In Asterix's Rome, the Gauls were always scared of the sky falling on their heads. If that happened to Rahul Dravid, he'd just shrug, smile and add it to the list of burdens he already has to bear. Currently, this man opens the batting for India. He also kept wicket for them recently, in the one-day triangular tournament in South Africa. But it wasn't always like that. He started at No. 7 - against England in 1996 - and made 95 and 84 in his first two innings. He was a No. 6 batsman for a while, until India went to South Africa in 1996-97, and it became evident that his natural position was No. 3: he had the technique and, more importantly, the temperament to be the only grafter in the team – the ideal man to anchor the Indian innings.

He did just that for the next four years, with immense success: he averages 56.36 at No. 3, the highest in that position by a regular No. 3 in the last 30 years, and one of the best in the game's history. (Of batsmen with a minimum of 50 Test innings - and at least half played at No. 3 - only Don Bradman does better than him.)

It is often said of subcontinental players that they do really well at home, but not so well overseas, which is the real test. This cannot be said of Dravid. His average overseas is almost 54; more astonishingly, the figure rises to nearly 59 when he bats at No. 3. He has topped the batting averages for India on two tough overseas tours, South Africa in 1996-97 (55) and West Indies in the same season (72). On both tours, Sachin Tendulkar was second, a good 15 points behind.

Dravid's only failure of note was on India's tour to Australia in 1999-2000, and when Australia came to India in March this year, he lost his No. 3 spot, in the second Test. In the ten innings he played before that, he averaged 86, but it didn't really matter, because VVS Laxman turned the match around at No. 3 with that amazing 281, and Dravid played a great support act at No. 6, making 180. Since then, Laxman has averaged nearly 37 at No. 3, while Dravid has averaged 43 wherever he has batted.

A similar thing happened in one-day internationals. Dravid was a long-time No. 3 for India, and averaged a repectable 40.5 in that position. But Laxman took over from him when the Australians came to India, and even after Laxman was injured, Dravid was befuddlingly kept at No. 4 or lower, while lesser players anchored for India. In the last 10 one-day innings where he has not been No. 3, the various people in that position (Laxman, SS Das, Jacob Martin, Virender Sehwag) have averaged 33. Dravid, coming in later, has played one innings less, and has aggregated 140 runs more with an average of 58. With great regularity, we see Dravid start a rebuilding process after the top order has gone, with no-one there to support him, a state of affairs which would not be the case if he came in at No. 3.

Coming back to his current predicament, he now opens the Indian innings in Test cricket. It would have seemed logical for Dravid to resume duties at No. 3, and for Laxman to slip down to 5, where he wouldn't stand a chance of being exposed to the new ball, which he just does not have the technique to face. But India do not have an opening batsman to partner Das, so Dravid, once again, is the odd-job man. This is odd.

Normally, any team should look to build around its strengths. You put your best batsman where he is most effective, and build around him. India do with Sachin at No. 4. So why not Dravid at No. 3? The anchor followed by the destroyer, and everybody else around them.

The argument extended to make Dravid open is that India have experimented enough with openers, that it's time to find a permanent solution, and that Dravid has the technique required to open. But hell, the player in the team with the best technique is Sachin Tendulkar. So why not open with Sachin? Because you don't want to expose him to the new ball? And what about Dravid?

Be that as it may, and reluctant as Dravid seems, the die is now cast. Sehwag has done well at No. 6, and there seems no space in the middle order for Dravid. Laxman and Sachin will stay where they are, and Ganguly is the captain, so Dravid is stuck with the opener's job for at least the rest of this series. He might well take inspiration from Justin Langer and grit it out to make himself a success at the top. On the other hand, if India keep losing and Ganguly keeps looking so out of place against this South African attack, there might well be a vacancy in the middle order. And yet another burden placed upon Dravid: that of captaincy.

At least then he might be able to choose his own position in the order.

Amit Varma is assistant editor of Wisden.com India.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd