affected and he was scheduled to bat at No. 6 or 7. The match was reduced to 21 overs and I felt Sanju might not get any opportunity.

At that time, India A was more about development. It was never just about winning. Rahul bhai and Laxman always believed that India A's role was to create the best possible pool for the senior Indian team. So rather than worrying about wins and losses, the focus was on giving opportunities to players. They always told me to follow that path when I was head coach of the India A team. They would say: 'Don't worry whether we win or lose. You won't get blamed. Our aim is to give equal opportunities to these players because they are all important for Indian cricket.'

So when that match was reduced to 21 overs, I called Rahul bhai because I couldn't just take random decisions. I told him that Sanju was the only player who had come into the team after three games but hadn't got an opportunity yet. I asked if I could send him in at No. 3. Rahul bhai told me, 'Kotzi, you don't even need to ask. You are doing it for the right reason. Go ahead.'

I felt that if Sanju batted at No. 7, the last game of the series would pass without him getting any real chance. And I still remember what happened. In about 30-35 balls he scored close to 90 runs. South Africa had a proper international attack - (Temba) Bavuma was the captain, and bowlers like Anrich Nortje and Junior Dala were there. The way he played that day was very similar to how he played in the World Cup knockout games - hitting sixes freely, even against Nortje.

From that day I always knew he was outstanding. Sanju also knew why I promoted him. All the other batters had already got two good innings each - players like Ishan Kishan, Ruturaj Gaikwad, and others. Many of them had already performed.

Later, when I was with the Indian team during a South Africa series - when Rahul bhai and the others were preparing for the Test series - we were 1-1 in the ODI series. Ruturaj fractured his finger in the second game, and I promoted Sanju to No. 3 when KL Rahul was captain. He scored a hundred in that match. Even when Sanju wasn't playing, I used to tell him: 'Sanju, you know how much I trust you. Every day something can happen - injuries, form issues, combination changes. You should be ready because you might be the one who wins us the World Cup.' And he would smile and say, "Kotzi bhai, don't worry. I am always ready. Whenever the team needs me, I will contribute.'

The other challenge was Abhishek. At the start of the tournament he was not well and then he had three or four rough games. But he is a wonderful kid - always smiling. You never see him bitter or frustrated. Of course he was concerned, but he remained confident. He kept saying, 'Nahi, nahi, main karunga.' At one point I felt he was trying to hit the ball too hard. That is not really his strength. Players like Shivam and Hardik can muscle the ball out of the park. But Abhishek is more about timing. If you see his sixes, they come from his natural flow and timing. So we tried to make small adjustments. Tactically we discussed how bowlers were targeting certain areas. Gautam also suggested that he use the crease more - step outside the off stump so he is a little closer to the ball.

These were small inputs from people who have played a lot of cricket. Surya also played a big role in keeping players mentally relaxed and confident. When you win a World Cup, there are contributions from many people. But we always kept the faith that the entire batting group would contribute. I have always believed that to win a tournament like a World Cup, it cannot be only two or three players performing. Eight players have to contribute at different moments.

I used to tell Abhishek that if he had scored in all those matches, I would actually be worried - because then the team might be too dependent on just one or two players. For example, when we played New Zealand, their openers were doing well. But I always felt that if two openers got out after a good total, the rest of their batting might struggle. With the Indian team, you never get that feeling. If Abhishek gets out, Ishan Kishan will do it. If he gets out, Sanju will do it. If Sanju gets out, Tilak will do it. Then Surya, Shivam, Hardik, or Rinku.

And the most important thing was that nobody was playing for themselves. Everyone was playing for the team. Surya had his moments. Tilak had his moments. Sanju in the last three games. Abhishek in the Zimbabwe game and the final. Ishan Kishan throughout the tournament - maybe not huge scores every time, but consistently striking at over 200 and setting the platform so that players like Shivam, Hardik, or Tilak could come in and start attacking. For me as a batting coach, that is a great batting line-up to have.

And then suddenly the opposition teams changed their strategy with off-spin upfront. What exactly happened there and how did you address that issue?

We realised that against off-spin we had three left-handers at the top because Tilak was batting at No. 3. But after a point there is no point being stubborn. We had four games where we lost a wicket in the first over, and that was the moment when we started thinking differently. Sometimes you can also say it is God's plan. In a way, it worked like that for us because it made us think that we had to utilise Sanju.

Rinku was not getting many opportunities at No. 8. At the start we also needed to break that left-left-left combination. That is how Sanju came back into the picture. We decided that we would go with two wicketkeepers - it didn't matter. Sanju could keep wickets and Ishan is an equally good fielder. Ishan also happily said that it was fine and that he would field. So sometimes these things also fall into place.

