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. 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.