If Rohit Sharma must play for India, why not as opener (don’t forget Virender Sehwag)?

An injury to KL Rahul, in the midst of what was turning out to be a career-cementing stint at the top of the Indian Test batting order, has thrown the opening slot open for just the kind of competition that the new BCCI selectors would love. The new selection committee has already sprung a surprise in this regard. Gautam Gambhir’s selection has added another contender, besides Shikhar Dhawan, Murali Vijay, Ajinkya Rahane and Rahul (injured), who are all capable openers and have opened for India in the past.

A left-hander’s selection (Gambhir) signals that Dhawan’s second chance at the top of affairs might be in serious jeopardy, while sending a message to the older players that solid domestic performances and fitness will be rewarded in selection, especially by a committee formed with former domestic cricketers with prolific domestic careers who did not have their day in the international sun on account of similar roadblocks.

Dhawan’s and Vijay’s first innings scores of 1 and 9, respectively, in the Kolkata test against New Zealand will shake the confidence of the selectors a little bit. If this becomes a trend, will one of them perforce make way for Gambhir?

Or is there another option?

Let’s rephrase that question. Was there another option?

Horses for courses

The opening duo had to be a left/right hand combination, Vijay’s selection being assured after his performance in the last Test. However, with rain forecast over all five days, and actually stopping play already, the time lost to bad weather could still come in the way of an Indian win that would seal the series.

In the light of this complication, couldn’t the Indian think-tank have looked at some radical options upfront? Captain Virat Kohli has always emphasised a horses-for-courses approach alongside playing five specialist bowlers every Test. In the first Test India missed that combination, but limited time may need India to be relentless in their bowling and fast in their run-getting in order to wrap the series up.

Cheteshwar Pujara’s strike-rate, in this regard, will be a matter of worry, as is being discussed in some circles. Although coach Anil Kumble has backed the right-hander’s style, concerns have been voiced by Kohli himself, amongst others. Of course, Pujara’s strong performance stemmed the rot in the first innings for India, and if there is another dire situation in the second innings, his solidity will be sorely needed.

But the fact was that India needed to provide an aggressive foil to Pujara’s cautiousness at No. 3 on account of time. A Gambhir looking to make a comeback after years into Test cricket couldn’t have been that aggressor.

Enter Rohit Sharma

Since nothing seems to convince Kohli that Sharma should not play, why could he not have been used more effectively? Kohli could have solved some of his quandaries with a Gangulyesque radical idea: promoting Sharma to open the innings, with a Virender Sehwag-like mandate.

Sharma has been facing a lot of flak for his place in the Test eleven, but even his most serious detractors will allow that their criticism has more to do with temperament than with his technique or talent. Sharma has been criticised for throwing his wicket away after getting set repeatedly, betraying a mind not suited to a No. 6 position in a Test team.

On the flipside, though, Sharma possesses the exact skill-set that Sehwag (who also started at No. 6 in Tests) possessed, and Ganguly weaponised at the top: fearlessness, aggression and raw shot-making ability.

If allowed to open with a clear mandate of taking the attack to the opposition, Sharma’s weakness of patience at No 6 could have been (and still can be) a boon at the top, much like Sehwag. He has the potential to take the game away from the opponents in a single session, especially when next to nothing is happening by way of swing or seam for the fast bowlers with the new ball.

Therefore, scoring fast runs at the top may still prove to be a key to success in the second innings for India, and Sharma’s pyrotechnics, if they come off, can offset both the time constraint and balance the patience of Pujara and Vijay. Additionally, should Sharma fall early, Pujara’s cautious approach and the rest of the Indian batting – in the new setup, with Pujara at 3, Kohli at 4, Rahane at 5, Dhawan at 6, Ashwin at 7, followed by Saha and the bowlers – can still make sure it doesn’t become a crisis.

A novel experiment

If Sharma takes to his new role satisfactorily, such a line-up could make for a formidable Indian batting line-up the longer run as well, especially on the sub-continent. Sharma’s technique may make him unsuitable for early aggression on tours of England or South Africa, but even these odds have been levelled in the past by the likes of Sehwag and Warner, to name the obvious.

Additionally, KL Rahul’s keeping can be improved upon so that he can also make the team as a wicket-keeper batsman and replace Wriddhimaan Saha in the side, giving it much more balance than before. Rahul is a more accomplished player than Saha – who is the better keeper and retains his spot in Tests primarily for that reason – and with his potential to open or bat at No. 3, he gives flexibility to the line-up which ties in further with Kohli’s horses-for-courses approach. On dead pitches Sharma could open and aim to devastate, while on surfaces warranting more technique and caution, Rahul can switch places with him at the top.

Sehwag’s transformation into a destructive but unlikely opener saw a sea-change in India’s test dynamic, resulting in heightened winning chances whenever he succeeded at being himself. Sharma’s promotion could have a similar impact, and be a weapon of choice for Kohli, who, from the looks of it, abhors a draw even more than a loss.