Why Laxman is integral to the future of Indian cricket

By this time, I am only watching the series in Australia out of masochistic impulse. This is without a doubt the worst cricket I have seen India play in the 30 years I have been following the game. In the maulings of the late 80s and early 90s, there were silver linings (Manjrekar standing up to the West Indian quicks in 1989; a young Tendulkar’s stunning early hundreds in adversity in Old Trafford and Perth; and so on). In 1999, we could take solace in the fact that we were beaten by a far superior Australian side, one that was about to embark on its record-breaking 16-consecutive Test win streak. In England this summer, we hid behind injuries as an excuse, and at least had Dravid’s batting to savor. None of those excuses apply here. The first 11 has retained full fitness throughout the first three Tests; it is Australia that has had to do without their key all-rounder throughout, and in Perth, their main strike bowler. There is not a single century to show for our batting efforts, even though each of the top 7 batsmen has reached 50 at least once. (Also, in most cases, only once). And, what hurts the most, we are not up against an exceptional Australian side, but a brittle one. This is a side that has been bowled out for 100 thrice in the last year, including by Pakistan, which is hardly a world champion side at the moment. It is a side that was coming off a home defeat against New Zealand. It is a side where, arguably, only Michael Clarke and Peter Siddle were fixtures going into the series. A side that contained three aging players – Ponting, Hussey and Haddin – fighting for their careers; one player (Hilfenhaus) making a comeback after having been mauled by England the last time he played Test cricket; and a bunch of youngsters, some of whom had already shown promise, but all of whom were yet to establish themselves. If you matched up the teams on paper, the series should have, at this stage, been 2-1 in one direction or another, with everything to play for in Adelaide.

But what depresses me is not the abysmal performance on the field. We have been outthought and outplayed by a team that has played better cricket, led by a captain who has been tactically brilliant and inspirational as a batsman, with five quick bowlers who have been unrelenting, fast, capable of moving the ball, and always coming at the Indians. Throughout the series, even on the rare occasions when partnerships have been built, a wicket has always seemed just a ball away. So let’s face it – the better team won.

What depresses me rather is the response to this win – within certain quarters of the team, amongst those who should be taking responsibility for the defeat, amongst the so-called pundits who ought to know better, and throughout the media. Because really, the only, single, tangible thing that I have heard as a solution to this defeat is – it is time for V.V.S. Laxman’s career to end, and for Rohit Sharma to take his place. Even Sidharth Monga, a cricinfo journalist whom I have great respect for, has written his obituary to Laxman’s career, as an immediate response to the second innings debacle at Perth. Even though, in that very innings, there were failures from Gambhir, Sehwag, Tendulkar and Dhoni as well, with Sehwag’s and Dhoni’s innings being particularly abject.

There are two reasons why such a response is so depressing. The first is – it does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental structural issues that we are facing. We have not lost in Australia (or England) because Laxman failed. We lost because of poor captaincy; because our openers have failed to give us starts; because our bowling has lacked depth, and even when the bowlers have punched above their weights, they have not had enough backing from the captain; because our tail has effectively started at number 7, with the exception of the occasional contribution from Ravi Ashwin; and because of the absolute lack of accountability that permeates our cricketing culture.

Dhoni has claimed that “he is to blame”, and then immediately has the temerity to talk about phasing out the seniors. Srikkanth’s only intervention, first after Sydney and then after Perth, is “it’s not my fault, I picked the best team”. (The idea that Vinay Kumar could be part of a “best team” is laughable, when the likes of Irfan Pathan and Ashok Dinda are sitting at home, raking in wickets by the bucketful). And Duncan Fletcher, whose claim to fame is his ability to improve the techniques of young batsmen, has not a word to say when the techniques of even our established batsmen have been exposed by the moving ball; but he continues to draw his fat pay check. It is all very well to say that the youngsters need time, or that the seniors are past their best. But what about Gambhir and Sehwag, who have shown in the past that they have the techniques to succeed in South Africa, Australia (though Gambhir has only played one-day internationals in Australia) and (in Sehwag’s case) England, but who have been opened up and hung out to dry by the Aussie quicks? In Gambhir’s case, all the bad habits that Gary Kirsten had worked so hard to rid him off are back again – what is Fletcher’s contribution in stopping their slide?