Once Sanju opened, the combination became left-right. Then at No. 3 we could have Ishan and then Tilak. From No. 4, 5 and 6 we had a lot of flexibility. Surya even sent Shivam ahead of him in the semi-final, I think, and in the final he sent Hardik ahead of him. So we had that kind of flexibility in the middle order. That worked really well. And Sanju, with his temperament and leadership qualities, the way he batted in the last three games was just unreal. We always knew what he was capable of. That is why people backed him.

A lot of credit must also go to the selectors, the BCCI, Gautam and Surya for keeping faith in him. At one stage there was criticism about why he was still in the team. But people who have played the game and who have seen him closely know what he is capable of. Of course, you can never guarantee that a player will perform exactly when you want him to.

How was the dressing room environment during the World Cup?

We, as a unit, kept the environment positive even during tough times. Because sometimes when you lose a game - like the South Africa match - people can get a little bitter. But in that camp everyone was still enjoying themselves and staying happy. A lot of credit goes to Surya for maintaining such a friendly and positive environment. Gautam was also absolutely brilliant. He never said anything that would put Abhishek under pressure, and he never put Sanju under pressure either.

Then there was Tilak. Initially his strike rate looked a little low for a couple of games. But in the Colombo match we actually wanted partnerships. The plan was to somehow make sure we crossed 160 or 170. Hardik got out early in that game - otherwise we might even have reached 190. But we still got a competitive score. At one stage it may have looked like Tilak was a little slow, but honestly it was just a matter of one or two boundaries. Later when we spoke about it, he also felt that maybe he could have been a little more aggressive.

We told him, "If you feel that way, then don't hold back next time. Even if you get out, it's okay. In T20 cricket you cannot play with the fear of getting out." Of course, if the team has lost two or three wickets, then being a little careful is understandable. But if wickets are in hand, then you can't worry too much about getting out. These were some of the basic principles we followed.

Tilak himself came and asked me honestly, 'Kotzi Bhai do you think I played a little slowly? Should I have been more aggressive?' I told him that every match can bring a different situation. I said, 'You actually batted really well in these games, so don't take any pressure. In the next game just judge the situation and play according to what the team requires.' He simply said, "Sir, leave it to me. I'll do that."

And when Ishan came back, how has it been working with him?

Ishan has been brilliant. My first series with the Indian team as head coach was against Sri Lanka, and he was part of that squad. Shubman, Ruturaj - all of them were part of that batting group at the time. Even Sanju was there in that same year. Ishan is an unbelievably talented kid. Even before that, I had worked with him during my time with the Gujarat Lions in the IPL in 2016 and 2017. He was part of our squad then, so I know him very well.

I have also seen him play some superb innings against Saurashtra when I was coaching Saurashtra. So I have always known how capable he is. When he came back into the team, he was already a ready player. That is why I also feel that a lot of credit should go to the BCCI for the way our domestic structure is organised. There are so many matches, players are financially well supported, and then there is the IPL as well. The amount of effort the BCCI puts behind the scenes for all this also deserves recognition.

Because of that system, whenever players come through the ranks and get an opportunity, they are already prepared. That is why people often say that India could field two or three teams in a World Cup or any major tournament and still do well.

Gautam says he will not settle for totals of 150 or 160. The target, he insists, should be 200-plus - even if the team risks collapsing for 120 in the pursuit of that total. So that was the plan. A score of 160, at this stage and on these wickets, is probably not a winning total. We planned right from the powerplay to the death overs that if we executed our plan properly, the score should reach 220-plus. So we never really planned for 160 or 170. If you want to become champions, you have to think in terms of 200-plus anyway.

Everyone talks about fearless batting. A lot more goes into it into being fearless.

From my side, I always tried to keep the players in the right frame of mind. Irrespective of how they had performed in the previous games - like Abhishek or Sanju - I kept reminding them how good they are and how well they have performed in the past. The idea is to forget the last game if it didn't go well and remember the good innings instead of the ones where you struggled. Sometimes you just get a good ball, sometimes things don't work - that can happen in T20 cricket.

So I always tried to keep them in a mindset where they felt confident about their abilities. That confidence is what any player needs. Beyond that, we tried to give them everything they asked for - good practice sessions, specific bowlers in the nets, new balls, used balls, different types of deliveries. We tried to accommodate all that so they felt well prepared. Once that confidence is there, then you can slowly introduce certain ideas - maybe a small technical point in Sanju's case or something slightly more technical in Abhishek's case.

The player already knows where he might need to improve. Our job is to help him realise that he can work on it without making him feel that it is a big flaw. That balance is always a challenge - how to put things across without putting too much pressure on the player. In my experience, that worked well with Sanju.

