Not Cricket!

Just Not Cricket!

Ganga Prasad G. Rao, http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar

It's like the Peter Pan story line .......It has happened before and it will happen again.. No, this is not another fairy tale; in fact it is something very real. I mean the collapse of the (Indian) batting line! Time and again the celebrated batting prowess of India has bit the dust before the eyes of the millions thronging fans. Be it Sachin, Gavaskar, Azhar, Dravid, or even the coach Vengsarkar, they knew exactly when to leave Team India in the lurch! A mere 250 runs to win an ODI?, 300 to avoid follow on? or even holding the fort on the fifth and final day? – you say it, we have goofed up! Why, it's the middle order and the tailenders who have time and again come to the rescue of the nation (and were penalized for it by having to bowl immediately after their long stay at the crease while their more respected counterparts stood hands in the pocket in the slips!). So much so, if batsmen were paid by their batting position and expected contribution, I'd sue the BCCI for wage fraud!

I'm not the first one to suggest a re-ordering of the batting line-up. Many captains have experimented with sending middle order batsmen or tailenders up over frontliners. But that was motivated largely by injury concerns or the fear of losing wickets at the fag end of the day. My point is that altering the batting lineup is the captain's prerogative and, in fact, a strategic option. Take ODIs for example. Many would argue that one should come out with one's guns firing, in other words with the best bats to start the innings. Others would join that bandwagon arguing that sending tailenders to start the innings would amount to massacre of the innocents. But, isn't it equally, if not more unjustified, to pressure these very tail-enders with saving the game against a hostile enemy breathing fire after the frontliners abdicated their responsibility by failing abjectly at the crease?

For just for a moment consider a reversal of the batting order. Let tail-enders start the innings. There are two possibilities. First and as expected, they fail and the scoreboard reads 10 for 5. So what? It would have been much the same even otherwise – perhaps with the best batsmen back in the pavilion! At least now, the established bats have an opportunity to prove their mettle knowing there is no one behind them to shore up the innings – an opportunity to prove their mettle, or if they fail, own up to some responsibility for the defeat. Second, one or more of the tail-enders find their groove and move up the scoreboard. Good! No problems! In fact, there is every possibility of fruitful partnerships if tailenders were alternated with established frontline and middle order batsmen who guarded their weaker companion by keeping the strike. Isn't this is a win-win strategy?

You may argue that the bowling team would respond to the change in batting order by re-allocating its bowlers. Yes, they could, but they would be handicapped by the new ball that can't be handed to spinners rightaway. Besides, they might play in to the batting team's strategy if they start with inferior bowlers – which goes to support the assertion that there is nothing lost by opening the innings with tail-enders (now that 'ducking' is not considered unbecoming of even a frontline batsman). In fact, given the various factors - pitch, weather, bowlers - their strength and use, as well as the stage of the game and the (power play) options used or unused – that determine the batting order, it'd be interesting how rival captains anticipate and counter each other's strategy.

So, the next time Sachin walks in to partner Dravid, let the scoreboard read 200 for 9 with 301 as the winning target. Let them earn my respect ...... and their not inconsiderable endorsement moolah!