Gautam Gambhir, the Indian head coach, claimed that the decision of backing Sanju Samson mid-tournament as being more tactical than courageous. Samson, who had featured in only one out of India's first five games in the T20 World Cup, returned to the side in the Super Eight match against Zimbabwe, and cracked three successive half-centuries in as many must-win games to end up as the Player of the Tournament in India's victorious campaign.

Samson, who was expected to open for India at the World Cup, had endured a poor run in the home series against New Zealand leading up to the mega-tournament. That, coupled with some blazing innings by Ishan Kishan at No. 3, left the Indian team management in a bit of a dilemma with options of plenty. They ended up putting faith in Kishan to open with Abhishek Sharma during the initial games.

However, with two left-handers at the top, followed by Tilak Varma, Rinku Singh, Shivam Dube and Axar Patel, oppositions used their offspin resources to good effect against the hosts.

Gambhir denied the decision of bringing back Samson into the line-up as one to offset the match-up, and claimed that he was merely given a break for a few matches.

"More than the courage, it was a tactical change," Gambhir said of the decision to include Samson for the last three games ahead of Rinku Singh. "More importantly, I don't think so me and the captain ever felt that Sanju was out of form. We always felt that after the New Zealand series that he needed a break. Sometimes it's good as a leadership group to give someone a break as well. Because you want to go off the pressure, and then you want to just clean up your head and all that stuff and then come back.

"Obviously, we had the luxury of playing different combinations as well. And that is the depth of that squad. We had Rinku batting at that number, and then we felt that probably we needed to break that three left-handers at the top; not from a point of view where we felt that off spinner was an issue. Trust me. It was never a discussion that off spinner is going to create a lot of problem for our two left-handers at the top. We just felt that probably can we have someone with Sanju's ability and with that power at the top, and we can have three explosive guys at one, two and three. That was the reason. I don't think it was courage, it was tactical.

"More importantly, the talent that we know that Sanju had and we knew that the way he was batting in the nets, there was no doubt that he's going to come in and deliver it for us. And how well has he delivered for us? I don't think I remember someone coming back and scoring that consistently in all the three games, or probably all the four games.

"I felt we are very blessed as a team and as a coach and captain for the amount of depth we have in that dressing room. Because we could have played three, four, five combinations. We could have played two wrist spinners. We could have played batsmen till number 8 - we could have had different combinations at the top. We had three openers who could bat any time at the top. So I felt that it was never about being courageous. It is also about being tactical."

Beyond the depth and options that India had, they have also played high-risk cricket in T20s. It has delivered them the desired results on most days, but also backfired at times - like in the Super Eight match against South Africa which nearly threatened elimination. However, Gambhir defended the high risk-high reward approach.

"I always believe that high risk, high reward is the only way to play a T20 format, and you don't fear losing a game of cricket to win a game of cricket. If you start fearing to lose a game of cricket, you will never win. And that's why, my ideology with the captain was very simple - we will not play a match of 160-170. I would rather accept that we get all out at 100, but that 150-160 takes you nowhere.

"If you play high risk, that's when you make 250-260 runs. And there will be days like that and it can come in the future. And they have come. We lost a match against South Africa by 100 runs - But that ideology never changed, that mindset never changed. I never thought that now let's play a little subdued. Because after South Africa, all our matches were must-win matches. All were knockout matches. But despite that, if you play that kind of cricket, that's when you give yourself the best chance to win big tournaments."