<p>Sourav Ganguly in 2002: "It just gives us a better balance in our batting. We can play an extra batsman and it provides depth to our line-up. I don’t see any reason why we should change it."</p>.<p>Virat Kohli in 2020: "It definitely allows us to play an extra batsman which strengthens our batting massively. That is a very important factor as far as the team balance is concerned. I don’t see any reason why we should change this balance. It has done well for the team and we will continue with the same for a while." </p>.<p>Sixteen years ago, Ganguly, arguably one of India’s greatest skippers, said so in defending his decision to make Rahul Dravid the full-time 'keeper in limited-over cricket.</p>.<p>Cut to the present, Ganguly’s successor floated an identical theory in defence of handing KL Rahul a role of 'keeper and potentially persisting with him for the upcoming tour of New Zealand. </p>.<p>If this isn’t eerie enough, take these similarities into consideration. </p>.<p>The Rahuls have both been moved up and down the order relentlessly for being "proper batsmen". The Rahuls have both showed utilitarian traits in becoming integral components to their respective sides. The Rahuls are both from Karnataka. The Rahuls are both from Bangalore United Cricket Club. </p>.<p>While history has repeated itself in more ways than one, the latest version of an old experiment involving a 'Rahul' is different in that this isn’t as planned as the Dravid episode. </p>.<p>Looking to lend more balance to a side, Ganguly and John Wright, the then coach, took their time in assessing the situation long enough before approaching Dravid. With the demand playing into Dravid’s narrative of being the ultimate team man, he agreed to don the role and did rather well. He effected 86 dismissals in 73 one-day internationals and managed to score 2300 runs at an average of 43.23 while doing so. </p>.<p>The experiment lasted till 2004, coinciding with Greg Chappell’s arrival, when a period of Parthiv Patel and Dinesh Karthik transitioned into the MS Dhoni era. </p>.<p>"If you look at the 2003 World Cup where Rahul <span class="italic"><em>bhai </em></span>kept, the balance became different because you could play an extra batter and guys at the top could really play positive cricket," said Kohli.</p>.<p>In the latest episode of the same drama, Rahul was brought in as a substitute 'keeper after Rishabh Pant suffered a concussion in the first one-dayer against Australia in Mumbai. Rahul went on to pouch four catches and inflict one crucial stumping (Aaron Finch in Rajkot), in the last two ODIs. His credentials as a 'keeper were never in doubt as he doubled up to don the role behind the stumps in the Indian Premier League and for the State side in limited-over assignments, but no one would accuse him of being so good that he would take over as the full-time stumper of the Indian team. No, not when Pant and Sanju Samson have to be pushed down the pecking order to accommodate him.</p>.<p>Signs were available to all when Pant, though fully recovered from the concussion, was given water-boy duties while Rahul got to play as the 'keeper and then opener after Shikhar Dhawan was ruled out due to a shoulder injury. This is the same Pant who was going to be 'persisted with' not very long ago.</p>.<p>That said, Rahul’s new role does free up a slot and give Kohli and Ravi Shastri the room to add an extra batsman or a bowler depending on requirement. "Lack of clarity in terms of positions has really hurt us in the past. Now that we understand that this feels right, we will go ahead with that for a while and figure out if this is the right thing to do or not. You can chip and change immediately and create confusion among the group," said Kohli.</p>.<p>If memory serves us right, Kohli said the same about Ambati Rayudu's No.4 slot not long ago, and where is he now? So, one must take Kohli's statements, at least when it comes to team combinations and persistence with the same pinch of salt. </p>.<p>That said, even Shastri not so long ago insisted that Rahul was good enough to play the part, ignoring entirely the context of the question on whether the dual role would take a toll on the youngster. </p>.<p>Going back to 2002, Ganguly had said: "I understand it is hard on him (Dravid) but we have to realise that the team comes first."</p>.<p>Perhaps, it isn't all that good being this good.</p>
