I considered the career averages of the seven regular openers (including Sehwag) and the number of Tests they played before being dropped for good (Wasim Jaffer has not technically made a comeback). The inference I hoped to make was that any struggling batsman was bound to succeed given a long run, something that openers in India haven't been having for a long time now. I certainly could make that reference, as you can see, with Sehwag having the best record. And then Multan '04 came to mind and then I realised that Sehwag's 55 plus average is also the result of a few huge scores, something that he has not had in sometime now (well I certainly hope that this 96 at Lahore is built up to something more substantial, since India needs it). Which is when I decided to take Sehwag out of the equation and look at the career progression of the rest of the six regular openers that India has had in the recent past. And what I came up with, was this.

So we see that every single opener had been the middle of a lean run when he was dropped. But, is their dropping justified? Well, I still don't think so. And that is because I still believe in the inference that I made even before I started this analysis.

Let us assume for a moment that my inference was true. Then what else would justify this trend? I suspect that that dreaded word - technique, might be used. Ramesh for one was said to possess a less than perfect technique. And recently Gambhir has been talked about in similar breath. But then Sehwag is the best proof to debunk the technique theories. So is it hand to eye co-ordination that's the clinching factor? That Sehwag has and IMHO Ramesh had more than a fair bit of that as well. So, is it that other quality that has been thrown about, i.e., attitude? Chopra seems to be a level headed guy (his writing demonstrates that) and though one or two of the openers have been described otherwise, that may not be the only reason.

So, I am unable to pinpoint an exact reason for this trend. But wait, let us see. I can probably see one more likely reason. We have a long history of accommodating people just because we think we have to. Most of our cricketers do not have proper exit strategies chalked out. So we end up accommodating them on the team way past their expiry date, sometimes to enable them reach personal milestones and in others, just because we think we should let them take that decision when they feel like. And in some other cases, the reasons are more political.

Speaking of politics, I think Ganguly missed an important move in what seems to be his endgame, a play that could have earned him a few brownie points from everyone concerned. I feel that, in the light of Pakistan's first innings score (his "discussion with Dravid on the first day notwithstanding) Ganguly could have backed himself on this pitch and put his name forward for the opening slot. Or maybe he did and Dravid did the unthinkable, i.e., refuse Ganguly's request.

But regardless of what happened. I hope we DON'T learn about what transpired, at least not until the kingpins of the Indian top-order call it a day. For, regardless of our posturing, intrigue and deceit are never an Indian's strong point. The truth (or something like that) always leaks out.

aNTi
your charts told the whole story of our opening tragedy. I personally thought Chopra should always be a consideration (irrespective of batting average or strokemaking) on faster / bouncier pitches. He was the vital fitting that got the machinery going in the Australia tour.

Ramesh was downright unlucky, never to make a comeback after the injury. But then his position (flashy strokeplaying opener) was taken by Sehwag.

I do not think we need two such guys at the top except on pitches like Lahore. People get fooled by Australian openers' success but the fact remains that Langer is FIRST a solid opener and THEN a strokeplayer. That Hayden can be quite compact, when he wishes to, is an added plus.

It is not so with any of the attacking openers that India have played. They all have the game of a typical sub-continent middle order strokeplayer. IMHO one opener will have to be a 'leaver' on live tracks. He may or may not be a strokeplayer, but he HAS to be compact. That is why I personally see Gambhir more as a substitute for an off-form Sehwag (God forbid) - he should ideally be on the bench when Viru is in the team.

This was a nice article in itself, and furthermore promises to forge a great twosome with Krishna's upcoming post on the Indian middle order.

I am not a great believer in 'specialist openers'. I think the best six batsmen in the country have to play in the XI, irrespective of the batting slots. It was this logic which pushed Sehwag into the opener's slot, and we have all seen what difference his presence at the top has made to the Indian Test team.

Going by that logic, I would have liked Kaif to be in the team, and opening. Yuvraj takes the middle order spot, and Kaif can play in the XI only if he opens, and he should - because he is one of the best six batsmen in the country.

I think, when Ganguly retires, Dravid should revert to no.3 and Chopra should be brought back to open. Doing well in Australia is twice, if not 3 times better than doing well anywhere else. Gambhir and Kaif move around too much for me, stance-wise.

