Don't juggle with the batting order
Examine the records of the most successful batsmen in history and it will be evident that one of the reasons for this is the fact that they enjoyed a fixed position in the batting order
Partab Ramchand
17-Jun-2000
Examine the records of the most successful batsmen in history and it
will be evident that one of the reasons for this is the fact that they
enjoyed a fixed position in the batting order. Jack Hobbs and Herbert
Sutcliffe always opened the batting, Don Bradman was a natural No 3
and Walter Hammond usually came in at No 4. It always helps if a
batsman knows the exact position he is going to go in. Mentally he is
then relaxed and you have be mentally very strong to be a successful
cricketer.
And yet the manner in which some Indian cricketers have been bounced
up and down the order like a yo yo does not speak well of the
selectors or the team management. Ashok Mankad has been a classic
example. He came into the Indian team in 1969 basically as a middle
order batsman. He did reasonably well but because of circumstances, he
was pushed into the opening position. He did well initially but a poor
series in England in 1971 spelt finis to his career as an opening bat.
In fact for some time he was out of the team altogether but in the mid
70s, forced his way back as a middle order batsman. For the next few
years, he was shuttled anywhere in the batting order from No 3 to No 7
and the result was that he could not do justice to his talent and
skill as his final record of 991 runs from 22 Tests at an average of
25.41 spread over almost a decade indicates. In fact during his
career, he batted in every position from No 1 to No 8 and the
authorities have to take the major share of the blame for their
slipshod handling of a batsman capable of a better record.
In the 90s, a similar mess was made of Sanjay Manjrekar's career. He
was a batsman built in the classic mould and would have been a natural
No 3 or No 4, like his great father Vijay. He started his career in
the middle order but was promoted to the one down slot in Pakistan in
1989. An instant success, he provided both solidity and strokeplay and
in the early 90s he seemed to be a worthy successor to Vengsarkar and
Mohinder Amarnath who had occupied the slot successfully for much of
the previous decade. He however failed in Australia in 1991-92 and in
South Africa the following season with only one innings of note - a
century against Zimbabwe. He was immediately dropped and with the
selectors showing faith in Pravin Amre and Vinod Kambli, Manjrekar's
career seemed virtually over. However he was brought back for the
series against Sri Lanka at home in early 1994, batting at No 6 in all
the three Tests. In a couple of Tests after that he was again sent in
at No 3. In England in 1996, he was sent in at No 7 in one Test and
even opened the innings in another, as also against South Africa in
1996-97. By now, this batsman of classical style had been reduced to
just seeking a game and he even offered to open regularly. But by this
time it was obvious that the selectors did not know what to do with
him, especially after Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid had been
discovered. And by 1997, at the age of 32, he announced his premature
retirement. On pedigree, talent and skill he certainly should have
played more than 37 Tests and run up much better figures than an
aggregate of 2043 runs and an average of 37.14. Again the selectors
(or the team management) should take the blame for this.
In a way, WV Raman suffered the same fate. In his first Test, going in
at No 3, he scored 83. But in his very next game he was sent in at No
6. Subsequently he was in and out of the team for some time and
desperate for a game, he offered himself as an opening batsman. He did
open in a few Tests but was only moderately successful. Finally he
could not be accommodated either in the opening position or the middle
slot and in fact made a tour of Sri Lanka without playing a single
first class game. A career full of promise ended in disappointment.
The latest in the line of such `victimised' batsmen seem to be VVS
Laxman and Rahul Dravid. Laxman, essentially a middle order batsman,
has been pushed to the No 1 slot in a bid to solve India's opening
batting problem. The point is he has been shuttled already between the
opening slot and the middle order in his 18 Tests and his sensational
167 in the third Test against Australia at Sydney in January this year
notwithstanding, there is little doubt that he could serve Indian
cricket better at No 5 or No 6. His stupendous run in the recently
concluded Ranji Trophy season is proof of this.
With a successful opening pair still a dream, the selectors in the
last series against South Africa even pushed Dravid to that
specialised slot. Despite recent failures, there is little doubt that
Dravid is a natural one drop batsman. Pushing him into the opening
slot, besides not being the right move to solve the perennial problem
at the top of the order, could also stifle Dravid's progress and that
is one thing Indian cricket can do without.
The point to note is that selectors (or the team management) should
not juggle with the batting slots in the order. That is a sure way of
demoralising the batsman, lowering his average and causing
irrepairable damage to the team balance.