Sehwag must open for India in Tests

I must confess to some delight at the Day 1 scoreboard of India's three-day tune-up game against Hampshire, ahead of the first Test.

And that delight stems from the fact that the tour selection party saw fit to send Virender Sehwag out to open. I had this horrid feeling that half-smart thinking would see the Indians try the 'experiment' of opening with Sanjay Bangar, under the specious reasoning that this will give the side both a batsman and a bowler.

Face facts -- Bangar is neither; not, at least, at the international level. India's last genuine all-rounder, Kapil Dev, said it best when I interviewed him a while ago. An all-rounder, he pointed out, was someone who could significantly turn a game with either bat or ball.

In that sense, the likes of Shaun Pollock and Jacques Kallis of South Africa, Adam Gilchrist of Australia and, to a lesser extent, Kumara Sangakarra of Sri Lanka (as wicket-keepers capable of batting their team to positions of strength), Azhar Mahmood, Abdul Razzaq and Wasim Akram of Pakistan, Chris Cairns of New Zealand, et cetera, are all-rounders. Put Bangar in that list, and the ridiculous nature of the proposition becomes self-evident.

In the course of that same interview, Kapil made another pertinent point: it is time, he suggested, that we realize we do not have an all-rounder of any kind of class, accept that fact, and move on. "There is no point crying about what we don't have, or converting ordinary players into so-called all-rounders," Kapil said then.

Bingo!

Trying Sehwag was for me a good move. I'd like to see that lad go out at the top of the order. Some say his play is too flamboyant for Tests. But where in the manual of Test cricket does it say that a batsman has to play out the first session for some 20 runs to be a Test opener? Anyone remember a gent by the name of Krishnamachari Srikkanth?

Sehwag's advantage is that his cricket is simple -- see ball, hit ball. And a batsman of that mould, going out at the top, can put the opposition on the defensive in a hurry.

We have for too long held up the likes of Deep Dasgupta and S S Das as openers of virtue, arguing that they "put a price on their wicket", they "bat out overs", they "play out the first session", et al.

Think of it from a bowler's -- and fielding team's -- point of view. If, as captain of a fielding side, I go in to lunch on Day 1 with the opposition 40 for no loss off some 25 overs, I am not one bit worried. My bowlers have the lunch hour to recuperate, the fact that they have not been taken for runs means they are not mentally defeated, and the game is still very much in my control.

Against that, if the batting side is going in on something like 90 for one, and one of the batsmen has smashed the bowling around the park, I'm in trouble. The initiative is with the batting side -- because, typically, the second and third sessions are the best for batting and the side is already off to a good start, which means I am looking at a potentially huge score by close of play. And that in turn means I come out to field, in the second session, on the defensive.

Sehwag, for me, is the kind of guy who can get the side off to that kind of start and in the process ensure that when number three comes in, the bowlers are more often than not already on the defensive.

An argument against him is that he is a touch suspect around off stump. To which the counter is, who isn't?

Alongside him, I'd like to see Rahul Dravid walk out to bat. The experiment was tried in South Africa -- and a petulant Dravid walked out as though he were going to meet his executioner. Judging by what I saw then, and heard from both Dravid and others, he was unwilling to take up the role. Why, he argued, should I be the one to be 'sacrificed'?

It is that state of mind, more than any defect in his play, that defeated him in South Africa. Dravid needs, really, to look at it from another point of view. Why did he accept the arduous job of keeping wickets in one-dayers? The party line, meant for us to swallow, was that he was doing it in the team cause. But face it, a bit of self-interest lurks in there as well. With the emergence of Sehwag, Kaif, Yuvraj and Mongia, not to mention the form of Laxman, there is a tremendous amount of pressure on the senior middle-order batsmen.

With Sehwag and Ganguly opening and Tendulkar at four, that basically left only three batting slots up for grabs -- and Laxman, Dravid, Kaif and Mongia were in contention. Dravid obviously realised that his best chance lay in adding another string to his bow.

It is time for him to adopt a similar line of thinking when it comes to Tests. For the sake of argument, say that India goes in with six specialist batsmen, plus a keeper. Say, further, that Sehwag opens, that Laxman bats three, Tendulkar four, and Ganguly bats five. That leaves two slots -- and the choice is between Dravid, Kaif, Mongia and Yuvraj.

Dravid has the best record of the four, admittedly -- but history means nothing. The three youngsters are coming along nicely, two of them are riding an enormous confidence high, and they are obviously the faces of the future.

Obviously, it is time for Dravid to do a Justin Langer, to reinvent himself as an opener. That gives India one stroke-playing opener and one solid anchor-type batsman, whose role is to keep his end up, move the ball around the square, keep the board ticking with singles, and let his partner do the real running.

Assume the stroke-player goes first. It means that while the solid batsman is still around to anchor, Laxman at number three is ideally poised to continue the momentum. (If it is the other way around, well, imagine Laxman and Sehwag batting together!) And if Laxman goes, that brings in Tendulkar, then Ganguly - neither of them batsmen who are shy of playing strokes.

And the greatest plus is this -- it frees up the number six slot, for either Kaif or Mongia. Of the two, on current form, you would need to pick Kaif, a selection that has multiple advantages. One, you pick a 22-year-old player in prime form, and blood him at a time when he has several experienced seniors around to guide him. Two, you allow him the opportunity to translate his one-day form into Tests. And three, you lift the fielding standard up several notches.

Here are two alternate batting lineups:

S S Das, Sanjay Bangar/Wasim Jaffer, V V S Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid...

Or

Virender Sehwag, Rahul Dravid, V V S Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly, Mohammed Kaif...

Which would you pick?

That leaves the bowling, and a few related issues. Which we'll leave aside for another day.

Postscript: The number of emails that came in, by way of response to the postscript at the end of my previous column, leaves me floored.

With the best will in the world, I've only managed to read them, but haven't got down to answering all of them. I will, though, in the course of the coming week. Meanwhile, thanks much for writing in.

Amusingly, one in four mails (and we are talking of over 800 mails here) carried the same request: for a copy of the Lord's final of the NatWest Trophy to be mailed to them. Guys, I have been promised a copy, but it hasn't gotten here yet. And I am not sure how to go about making over 100 copies to send to all those who asked.

How about we play it this way? Will guys who have the tapes, and who are willing to pass on copies to their fellow cricket fans, write in, please? The email, as always, is prem@us.rediff.com

I'll try and match you with those wanting the tapes, from your respective areas. Hey, if fans won't help each other out, who will?

Looking to hear from you....

PREVIOUS COLUMN:
Playing hardball with the rules

India's Tour of England: The complete coverage

More Columns

Mail Prem Panicker