Why is no one calling for Dhoni’s head, or Srikkanth’s, or Fletcher’s? How is dropping Laxman going to sort any of this out? Over the past year, in four spectacular implosions against Pakistan, England, South Africa and New Zealand, Australia made 380 for 40 (an innings average of 95 all out). Between the entry of Michael Clarke at Sydney and the exit of Ed Cowan at Perth, Australia made 836 for 1 (an innings average of 8360 all out). It is not Laxman who was responsible for that, and bringing in Rohit Sharma is not going to address it.

I would like to make two arguments. First, if we are actually looking for people who need to be dropped, then there has to be some empirical basis for it; simply making someone a scapegoat is not going to have the desired effect, and at this point, the gunning for Laxman’s head has all the makings of scapegoating, nothing else. And second – a more radical assertion perhaps – since so many people are talking about dropping Laxman so that we can “build for the future”, I would argue that Laxman is integral to building the future. I take up each of these arguments below.

Empirically, who is the weakest link in our batting?

If one is going to actually look at batting failures, then there are three levels or horizons at which one can do so. The first is at the most immediate horizon – for instance, the current series just gone by. The second is a slightly longer horizon – ideally, the last 18 months to 2 years. It is possible for someone to have a poor series, since all batsmen go through poor form. But if someone has been given a chance for two years and has done poorly, then there is a more serious issue at stake. The third is the question of the intangible: what is the particular value that this batsman brings to the team as a whole, which goes beyond figures or statistics? Let me address each of these in comparative perspective.

In terms of this particular series, only Tendulkar has crossed 200 runs. Laxman and Dhoni bring up the rear amongst the frontline batsmen (if Dhoni can be called that), with 102 runs, with Dhoni’s average marginally inflated by a not out, but still only an unflattering 20 to Laxman’s 17. But the fact is, everyone failed, and the difference between Laxman and the second highest scorer for India, Dravid, is only 66 runs. Sehwag has made only 16 runs more than Laxman, which is statistically insignificant. And that is largely on the strength of his 1st innings 67 at Melbourne, a score he reached only because of the Aussies’ largesse in dropping him twice. Yes, Laxman has failed; but so has everyone else. Only Sachin has made more than one 50 (he has made all of 2). And even his average for the series is nearly 15 less than his career average. Until he was dropped at Perth, Ashwin was India’s second highest run-getter, and would probably have retained that spot had he played. That says it all. In this collective failure, why single out Laxman?

If we look at the slightly longer horizon of the past two years, then we get the following figures for our top order (starting from January 1, 2010, till the end of the Perth Test):

• Gambhir has an average of 32.05 with 1 century, which was against Bangladesh. If you take Bangladesh out of the equation, his average over the past 2 years is 28.5.
• Sehwag’s average is a healthier 46. But on closer inspection: his average in this period in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh is nearly 60. His average in South Africa, England and Australia (three countries where he has enjoyed much success in the past) in this period is 17, with no centuries, and a highest score of 67 made at Melbourne with those two lives. If Gambhir has failed unequivocally in this period, then Sehwag has turned into a flat-track bully.
• Dravid in this time has a batting average of 48 with 8 hundreds, not bad for the oldest cricketer to still be playing Test cricket, and a slap in the face for those who believe that age and not quality should determine selection.
• Tendulkar’s average during this time has been a staggering 62, 7 above his career average, also with 8 centuries, 2 of which were doubles. No surprises there, but then there are those who seem to think that Rohit Sharma is the next Tendulkar. All I can say is … huh?!?
• The much maligned Laxman in this time has an average of 49 (also, as with Sachin, higher than his career average, in spite of averaging just 17 in this series), with 3 hundreds. But what has been more important are the match-winning innings he has played, not all of which have translated into centuries: at Galle against Sri Lanka; at Durban against South Africa; and in Mohali and Bangalore against Australia, in tight 4th innings chases (with Mohali, of course, being a historic knock).
• Kohli, the only youngster who looks worth his salt, has only played Test cricket since June 2011, in which time he averages 27. There is an opinion piece on cricinfo that says that Kohli’s success shows the importance of playing youth over the seniors. The least successful of the seniors has an average that is over 20 runs an innings higher than Kohli’s – so what exactly are we meaning by success here? Of course, Kohli is an investment for the future, we have to be patient with him, and so on – I buy all of that, but let’s face it, so far he hasn’t exactly set the world on fire. (At a similar stage in their careers: Dravid’s average was 35, Tendulkar’s, at the tender age of 17, was nearly 40, Laxman’s was similar to Kohli’s, 29, and Ganguly’s was already 42. None of them had been a regular member of the limited overs side prior to making their Test debut for three years, as Kohli has). There is no point even asking about Raina and Yuvraj – the less said about them, the better.
• And last but not least, our great captain has an average, in this period, of 33. Take Bangladesh out of that equation, and the average slips to 28.

