One-dimensional approach

VVS Laxman admitted that batters not being able turn their arm over for a few overs

Sourav Ganguly was quite handy with his medium pacers as was Sachin Tendulkar with his assortment of deliveries. Yuvraj Singh was close to being a genuine all-rounder. Credit: DH File Photos

Sourav Ganguly was quite handy with his medium pacers as was Sachin Tendulkar with his assortment of deliveries. Yuvraj Singh was close to being a genuine all-rounder. Credit: DH File Photos

When then chief selector MSK Prasad defended the picking of Vijay Shankar at the crucial No. 4 spot for the 2019 ODI World Cup in England ahead of established batter Ambati Rayudu by terming the Tamil Nadu all-rounder as a ‘three-dimensional’ player, his comments were met with a fair amount of ridicule.

Some former players were quick to pounce on Prasad while people on social media had a blast trolling the ‘3D’ statement. The easily combustible Rayudu too took out his frustration on Twitter, saying “Just Ordered a new set of 3d glasses to watch the world cup” with a wink and laughing emoticon at the end, ensuring the sarcasm wasn’t lost on anyone.

Fast-forward three years and that very word — three-dimension — that raised eyebrows is back again as the topic of deep discussion. It is the lack of the same skill-set in a majority of the players in the current team that has been attributed as the biggest contributing factor for India’s fourth semifinal exit in an ICC event — both ODI and T20 World Cups — since their magical triumph on a warm summer night in Mumbai in April 2011.

Also Read | Everyone needs a break: Ashwin defends Dravid's absence from NZ tour

“How have they only got five bowling options when you think 10 or 15 years ago all of India's top six could bowl a little bit - Sachin Tendulkar, Suresh Raina, Virender Sehwag and even Sourav Ganguly?” former England captain Michael Vaughan wrote in his column for the Daily Telegraph. “None of the batsmen bowls so the captain has only got five options. Their (India) bowling options are too few, they do not bat deep enough and lack spin tricks.”

Former India captain and coach Anil Kumble, talking to espncricinfo.com, concurred. “What I see as something that certainly needs to be done is, how we keep talking about bowlers need to bat. But I think in Indian cricket, you need batters to bowl too for the balance of the team. That’s exactly what England have. They had too many choices. They used Liam Livingstone. Moeen Ali has hardly bowled in this tournament. So those are the choices that you need.”

Kumble’s former team-mate VVS Laxman, coaching the national team that’s touring New Zealand currently, too admitted that batters not being able turn their arm over for a few overs and the bowlers’ inability to wield the willow does impact the side’s chances, especially against strong teams like England, the newly crowned T20 world champions who have revolutionised white-ball cricket by flooding the team with multi-dimensional players, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Pakistan.

From having the luxury of gun batters like Tendulkar, Sehwag, Ganguly, Yuvraj Singh and Raina as handy bowling bowling options a little over decade ago that allowed the team to play 7 batters-4 bowlers combination, to the current crop of Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli, KL Rahul and Suryakumar Yadav not bowling at all, it’s clearly evident there’s a paradigm shift in a batter’s approach. They would rather specialise in one skill-set instead of dabbling in two.

This changed attitude even extends to the next generation. Shubman Gill, Prithvi Saw, Shreyas Iyer, Rajat Patidar, Devdutt Padikkal and Ruturaj Gaikwad to name a few, don’t bowl at all. And if one gets at the micro level, most top state teams too have the ‘specialists’ policy — batters, wicketkeepers and bowlers. While bowlers are expected to bat to add depth to the side, the reverse is not necessarily applicable. Even at nets sessions, both at domestic and international level (Indians only), bowlers often turn up for batting stints following an exhaustive run. But seldom do batters pick a ball to bowl. So why this change in mentality when T20 cricket actually values cricketers who can multitask?

“Paucity of time,” Irfan Sait, who runs the Karnataka Institute of Cricket, tells DHoS. “Firstly, there’s so much cricket and international cricketers live in constant exhaustion. After a stint in the nets, batters have to receive throw-downs, do fielding drills and then gym also. They are knackered by then so they don’t bowl at all in the nets. And when you don’t bowl consistently in the nets, how do you expect them to bowl in a real match. It’s impossible.

“That, however, was not the case with Sachin, Viru, Sourav, Yuvi or Raina. After batting in the nets, they would take pride in bowling a few overs. Even (MS) Dhoni would bowl at times despite being a wicketkeeper. They always stayed in touch with bowling. Cricketers nowadays, however, are happy choosing one craft and specialising in it, simply because they don’t have much time to try out the other. And it starts from kids at the age group level where they are very sure of what they want with a majority of them aspiring to be batters. When you don’t hone a skill in the formative years, it’s extremely hard to cultivate it when you cross into the 20s.”

In fact that is very true. With the Indian Premier League offering fat pay cheques, especially to batters who can smash balls out of the park, a vast majority of kids in cities want to only become batters. Even parents know the charm lies in batting. In most academies, there’s a heavy crowd at the batting nets while very few sign up to become a pacer or a spinner. There are more kids surrounding a batting coach than a bowling expert. The ratio towards learning batting as compared to bowling is almost 10-1 or 15-1 in most academies in major cities, felt a few coaches whom DHoS spoke to.

“It’s very weird that cricketers nowadays are more one-dimensional — I’m not including fielding because it’s a given — than in the 1980s and 90s,” opined former India opener WV Raman. “When we were growing up, we either wanted to be a batter or a bowler because that’s what was required then — master at one thing. But IPL and T20 has changed the dynamics with emphasis on multi-dimensional cricketers. But strangely, kids are just picking one aspect.

“It all starts at school-level cricket. To break into the school side, coaches generally classify you as a batter or bowler. If you are a bit of both, then you fall down the pecking order. You’ve got to be good in one particular craft to be in contention. And by design or choice, most of them opt for batting. Reason being batters are more valued than bowlers. Ironic but ticket-paying fans want to see fours and sixes and not wickets unless it’s their home team that’s bowling. The glamour lies in batting and kids nowadays are just opting for it.”

Raman refused to agree that paucity of time is the reason behind cricketers honing just one skill. “I would say it's all about inclination. When you have an inclination to learn bowling while being a batter or vice-versa, you will. That’s what players about a decade and half ago did. Batters had the inclination to bowl. Nowadays, the inclination of some batters is more towards gym than bowling. Focus on fitness is great, in fact a must, but learning another craft will be a great add-on.”

RX Murali, the coach of current Karnataka skipper Mayank Agarwal and who runs his namesake academy in Whitefield, felt unless there’s a change in mindset while picking kids at age-group levels, this trend may not be arrested. “Mayank would bowl off-spin in his early days but then selectors want specialists. So he ended up burning all his time and energy on that to become a better batter which he did. The same applies with kids. Every premier school has hundreds of cricketers and coaches only see if a guy is good in one aspect. In fact, the same applies to make the cut to age-group state squads. In fact, coaches believe if you have good batters and good bowlers who can do their respective jobs efficiently, it gets the results. More often than not, it does. So unless there’s a changed mentality there, the script will remain the same.”

It’s sad but true.