If it ain't broke, don't fix it

There are certain pre-requisites for a successful international squad, and one of the most important is to never tinker with a settled batting line-up. Unfortunately, we in India have rarely followed this maxim. Trivia buffs remember Vinoo Mankad for batting in every position from number one to 11 in his 44-Test career. His son Ashok fared only a little better; in 22 Tests, he went in at all positions from number one to eight. But we never learn from past mistakes.

But in the 21st century, the signs so far have been alarming. As it is, finding a reliable pair of opening batsmen is proving to be a major problem. It is imperative under the circumstances, then, that the middle order is not tinkered with and can cover up for the obvious weaknesses at the top.

We have not even bothered to look critically at history and discover for ourselves that the most successful Indian teams have always had a settled and balanced look about their batting. It is very rare that a team is unchanged throughout a series, and even rarer in Indian cricket. In 1971, however, the same eleven played in all three Tests against England, and the result was a historic triumph.

A player certainly performs better when he knows that he has a fixed place in the batting order. The batting line-up for that England series read: Sunil Gavaskar, Ashok Mankad, Ajit Wadekar, Dilip Sardesai, Gundappa Viswanath, Eknath Solkar, Farokh Engineer and Abid Ali. There was never any chance of chopping and changing and, except for Mankad and to a lesser extent Abid Ali, everyone came off, and a 75 percent success rate provided the passport to victory.

Take another case ­ the Indian line-up during the late '70s and early '80s. The quartet of Gavaskar, Chetan Chauhan, Dilip Vengsarkar and Viswanath took firm root in the series against the West Indies in 1978-79, and they remained the first four names in the batting order till the series in New Zealand in 1980-81. Anshuman Gaekwad and Mohinder Amarnath, and later Yashpal Sharma and Sandip Patil, were at numbers five and six, with Kapil Dev to follow. The batting had a balanced and settled look, with the right blend of artists and artisans, stonewallers and swashbucklers. The result made for one of the most successful phases enjoyed by any team in Indian cricket. The players, certain not only of their place in the side but also of their position, came good with consistent scores, centuries and double centuries, major partnerships, and record totals.

Look at almost any of the successful batsmen in history, and it will be seen that they have enjoyed, more or less, a permanent slot in the batting order. Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe opened the batting every time; Donald Bradman and George Headley went in at number three; Walter Hammond and Graeme Pollock batted number four.

Even in Indian cricket, Vijay Merchant and Gavaskar were natural openers, Wadekar was the number three bat, Sachin Tendulkar and Viswanath number four, Vengsarkar and Amarnath either number three or four, Mohammad Azharuddin number four or five. Indeed, in the late '90s, there were healthy signs of the batting settling down when, in a number of Tests, the batting order from number three to number six remained constant - Rahul Dravid, Tendulkar, Azharuddin and Sourav Ganguly.

But in the 21st century, the signs so far have been alarming. As it is, finding a reliable pair of opening batsmen is proving to be a major problem. It is imperative under the circumstances, then, that the middle order is not tinkered with and can cover up for the obvious weaknesses at the top.

The middle order, in fact, has an extremely healthy look about it. A line-up of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and VVS Laxman, on the face of it, is enough to give bowlers nightmares. It is the threat of being shuttled up and down the order that is damaging the tried and tested campaigners and weakening them temperamentally. Laxman, for example, has time and again made it clear that he is not interested in opening the batting. Similarly, Dravid has failed repeatedly when pushed up, unwillingly, like the sacrificial lamb, to open. Both of them are fairly established players, with more-than-reasonable success in the middle order, and that is where they should remain. There should also be no talk of Ganguly or Tendulkar opening; they have proved themselves in the middle order, and that is where they should stay.

Until Connor Williams is able to establish himself or until Sadagopan Ramesh stages a comeback, one fears that the opening slot will remain a lottery. But it would be better if the fast-improving Deep Dasgupta is entrusted with the job. The middle-order batting ­ the one strong point in an otherwise fragile Indian team ­ should not be tinkered with. Pressing the panic button is not going to solve the opening woes, and elevating one of the established middle-order players into the specialist slot is a sure way of doing just that.