How, then, is Laxman the cause of our failure? Or Dravid, or Tendulkar? And not Gambhir, or Sehwag, or Dhoni?

In terms of actual performance, then, the three people who should really be under the cosh (if we grant that Kohli, at an early stage of his career, should be given a longer rope), are Sehwag, Gambhir and Dhoni, not Dravid, Tendulkar or Laxman. It is not the seniors who have failed us, but the middle generation. That is the generation that should have been leading the side now – Sehwag, Gambhir, Dhoni, Zaheer and Harbhajan. Of those five, over the past two years, only Zak has stepped up to the plate and done the job required of him. But only Harbhajan has been dropped.

At one level, it is tricky to think of dropping Gambhir, Sehwag or Dhoni. For the two years before his long slump started, after all, Gambhir was the bedrock of India’s top order, scoring 8 hundreds in 10 Tests, including 4 in consecutive Tests, against the best attacks in the world (though not in England or Australia). And even now, he exudes an aura of intensity and commitment; in many peoples’ reckoning (including my own), he would have been the man to succeed Dhoni as captain. Dhoni of course had the myth of Captain Cool behind him – a myth that now stands thoroughly exposed, as over the past 7 Tests abroad he has looked more like Captain Clueless, without ever having the Test match batting credentials to make him an automatic selection at no. 7 on batting ability alone. Sehwag is the trickiest of the lot, because there is no question that he is a genius, and the glimpses of that genius shine through even in bad patches – such as the 200 in 44 overs in a one-day game, after he had spent the previous 6 months averaging 12 in the shorter format.

But the fact remains that – yes, even in the case of Gambhir, whom I have always admired and supported – the performances just don’t stand scrutiny. In Dhoni’s case, I just don’t think he is a good enough Test match batsman, keeper or captain to justify being retained any longer in the longer form. (He himself has suggested that he will step down from Tests at the end of 2013. Why wait so long? If we really are so obsessed about “building for the future”, why not groom a wicket-keeper straight away so that he can have a couple of years of Test cricket at home before having to tour South Africa, England and Australia in 2014-15?). In Gambhir’s and Sehwag’s cases, the ability is there, a longer rope is justified, but for a team whose success depends so much on its opening pair, the collective failure of both openers over such an extended period of time is just untenable. Over the past 6 months (and that includes the home series against a mediocre West Indies side), our opening partnership has averaged less than 15. That is a truly damning figure.

There are two things that have protected the image of Gambhir, Sehwag and Dhoni – and none of them have to do with their Test match ability or performance. The first is that they have continued to perform in limited overs games. Dhoni has always been an exceptional limited overs batsman, and the fact that he could barely score a run in the Tests in England, but then followed it up with a batting run in the one-day games when he wasn’t dismissed even once, says it all. I laughed when Ravi Shastri said in commentary in Australia that Dhoni is “out-of-form”. This is not lack of form – it is lack of ability in the longer form of the game, covered up by performances in the shorter form. Sehwag hasn’t performed consistently in limited overs, but then he produces that occasional innings that defies logic – such as the 175 in the World Cup opener, or the 219 against the West Indies – so the belief that, on his day, anything is possible, remains. On his day, it is true that anything is possible. The problem is that his day is coming less and less often, and, on sporting wickets, is hardly coming at all. Even Gambhir, who has shown himself to be a Test batsman of ability, has continued to score heavily in one-day games even while continuing to fail in Tests.