<p>Sourav Ganguly in 2002: "It just gives us a better balance in our batting. We can play an extra batsman and it provides depth to our line-up. I don’t see any reason why we should change it."</p>.<p>Virat Kohli in 2020: "It definitely allows us to play an extra batsman which strengthens our batting massively. That is a very important factor as far as the team balance is concerned. I don’t see any reason why we should change this balance. It has done well for the team and we will continue with the same for a while." </p>.<p>Sixteen years ago, Ganguly, arguably one of India’s greatest skippers, said so in defending his decision to make Rahul Dravid the full-time 'keeper in limited-over cricket.</p>.<p>Cut to the present, Ganguly’s successor floated an identical theory in defence of handing KL Rahul a role of 'keeper and potentially persisting with him for the upcoming tour of New Zealand. </p>.<p>If this isn’t eerie enough, take these similarities into consideration. </p>.<p>The Rahuls have both been moved up and down the order relentlessly for being "proper batsmen". The Rahuls have both showed utilitarian traits in becoming integral components to their respective sides. The Rahuls are both from Karnataka. The Rahuls are both from Bangalore United Cricket Club. </p>.<p>While history has repeated itself in more ways than one, the latest version of an old experiment involving a 'Rahul' is different in that this isn’t as planned as the Dravid episode. </p>.<p>Looking to lend more balance to a side, Ganguly and John Wright, the then coach, took their time in assessing the situation long enough before approaching Dravid. With the demand playing into Dravid’s narrative of being the ultimate team man, he agreed to don the role and did rather well. He effected 86 dismissals in 73 one-day internationals and managed to score 2300 runs at an average of 43.23 while doing so. </p>.<p>The experiment lasted till 2004, coinciding with Greg Chappell’s arrival, when a period of Parthiv Patel and Dinesh Karthik transitioned into the MS Dhoni era. </p>.<p>"If you look at the 2003 World Cup where Rahul <span class="italic"><em>bhai </em></span>kept, the balance became different because you could play an extra batter and guys at the top could really play positive cricket," said Kohli.</p>.<p>In the latest episode of the same drama, Rahul was brought in as a substitute 'keeper after Rishabh Pant suffered a concussion in the first one-dayer against Australia in Mumbai. Rahul went on to pouch four catches and inflict one crucial stumping (Aaron Finch in Rajkot), in the last two ODIs. His credentials as a 'keeper were never in doubt as he doubled up to don the role behind the stumps in the Indian Premier League and for the State side in limited-over assignments, but no one would accuse him of being so good that he would take over as the full-time stumper of the Indian team. No, not when Pant and Sanju Samson have to be pushed down the pecking order to accommodate him.</p>.<p>Signs were available to all when Pant, though fully recovered from the concussion, was given water-boy duties while Rahul got to play as the 'keeper and then opener after Shikhar Dhawan was ruled out due to a shoulder injury. This is the same Pant who was going to be 'persisted with' not very long ago.</p>.<p>That said, Rahul’s new role does free up a slot and give Kohli and Ravi Shastri the room to add an extra batsman or a bowler depending on requirement. "Lack of clarity in terms of positions has really hurt us in the past. Now that we understand that this feels right, we will go ahead with that for a while and figure out if this is the right thing to do or not. You can chip and change immediately and create confusion among the group," said Kohli.</p>.<p>If memory serves us right, Kohli said the same about Ambati Rayudu's No.4 slot not long ago, and where is he now? So, one must take Kohli's statements, at least when it comes to team combinations and persistence with the same pinch of salt. </p>.<p>That said, even Shastri not so long ago insisted that Rahul was good enough to play the part, ignoring entirely the context of the question on whether the dual role would take a toll on the youngster. </p>.<p>Going back to 2002, Ganguly had said: "I understand it is hard on him (Dravid) but we have to realise that the team comes first."</p>.<p>Perhaps, it isn't all that good being this good.</p>