Accidental solution to long-running problem

Sometimes, the solution to the most difficult of problems is found purely by accident. The emergence of Rohit Sharma and KL Rahul as an opening pair to fix India’s decade-long issue is exactly that.

Virat Kohli, since his elevation as the full-time Test skipper of the Indian side in 2015, and the rest of the think tank have tried numerous combinations to solve the opening conundrum that reared up post the departure of the hugely successful combo of Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir. In 66 Tests, including the ongoing Lord’s game India, under Kohli, have trialled 18 different pairs to find cure to the headache.

They, however, kept hitting a dead end. If one fired, the other would draw blanks. Sometimes both would fail, exposing the middle-order to the new ball early in the piece. Sample this, under Kohli’s captaincy, only seven times have the Indian openers posted a century stand.

The Indian openers’ failure to weather the early storm has had a knock-on effect on the brittle middle-order. While it wouldn’t trouble them much in home conditions, it has really affected their fortunes abroad, especially in countries like England and South Africa where the ball or the pitch makes the fast bowlers potent through the day.

Rohit and Rahul, in the three innings (97 runs, 34, 126) they have batted together in England, appear on track to plug India’s major lacuna. They were pieced together because India had no choice left. After the World Test Championship final against New Zealand in June, India’s most recent opener, the talented Shubhman Gill, was rendered hors de combat through injury. Then, just two days before the first Test in Nottingham, Mayank Agarwal was hit on the head by a Mohammed Siraj bouncer during a training session and was ruled out because of concussion.

The two most important facets needed for openers, especially in SENA (South Africa, England, New Zealand and Australia) countries are technique and temperament. Both Rohit and Rahul have these attributes and displayed it good measure.

At Lord’s, both were presented with challenging conditions. Rain welcomed them just when they took guard, it was overcast until they were together, the pitch had a good amount of grass and veteran seamer James Anderson was exploiting the conditions to the hilt. Even Ollie Robinson didn’t make life easy for them with his nagging line and length.

Rohit and Rahul, both blessed with a vast array of attacking shots, curbed their instincts like traditional Test openers. They were certain of their off-stumps, left a lot of balls alone and were quick to spot the incoming deliveries to which they presented a solid defence. Not once did they play a shot in anger and both went about constructing their innings in their own manner. Having opened in limited-overs, the understanding between them was smooth too.

So can they be the short term solution to India’s opening woes. “Why short term?” questioned India great Dilip Vengsarkar, who has scored a record three centuries at Lord’s, the most by a visiting batsman, when DH contacted him. “Both have adjusted admirably to the conditions and they look hungry for runs. To be a successful opening batsman in England where the ball keeps swinging, one must have good technique.

“Both Rahul and Rohit are fantastic limited-overs batsmen but hey can excel in Tests also because they are blessed with sound technique. They can also make the necessary changes if things do go wrong. Even when the pressure is high and the bowling is top notch, they don’t get worked up and are at ease. They bide their time and their pacing of the innings has been perfect.”

Former India opener and domestic stalwart Wasim Jaffer echoed Vengsarkar’s thoughts. “I've always believed Rahul is an all-format player like Virat (Kohli) and Rohit. We are seeing that in this series. Out of the Test side for lack of runs, he looks hungry and has made the most of the opportunity. Both Rohit and Rahul are cool, composed and complement each other well. Their defence is good, shot selection is on the mark and error-making is limited.”