And with someone like Ishan as well - when he came back, he was mentally strong and very positive. He had a lot of support from Gautam, Surya and everyone around. I have known him for nearly ten years now, from when he was 16 or 17. He knows me well and he knows that if I say something, it will always be honest. So that trust is there. He is also a very strong character. And in the end, all of them came good at the right time.

This high-risk, high-reward approach - do you think it will work in conditions like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England?

Honestly, in team meetings, when we have a proper discussion, the first point I put in a batting meeting is to assess the conditions and decide what the par score should be. For example, if we are playing in Ahmedabad, we know that the par score could be around 200 or even 220. Similarly, when we played in Australia - where we won the T20 series - we knew from the data that the average score at certain venues was around 160 or 170. So if the average score is 160-170, we plan accordingly. We analyse whether the new ball is doing more, or whether scoring becomes difficult once the ball gets older. Using all that data, we prepare our plans.

It's not just about different countries - even within India, conditions vary from venue to venue. So we spend a lot of time on this. Our analysts also put in a lot of work to prepare all the data before the match. Then, based on that information, we go out and look at the wicket ourselves. Sometimes the data may say the par score is around 160, but when you see the surface you might feel that it looks more like a 190 or 200 wicket.

That has happened in Australia as well. In one of the matches there, the data suggested a par score of around 160 or 165. But looking at the pitch - the dryness, the grass, and the firmness of the surface - we felt the score needed could be closer to 190. So we make those little tweaks based on what we see.

But overall, I believe that the high-risk, high-reward approach in T20 cricket will always work. The key is assessing the conditions properly. That is why the responsibility of the top two or three batsmen is very important. They go out first, assess how the pitch is playing, and then quickly pass the message back to the dressing room so that everyone can adjust accordingly.

Now that everyone will copy the Indian template, what are the challenges before the Indian team?

We always try to bring something new depending on the situation. At different times, with different players, we keep introducing new ideas. Because I believe styles can be copied, but it is better to create your own style rather than imitate someone else. I have my own way of doing things, and it would probably be difficult for someone else to replicate that. It comes from your nature, your thinking process, and the way you communicate with players.

For me, it is also about keeping a low profile while working with players. Sometimes, even when you know everything and feel the urge to say something, choosing not to say anything is also part of coaching.

How do you adjust your coaching to three different formats?

Red Ball, obviously, is about footwork. Even in the 50-over format there is a lot of footwork involved, apart from the last five overs at the death. In T20 cricket, technically speaking, it is more about creating a solid base early so that you can generate maximum power. That is one of the main technical differences.

In one-day cricket, a lot of it is about rotating the strike and using your footwork. In red-ball cricket, again, footwork is very important - front foot, back foot, planning your innings, leaving the ball, choosing when to play - all of that comes into play. But for me, T20 cricket is largely about aligning yourself well and creating a strong base to hit the ball.

Because in those 20 overs, if you are moving around too much, using excessive footwork, or getting too airborne while playing shots, you may not have a stable base. And without that strong base, it becomes difficult to generate the power you actually want. So that is the main technical difference, and accordingly we prepare.

What, according to you, was the difference between the 2024 and 2926 sides?

The difference, in a way, was that the earlier team was a very experienced side, with players like Rohit (Sharma), Virat (Kohli) and (Ravindra) Jadeja in it. They brought a lot of experience into that team. This current team, comparatively, has less experience. But having someone like (Jasprit) Bumrah helps, and of course Hardik is there as well.

If you ask me, the bigger difference was probably in the way the innings were planned. Rohit was more like what we are trying to do now - fearless from ball one. Virat, on the other hand, is someone who builds partnerships, stays there with the other players and tries to take the innings deep. So that was a different type of approach.

Then you have players like Hardik and Abhishek, who bring their own style to the game. Different players bring a different flavour to the team. So overall, I think there is a slightly different approach between the 2024 team and the 2026 side.

Looking ahead, how do you see T20 batting going from here?

I think the way the game is evolving, and with the amount of T20 cricket we are playing now, scoring patterns are changing very quickly. Even during the semifinal we were joking among ourselves about how many runs you would actually need if you bat first.

By 2028, it could become an even bigger challenge. The tournament will be in Australia and New Zealand, and that will bring different conditions - different soil, different pitches, and the way those wickets are prepared. If they are batting-friendly, I would not be surprised if teams start thinking that even 250 might be a competitive first-innings total.

Players are becoming stronger and smarter with time. When India won the 1983 World Cup, I was about 10 years old, and even 200 runs in a 60-over match was considered a huge total. Today, 200 sometimes doesn't look enough even in a 20-over game. That shows how much the game has evolved. Where it will eventually go, I don't know. But one thing is certain - it will continue to challenge players, coaches and everyone involved in the game.