NEWS
GROUNDS
COLUMNS
MATCH REPORTS
INTERVIEWS
ENEMY CAMP
GALLERY
SCHEDULE
FORUM

Keep the faith

Dravid a century batting at No. 3, Laxman a duck playing as an opener. What does this tell us? Tour matches can often be a loose guide to Test form, but the game between India and Tasmania seems to send an accurate message: Bring Dravid up to his rightful position at first-drop and lower Laxman down the order.

In the first Test of this challenging series, India curiously chose to depart from the norm by adjusting its batting order and dropping the usual Nos. 3, 4, and 5 down a notch. This appeared to be a defensive measure in an attempt to protect the big three from the inherent dangers of the new ball. As is the case with most negative ploys, it had the reverse effect, as the very players who were seemingly trying to be shielded were exposed to the new ball sooner than ever. Using VVS Laxman at No. 3 to act as a wall between the vulnerable openers and the critical middle order did not work out, particularly in the second innings when he was knocked over first ball.

This shifting of positions probably made a negligible difference to the end result as the batsmen, wherever they are picked, must continue to make runs. But it was still a strange and unsound tactic which has been widely admonished. Now the Indian party has apparently wisened up and Dravid, Tendulkar, and Ganguly are set to return to their customary positions for the second Test from Sunday week.

But what of the rest? Batting, strangely, is the area in need of some tinkering as the bowling attack has a settled look about it and can be expected to at least perform decently in Melbourne. Sadagoppan Ramesh seems to have a big innings awaiting him just around the corner, so the places in need of determining are No. 1 and No. 6. After Devang Gandhi’s twin failures in Adelaide, where he was exposed against the short ball, the consensus of opinion seems to be that he is discarded, with Laxman moving up to open and either Kanitkar or Bharadwaj filling the No. 6 position.

It is difficult to know what to make of Gandhi’s omission from the team playing Tasmania, given that five other certainties for the second Test are also being rested. After one poor Test, has he been consigned to spectating for the remainder of the tour?

The problem with making Laxman an opener is that he is not a specialist. Gandhi is, apparent shortcomings notwithstanding. In the first innings in Adelaide Laxman performed well, crafting 41 in almost ideal batting conditions before succumbing to a McGrath lifter. But in the second dig, when he was a virtual opener in any event, Fleming got one to come back through his defences with the first ball he faced. In short, he did no better than the besieged Gandhi in testing conditions for an opener.

With seam and bounce predicted for Melbourne, Laxman’s task is only going to be more demanding and it is quite doubtful that he would last any longer than Gandhi at the top of the order. That being the case, why make a change when Dravid is coming into form at No. 3? Why not move Laxman to No. 6, where he would be more assured and have greater freedom to play his strokes, and show solidarity by backing Gandhi, the man originally entrusted to do the job? That way, the status quo is maintained at the top and a new player won’t be risked lower down.

The team selectors had to know how difficult it was going to be for Gandhi, and now it has been confirmed. Nothing else has changed. Even if he does fail again, India loses little overall and Gandhi at least gains the experience of playing in the most demanding Australian conditions, which is something India has been desiring here for its emerging players. And should he make a few runs by finding a way to combat McGrath and co., his confidence will undoubtedly receive a boost.

By taking the opposite approach, leaving Gandhi out and bringing in an inexperienced batsman at six, India is also showing the Australian camp that it is unsure of itself and lacks confidence in the players selected. Change on a Test-by-Test basis is not a sign of assurance, and too much of it must have a destabilising effect on the team.

Since India can only select from its touring party, they are basically in a no-win situation, unless Mongia were to be selected as a wicketkeeper/opener, which would be a huge regression considering he was brought over as a back-up keeper. The second Test is more than a week away and there is still the second innings in Hobart remaining, so this is all quite preliminary. Laxman, in the end, is still likely to be selected to open. But of the group they have to choose from there is no clearly better medium-term option than Gandhi, and with India only in need of confidence, minor adjustment rather than wholesale change should be the focus of the tour selectors.

Show some faith and maybe it will be repaid, if not on this tour then at some stage in the future.

Daniel Laidlaw