Old wine, meet new bottle

In 2006, Greg Chappell and Rahul Dravid were at the helm of Indian cricket. The Indian team was gearing up for a run at the upcoming 2007 World Cup. There was a great deal of hue and cry over the fact that India did not have a settled #3 batsman.

On February 12th, 2006, on my blog I wrote:

The IndianOil Cup in Sri Lanka was the first time Rahul Dravid was made the captain for an entire series, under the aegis of Greg Chappell. Since that time the following players have batted at #3 - Mohammad Kaif, Irfan Pathan, MS Dhoni, JP Yadav, Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, SK Raina, and VVS Laxman.

The criticism that was being leveled at that time was that the oh-so-easily-insecure batsmen were unsure who was batting where, and that it was ruining the player's confidence. In searching for a method behind the seeming madness, I thought I found one.

I searched for a pattern and I think I am beginning to see one. The Indian think-tank (Chappell, Dravid and Tendulkar) appear to have broken up the batsmen into two categories - the accelerators (Sehwag, Yuvraj, Pathan, Dhoni) and the anchors (Tendulkar, Dravid, Kaif). These 7 form the central core of their batting lineup.

The manipulation of the batting line-up is based on pairing an accelerator with an anchor as much as possible. Which role-players will go in to bat depends upon the state of the match:

The generic formula: Sehwag and Tendulkar will open. Sehwag's mandate is to accelerate, while Tendulkar's is to consolidate. If Sehwag gets out early - either Pathan or Yuvraj or Dhoni will go in. If Tendulkar gets out first - either Kaif or Dravid will go in.

The plan did not quite work out in the World Cup because of factors not completely in their control.

Unfortunately for the think-tank, the worst possible thing happened. Sehwag's ODI form hit rock bottom and, soon, Pathan joined him there. Yuvraj Singh hit a purple patch of form and India rode the crest of his, Dhoni's, and (for some time) Pathan's feats to the tune of 18 straight successful chases (oh, how easily the media forgets this astounding feat).

But then Yuvraj, a vital cog in the scheme, was rendered hors de combat, and Raina/Mongia could not fill his void. Eventually the scheme was adjusted to try to fit the personnel available and this coincided with the clamouring for all experimentation to stop. (Ironically, this is the time when they needed to experiment the most to find the pieces to replace the cogs that had begun to malfunction).

The end result was that Chappell was eased out, Dravid eventually resigned, and serendipitously, India discovered that MS Dhoni was a brilliant captain, in spite of a total lack of experience in that role.

Fast forward to today. Once again, the Indian batting line-up is in a flux. Stop the presses!! Sidharth Monga (there he is once more!) picks up the thesis, as if it is a new concept, again.

So who is India's No. 3 for ODIs? Gautam Gambhir? Only when Sachin Tendulkar plays. But wait a minute, didn't Mahendra Singh Dhoni feature at one-down in the Napier ODI with Tendulkar opening with Virender Sehwag? Gambhir didn't even get to bat then.

Suresh Raina would be a close guess, but he has done it only five times out of his past 11 matches, and on 15 occasions during his 61-match career.

How about Yuvraj Singh? Not really, having batted at No. 3 14 times in his 228 games. But he can make a surprise appearance every now and then.

Dhoni attempts to clarify this (seemingly) bewildering state of affairs when he says:

Dhoni took the uncertainty game one step ahead after India won the previous match. That involved the roles the different batsmen were supposed to play. One of the keys is for one batsman to provide stability from one end so that the likes of Sehwag, Yuvraj, Raina and Yusuf can play their natural game.

"We have Sachin, Gautam and lower down the order, myself, who can do this job," Dhoni said. "But in between we change that also, so the opposition can't really be sure that the batsmen will play their innings in a certain way. At times he is given the responsibility to play aggressive cricket too, because the opposition keeps thinking he will look to take the innings through."

Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it? Before we get too ahead of ourselves we must let some old demons rise up one more time.

But there is a fine line between a clever, better shuffle and a muddle. If the ploy surprises the opposition, it must also leave the batsmen themselves a touch unsure. By the time the captain-coach combine of Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell was done, a major criticism was that with so many shuffles no batsman was certain of what his role in the side was.

My take has always been simple. If the captain (and coach) of the team clearly explains to each player what the overall strategy is and how their play fits in the big scheme of things, I don't see anyone having problems with that. The only concern (and this is a big one) is that the selectors need to be aware of this before they take a knee-jerk approach and discard someone for a lean spell while simply following team orders. It has happened before (most noticeably with Aakash Chopra in the recent past) and nothing convinces me that it will not happen in the near future. 

I just hope that the 2011 World Cup does not get sacrificed at the altar of public perception, like the 2007 edition was.