The Indian Batting Lineup.

[adityamookerjee]

The Indian Batting Lineup.

There is a case for batsmen to represent a regular position on the batting lineup, and there is a case against it. I believe, the opening batsmen are specialists, and should be regulars at their positions. They should not be moved up and down the order. The other batsmen, should have stable positions, but should be ready to move up and down the order. The game plan for a match, could change midway, due to circumstances not seen previously. For example, attacking, or defensive batting may be required, at a given period, when a wicket falls. The batsmen must not have a dependence fixation on their regular positions. Batsmen like Ganguly, Dravid, and Laxman, not to mention Tendulkar, have been admirable in their flexibility. We must inculcate the flexibility credo on future teams, too.

 

[DizzyGillepsie]

Re: The Indian Batting Lineup.

how can you possibly disagree with that

 

[adityamookerjee]

Re: The Indian Batting Lineup.

how can you possibly disagree with that

Thank you. Your agreement is very agreeable. Jason Gillespie, is the most talented Australian bowler I have viewed.

 

[Tassietigersrule]

Re: The Indian Batting Lineup.

There is a case for batsmen to represent a regular position on the batting lineup, and there is a case against it. I believe, the opening batsmen are specialists, and should be regulars at their positions. They should not be moved up and down the order. The other batsmen, should have stable positions, but should be ready to move up and down the order. The game plan for a match, could change midway, due to circumstances not seen previously. For example, attacking, or defensive batting may be required, at a given period, when a wicket falls. The batsmen must not have a dependence fixation on their regular positions. Batsmen like Ganguly, Dravid, and Laxman, not to mention Tendulkar, have been admirable in their flexibility. We must inculcate the flexibility credo on future teams, too.

Very good point here, certainly in the shorter version anyway, and in particular you'll find that the best one-day teams going around the last few years like Australia, India and South Africa are very adaptable in where their batting line-up. In theory you're right on the openers, but your team at least has Gambhir, a specialist opener, batting at no.3 and 4 this series. Unlike the test team, India has many who can bat at the top of the order. However, in the shorter version, though you're correct in theory, you can be more affordable in who goes in first.
Australia, for example, have had Symonds, Martyn and Clarke, who are hardly considered specialist openers, gone in 1st in recent years with some success. Again on the openers, this leads me onto Pathan. He is the genuine all-rounder India has looked for to balance out the one-day squad. In my opinion, he should be allowed to settle in at no.7, though it wouldn't be a bad idea to send him up the order, as long as it's not too regularly. But opening in tests? It's very honourable of him to put his hand up to open there, but this is only because India have struggled for some time in finding 1 and certainly 2 people who can open together long term. In tests anyway, you should have 2 specialist openers.
And with the middle order, they're very adaptable in where you place them, although no.3 and 4 are not easy positions to bat in. You need players who can adapt to the position of the game, and this is why India wanted Dravid to open, because they consider him too slow at no.3.