The phrase commonly known in cricketing circles is "going through a bad patch." Or is it a lean trot? Every great cricketer from WG Grace onwards has experienced it. These are the times when nothing goes right for a batsman. If he makes a good shot, the ball goes straight to a fielder. If he tries to be aggressive, it turns out to his disadvantage. More often than not, he is guilty of unwise shot selection and is generally in a rut. Mentally he is a zero, he has lost confidence, there is no footwork and the hand to eye co- ordination is nil. These are the times when the bowlers, looking upon him as a rabbit, rub their hands in glee at his appearance at the crease. Already they are looking beyond him to the next batsman.

And then suddenly the scene undergoes a metamorphosis. The hunter all at once becomes the hunted. And it could take just one innings. That single outing raises the confidence level all over again. Mentally he becomes stronger and as if by a miracle the footwork and the hand to eye co-ordination is back. Suddenly everything the batsman tries comes off in spades and the bowlers and the fielders are reduced to obliging slaves.

Sourav Ganguly is but the latest in the long line of batsmen in the long history of the game to have undergone this feeling. In the past few months, through Tests and one day internationals, nothing went right for him. Yes, we all are aware of the phrase, "Form is temporary, class is permanent." And Ganguly had class written all over him. A perfect blend of power and elegance had transformed him into one of the leading batsmen in the world and one of the `big three' of Indian batsmanship. So then why was he failing time and again? After all, for any batsman, there is a limit and Ganguly seemed to have exceeded this by repeated failures. His legion of fans were getting impatient. Ganguly himself was getting frustrated. When would his run drought end?

The selection committee - or the team management on a tour - is generally loath to dropping someone who is obviously a class performer, who is a regular, even if he continues to fail. And the situation becomes even more problematic and delicate if the player continuing to fail is also the captain. It is not easy for the team management to suggest to the captain that he should opt out because he is a passenger, because his form (or lack of it) is having a demoralising effect on the rest of the side. Nor is it always easy for a captain to offer himself as a sacrificial lamb. After all, it could send out the wrong signals that he is not a fighter.

Of course it is not that a captain has not dropped himself due to lack of form. One remembers the decision taken by Mike Denness on the tour of Australia in 1974-75. After scoring 65 runs from six innings and being plainly in distress against Lillee, Thomson and Walker, the England captain dropped himself for one Test. In the long run it proved to be a correct decision for his subsequent scores in the series were 51, 14 and 188 and he had the satisfaction of leading his team to an unexpected victory in the final Test.

In Indian cricket however, the practice of the captain opting out of the team due to lack of form has generally been frowned upon. The trend was probably set by `Vizzy' who despite scoring just 33 runs from six innings at an average of 8.25 in the 1936 series against England stayed on as captain despite opposition from certain members of the team. Ten years later, the senior Nawab of Pataudi made just 55 runs from five innings at an average of 11.00 but there were no murmurs. For one thing, Pataudi was a classy batsman, which he proved by scoring 981 runs in first class games, finishing third in the averages behind Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare.

The trend not to disturb an Indian captain who is on a lean trot with the bat has continued even in the post-maharajah days. Captains from Ramchand to Contractor, MAK Pataudi to Gavaskar, Vengsarkar to Azharuddin all kept their jobs despite a wretched performance - albeit only for a period - with the bat. Neither the selection committee nor the team management has been forthright enough to take such a decision. The captain too has preferred to play on, waiting perhaps for his luck to change for the better. But it is quite possible that this obstinate approach might have a damaging influence on both the individual and the team.

In the final analysis, it can be said that any move by the selection committee, the tour management or the captain himself to play without a leader who is going through a bad patch would be a bold one. The captain is generally among the leading players in the side, who has been a regular in the team for some time. When such a decision, on the face of it quite a drastic one, should be taken and what effect it could have on both the individual and the team are factors that have to be considered seriously. One wonders whether Ganguly came near to opting out before making the timely 85 against Zimbabwe on Wednesday. Now he, the rest of the team and millions of Indian cricket fans the world over can only wish his lean trot is over and we can now hope to see Ganguly, the elegant swashbuckler in full flow again.

© CricInfo