Did you find reason to wonder what Mathew Hayden made of Sourav Ganguly's innings today, against Kenya?
Here's a guy with 22 centuries to his name; a player who is very proud of his record, very aware of it at all times; a player who you can wake up in the middle of the night and he will tell you exactly what his average is (42.19, just now); and where he ranks in the team roster (number two, behind Sachin Tendulkar, and the only Indian player other than Sachin with a 40+ average at this point).
Given that, he would be very aware that the last year or so hasn't been among his most productive, in terms of the big scores he loves against his name. In 2003, he managed just three hundreds - two against Kenya, one against Namibia; he is yet to break that three figure mark this year after, what, 25, 26 games?
Today's innings was one for the team: very restrained initially, content - even intent - on spending time in the middle and batting himself in, to the point where it was the 12th over before he actually opened out into one of those drives he loves playing through the off. A fair mix of caution, aggression, and calculated accumulation (68 dot balls, yes, but also 55 hard yards between wickets including 40 singles.
And most to the point, no sign of 'playing for a 100' that was his for the taking (it would have been his fourth successive century against Kenya, had he gotten there): he got out looking to play an expansive shot, not nudge and nurdle his way to a personal landmark. Good for him -- and for his team.
Given the low the side has hit in recent times, in form and confidence, someone had to go out there and remind them of the basics -- of the value of spending time in the middle, of accumulating till you are set rather than rashly trying to hit your way out of a run of poor form; and who better than the captain to get that lesson across?
I don't know -- it's tempting to say Kenya is not a top-ranked side; that the bowling was not exactly lethal; that ergo, the innings doesn't call for unrestrained applause. But yet, in the larger context of recent team outings, this was a significant knock -- at least, to my mind.
There were other aspects to today's play that merits mention -- as for instance the pacing of the innings. 110 in the first 25 overs, 180 in the latter half of the innings; 55-odd of those in the last five thanks to a lovely cameo partnership between Mohammad Kaif and Rahul Dravid. You could crib a bit and say the score should have been 310-315 at the least, given the platform of 199/2 at the end of 40, and that would be valid.
Fact though remains that it has been a while since the team put up a sizeable score on the board, and its failure to do that was obviously beginning to tell on the collective psyche. From that point of view, this effort has a value over and above the actual weight of runs versus quality of opposition.
One other point about the innings is worth mentioning -- and its name is VVS Laxman. Isn't it time the Indian team, and its selectors, figured out what they want to do with the bloke?
It is blindingly apparent to anyone who follows cricket that the only position Laxman fits is number three. He is not an improviser; his one-day grammar book is page for page the same as the one he uses in the long form of the game. Given that, he is best fitted to come in when there is time, and overs, available for innings building -- bat him anywhere below three and you might as well not pick him at all.
If watching his play doesn't make that obvious, then statistics should. The man has played everywhere from 1-6. He averages a tick over 10 in the opening slot; 24.8 at number four, 10.7 at number five, and 13.5 at number six. It is only at three that his average -- 36.9 -- is five points above his career average of 31.8, and I am frankly tempted to argue that his average -- and his value to the side -- would have been far higher if the management hadn't yo-yoed him up and down the ladder in a patently absurd fashion.
It seems a simple enough call to make, really; and it depends on your answer to two questions. One - is Laxman the one-day batsman good enough to merit a place in your lineup of say the top seven, eight batsmen in India?
Personally, I think so - outside of the batsmen already doing national duty, I don't see any young spark mounting a serious challenge for that spot (though I can't help wondering why selectors, who pick, say a Rohan Gavaskar on the argument that he 'deserves a chance', don't seem to see the need to blood say an Ambati Rayudu, who is young and promising, and whose potential makes him far more deserving of such 'chances').
So if you say, yes, Laxman deserves a place in the squad, then the only other question to be answered is, when Tendulkar comes back into the lineup is Laxman still your best bet at number three? Not four, not five, not one, not two - just, three.
If the team management thinks not; if it thinks, say, that the team is best served by a Sehwag-Sachin-Ganguly-Dravid-Kaif-Yuvraj lineup, fine - sit Laxman on the bench, use him as your best possible replacement in the event of injury to one of the playing side.
But to pick him on the simplistic syllogism -- 'We need seven batsmen, Laxman is a batsman, therefore we pick Laxman', and then to play him where he is patently unsuited to play, defeats the purpose. Simply put, if Laxman's average is 24 at four, 10 at five and 13 at six, you are far better served playing a specialist wicket-keeper instead.
Such a player - a Dinesh Karthik, say - will get you those same 10, 13 runs, maybe more; he will cost you far less behind the stumps; and by relieving Dravid of the pressure of keeping, allow the Indian vice-captain the leisure and energy to focus solely on his batting.
Time to start a 'Laxman for number three, or nowhere' campaign, you think?