Faisal: Agree completely about Chopra. But my point is, why should Dravid's return to one-down wait till Ganguly's departure? In fact why are we even talking about Ganguly leaving? I think the opening issue is in no way related to Ganguly, unless you want him to open.

Blesson: Well, if you are Indian, its high time you started believing in full time openers. Because all our stop gap opening experiements have failed. Well, almost all of them. Sehwag's success is probably one in a million. I wouldn't bet on it happening, since it has not happened otherwise. And as for Kaif/Yuvraj, I dont understand the logic of them playing if we cannot find a place for either by default or by injury. By default, I mean that we need to decide that someone needs to go. And that someone has to truly deserve to go.

Angs: Don't you think Chopra would have fitted your description of LEAVER? Someone commented on my blog that we are trying to compare every opener to Sehwag and that seems to drive our choices. I find that very true.

Hey aNTI

but I was supporting Chopra's cause, just for that precise reason!!

Looking at the past period say from 1999, My views would be this

S.S.Das:- Given a fair trial. He played all the five tests in that 2002 tour of West Indies and did not do too well on pitches that were not terribly bad.

S. Ramesh:- Immensely talented and a good hand eye co-ordination, but among those lazy breed of openers from down South (W.V Raman to me was another one) Thought was given a fair go, but lost out on the confidence given that he did not tour South Africa due to injury.

A. Chopra:- Did a brilliant job in Australia, should have been given more chances. Was a perfect foil for Sehwag given his defence and patience at the wicket.

V. Rathore:- Less said the better. Did not think had a great technique to become one.

For me, Gambhir is a good one to groom. Has all the strokes, just needs to work on his patience level and not match Sehwag shot-to-shot.

Selectors - take a call...For me, Gambhir and Sehwag it is.

Parameshwaran: I cant say that I disagree with your assessment of Das, though I'd advocate a longer run.
But what is it that makes people generalize things like "lazy breed of openers from down south"? Would LOVE to hear you elaborate on this. Because, "lazy" is a pretty hard and judgemental way to dismiss a player. And if that word had come from Wright, I'd probably agree. From you, however, I don't think so! And don't even get me started on the derogatory reference there. And btw, do you know how many tests Raman played as opener? 8! And how many of these Tests as opener were were outside India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh? 8! The total number of test matches he played? 11! And on an average, the number of tests played by any current opener in world cricket today is much much more, more than 30 at least (I glanced through the numbers). So, lets not fall into the trap of generalizing!

Angs: I know you did! :)

Responding to Anantha about the "Lazy" openers from Down South, I am sorry if he felt hurt. Nothing personal :-)

Its just merely proved by how they generally played the game. They had the elegance, timing and sometimes real essence, but some how never made it among the best.
Examples include apart from W.V Raman and S.Ramesh, even Krish Srikkanth who was a dashing dashing opener with all the strokes, somehow managed to undo the good work by throwing his wicket away.

I would say an opener needs to be given atleast 15 innings to prove himself. Afterall, opening the batting for India is just a thankless job.

As a foreigner, my knowledge of Indian Openers is sub-standard, but to to classify Srikkanth as "lazy" for "throwing his wicket away" seems to me neither here nor there. The guy never stop moving(srikkanth) he was a bundle of energy before the ball was delivered and after. I remember Gavaskar dropped himself down the order so that he wouldn't have to deal with the manic energy and erratic and jumpy running of Srikkanth. Doesn't sound very "lazy " to me!! Just because a Batsman is elegant and has all the strokes and makes his job look so very easy, doesn't mean he is lazy, it just means he is prepared and touched with something special. Gower and Mark Waugh were also accused of "throwing their wicket away" even AFTER they had reached their hundreds, you cannot equate that with Laziness. Some people don't have to squint for 5 days to show they are trying their best.

Well said Feroz.

Guys, About the laziness part, I guess I am wrong.
As I write this, in the second test at Faisalabad, there would once again be a non-regular opener with Sehwag and in all probabilities it would be Rahul Dravid, facing a daunting task given that Pakistan have already made a great start.

For this test-series atleast, I think We can forget any other opening pair.