The second is that – other than Tendulkar – these three are the most marketable cricketers in India today. In between overs in games where India is performing abjectly, these three show up selling products; that last ball six to seal the World Cup from Dhoni is shown again and again. We are living in an age where the quality of a cricketer is determined by the media and advertising more than by facts and performance – and nowhere more so than in India. Laxman doesn’t show up in ads anymore; Laxman cannot redeem himself in limited overs cricket. (And indeed, Laxman doesn’t show up in ads because he doesn’t play limited overs cricket – once he was dropped from the Indian one-day side in 2003, the advertising endorsements also ended). Ergo, Laxman is dispensable, while Gambhir, Sehwag and Dhoni are not. Facts or performance have nothing to do with it.

I don’t mind giving some people a longer rope than others, and I think that Gambhir and Sehwag, for different reasons, have deserved the ropes they have gotten. (Gambhir because of his attitude and sheer bloody-mindedness, and his consistency when at his best; Sehwag for his genius, the psychological impact he can have on an opposition, and for the fact that he is one of India’s two match-winners in Test cricket – the other being Laxman. Sehwag wins us matches from the front, Laxman wins them with his back-to-the-wall; but both have won us more games than Dravid, whose efforts have tended to be match-saving or critically supporting, but who has been responsible for some of our more famous wins, such as Adelaide, Rawalpindi and Kingston (twice), or Tendulkar, who in spite of his monumental individual records has still contributed less in the really critical games than Laxman has). But the openers’ prolonged run drought must put them under the scanner, not just because of their individual failings, but because of how it has contributed to the team’s overall failure. It is clear that for India’s batting to click, especially abroad and against good attacks, getting a start has been critical. Our initial competitiveness abroad was built on finally getting an opening pair that could see off the new ball in the early 2000s (whether Sehwag and Bangar, or Sehwag and Chopra); our slump in the mid-2000s coincided with the musical chairs being played with openers as Chopra was unfairly jettisoned, followed by Sehwag’s complete loss of form and confidence; our series win in England was on the back of a successful combination between Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik, the latter being the highest scorer in that series; and our actual rise to the top has been because of Gambhir and Sehwag playing at the peak of their games between 2008 and 2010. The equally dramatic fall has coincided, equally, with the fall in performance of these two.

None of this is going to be addressed by dropping Laxman. However good a batsman Rohit Sharma may or may not be (and I for one am dubious that he has the technique to do well on fast bouncy tracks abroad, since pretty much all of his success has come in the shorter forms of the game), he is not going to give India 400+ scores if the openers aren’t doing their jobs.

Hence, it is essential, if we are thinking about changes in personnel, to start at the top in two senses. First, we need to hold the leadership accountable, and remove the captain, coach and vice-captain from their positions of leadership. Sehwag was never going to be the right choice to succeed Dhoni as captain anyway; he has shown himself to be an ordinary captain, whether in the IPL (where the Delhi Daredevils, after four editions, have been the poorest aggregate performers, in spite of consistently having amongst the strongest line-ups on paper), or on the occasions he has captained India (most spectacularly in Napier, when he seemed completely bereft of ideas and would have lost us the game had it not been for Gambhir’s 7-hour marathon to save it).

And second, we need to start at the top in terms of trying out a new opening pair in Tests. The irony is, we do have openers who are good enough to play international cricket. Neither Abhinav Mukund nor Ajinkya Rahane are finished products yet, but if we are talking about “building for the future”, then both are thoroughly worthwhile investments. It is worth giving them a chance in the home series against England and Australia this coming year. Gambhir, I think, values the India cap dearly, and he is young enough to have another shot at it; but he needs to be made to go back to domestic cricket and earn it the hard way, not depend on strong limited overs performances to keep him in the Test side. Whether Sehwag has the fire in the belly to do that anymore remains an open question – he is, after all, 33, at which age Ganguly was already being hounded out of international cricket, and even Tendulkar was being written off. (Remember the “Endulkar” signs around Indian grounds in 2006? And how he was even being booed on his home ground in Bombay? If we had decided to “build for the future” and listen to the pundits who were calling for his head then, we would have missed 5 of the most glorious years of batsmanship in the history of Test cricket, anywhere). But if Sehwag doesn’t have the fire to fight for his spot, then he shouldn’t be playing Test cricket for India. Meanwhile, Dinesh Karthik, after a poor domestic season in 2010-11, has started making runs for Tamilnadu in abundance. He is a much better Test batsman than Dhoni technically, and has shown this in trying conditions abroad, without ever having the security of an extended run in the side. (As a keeper, he was always a stand-in keeper for Dhoni, knowing that however well he played, he would be dropped on Dhoni’s return. But if he is given the security of an extended run, he has a lot to offer India still. If we do stick to 6 frontline batsmen, he is a far better Test no. 7 in all conditions than Dhoni. And he allows us the option of playing 5 bowlers as well, because of his ability to double up as an opening batsman).

