NewKerala.com

Sehwag Reveals Why Delhi Picked Sangwan Over Kohli in 2008 IPL Draft

Virender Sehwag has revealed that the Delhi Daredevils passed on signing Virat Kohli ahead of the inaugural 2008 IPL season. The decision was driven by a surplus of top-order batting options, including Sehwag himself, Gautam Gambhir, Shikhar Dhawan, and others. The team instead opted for left-arm pacer Pradeep Sangwan to address a bowling shortage. Kohli was subsequently signed by Royal Challengers Bengaluru, where he has remained for 17 seasons and become the league's all-time leading run-scorer.

Key Points: Sehwag: Delhi Picked Sangwan Over Kohli in 2008 IPL

  • Delhi had surplus top-order batsmen
  • Needed bowling options
  • Kohli was batting at 3 or 4
  • RCB signed Kohli for $50,000
  • Kohli is IPL's highest run-scorer
2 min read

'We had a lot of top order options': Sehwag on Delhi picking Sangwan over Kohli in IPL 2008

Virender Sehwag explains Delhi Daredevils' 2008 decision to pick bowler Pradeep Sangwan over a young Virat Kohli due to a crowded top order.

"We had a lot of top-order batters... We lacked a bowler, so we decided to go with Pradeep Sangwan instead of Kohli. - Virender Sehwag"

New Delhi, April 16

Former Indian opener Virender Sehwag has revealed the reason behind Delhi Daredevils not signing Virat Kohli before the inaugural season in 2008, saying they had a bunch of top-order options and needed more bowlers,

Sehwag was the captain of the side in the first season after signing for them before the first-ever auction as an 'icon player.' "So at Delhi Daredevils back in 2008, the inaugural IPL season, I remember Shikhar Dhawan was also in our team along with Tilakratne Dilshan. Both of them were openers, but we used to make them bat at three and five because Gautam and I used to open the innings. Manoj Tiwary had taken the number four spot. So we had a lot of top-order batters in the team, and it was becoming difficult to fit all of them in the batting order," Sehwag told Star Sports.

"At that time, Virat Kohli was also batting at number three or four. So we didn't even have space to bring him in. We lacked a bowler, so we decided to go with Pradeep Sangwan instead of Kohli," he added.

After Delhi's denial, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) signed Kohli for USD 50,000. Virat still plays for the same team and remains the only player in the history of the IPL who has played for the same team in all 19 seasons of the league so far. Kohli is the highest run-scorer in IPL history, holding over 8,840 runs across 272 matches.

Meanwhile, Sangwan played three seasons for the Delhi Daredevils. He had an average outing with the ball as the pacer picked just 29 wickets in 28 matches he played for the team. Later, he also represented Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) and Gujarat Lions (GL).

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Hindsight is 20/20, but the logic made sense at the time. They had an embarrassment of riches in batting. Sangwan was a promising left-arm pacer, a rare commodity. Can't blame the management for trying to balance the side.
R
Rohit P
This is why auctions and team building are so tricky. One decision changes everything. Delhi's loss was Bangalore's gain, big time. Kohli's loyalty to RCB is legendary now. Sangwan was decent but nowhere near that level. Tough luck for Delhi!
S
Sarah B
As a cricket fan, this is fascinating. It shows even the greats like Sehwag and the think-tank can miss a future superstar. But to be fair, in 2008, Kohli was a talented U-19 kid, not the run-machine he is today.
V
Vikram M
Respect to Sehwag for explaining it so clearly. They needed a bowler. Simple. But yaar, just think of the brand value and fan following Kohli would have brought to Delhi! Delhi Capitals could have been a completely different franchise.
M
Michael C
This is a classic sports management lesson. You balance current needs vs. future potential. They addressed an immediate weakness (bowling) over a future batting star. It's easy to criticize now, but the decision had merit then.
K

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50