Laxman’s role in this transition

Simply as a batsman, therefore, I think Laxman needs to be retained in the side. This is because I think, if we look over the past two years, he has been amongst the most important batsmen in the side, playing critical, match-winning roles for us at crucial junctures. Temperamentally as well, he has a very important role to play in the team, because he is clearly someone who maintains the equilibrium of the dressing room, someone whom everyone looks up to, trusts, and respects. And in any case, dropping him is not going to solve our problems, even if Rohit Sharma, as an individual, proves good enough for Test cricket (something that is possible, but which I don’t think is at all a given), because unless we get a good captain who can lead from the front, and good openers who can give us starts, we are going to keep losing abroad, and will quite likely start losing at home as well against good teams. (Teams like England and Australia will not let us off the hook if we are 85 for 6, as we were against the West Indies in Delhi).

But I think Laxman has an even bigger role to play, because I think the crisis we face is as big as the one that we faced at the end of Dravid’s captaincy. Then, of course, there was also a crisis of trust, since Greg Chappell’s tenure as coach had damaged the dressing room environment. But the “rebuilding” that has to happen now has to be around building new leadership. If Gambhir was sure of his place in the side, there would have been no questions asked, he could have taken over the reins and would have had the authority to do so. But if Gambhir’s place is also in question, then there is a real question mark as to who can succeed Dhoni as captain.

I think Virat Kohli is a future India captain, and I actually think the time has come for him to take over the reins in limited overs cricket. He has been playing international cricket for three-and-a-half years now, which is longer than Dhoni was playing for India when he was made captain for the T20 World Cup. And his position in the side, as one of the most prolific one-day batsmen in the world, is secure in that format. But while I see a future for Kohli as a Test batsman, he clearly isn’t secure enough as a Test batsman to be entrusted with the leadership yet. I think his performance under fire at Perth was a turning point, and I think we are going to see a lot of good things from him in Test cricket going forward. But he needs a year leading the one-day side, and further establishing himself in the Test middle order, before he is made captain in both formats.

A critical part of the transition between Dravid’s captaincy and Dhoni’s was the role played by Kumble. He helped knit the team back together, he led with pride and passion, and even though he himself knew that his role at the helm would be a short-term one, he prepared the ground for Dhoni to take over by handing him a team that had gotten over the scars of the Chappell era and that was starting to believe in itself again. As a bowler, Kumble was still good enough to be in the playing 11 in that year when he led the side, but there was no question that his best days were already behind him. Nonetheless, the role that he played that year was integral to Indian cricket finding its feet again.

Laxman can play that role now. He has always been a good captain, tactically and in terms of supporting his players, and if India is to transition smoothly from the Dhoni era to the Kohli era (as I think it must), then Laxman has a big role to play in facilitating that transition. After all he has achieved for India, the very least he deserves is to exit on his own terms. But I see a much larger role for him than that, and it is not based in charity. It is based on the value he brings to the side, as a player, a leader, and a mentor. Rather than hound him out, why not make use of him, and value him for the great player that he is, for a change? It may only be for a few months, but a Laxman captaincy through the 2012-13 season could help us erase the scars of the past 6 months and build a platform upon which we can be competitive again on the world stage in Tests. I have no hope that this will happen, but as an Indian cricket lover, I can only write, and hope that the few people who read this at least will be convinced of the value that Laxman can still bring to Indian cricket.