Monday, March 4, 2002 An optimist would say that it's a sign of good health in India's batting if they can do without VVS Laxman. Sanjay Bangar was forked into the side for the first Test against Zimbabwe and he responded with a partly dogged and mostly swashbuckling century. Virender Sehwag muscled his way in for the next Test and he belted 74 runs without a care on a Feroz Shah Kotla pitch that had reduced Sachin Tendulkar to utter strokelessness. It was almost Australian: give a man a straw and he swallows the whole pond. The depth of a side can be judged from its spares, and there are those who argue that Laxman on the bench spells happy tidings.

But get real. It's only been Zimbabwe, a side with one batsman and two bowlers. And it's been our pitches, the slow and low kind, a return to the depressingly familiar after the refreshing departures from the norm against England. That India came pretty close to embarrassment this morning put the picture in its proper perspective: Laxman's absence from the Indian batting line-up isn't a symptom of plenty. It is a tragedy.

Laxman's slide after scripting arguably India's most glorious win less than a year ago is a matter for a serious inquest. That a batsman who couldn't play a false stroke against the combined might of McGrath, Gillespie and Warne has been reduced to a hesitant novice against the likes of Flintoff, Giles, Streak and Price is as much a reflection of his mental frailty as it is an indictment of the way cricket is managed in India.

Laxman's 281 was about more than runs. It was the apparent effortlessness of his strokeplay that marked out that innings as an embodiment of grace and beauty achieving maximum result. A batsman who can drive Glenn McGrath off his length has to be truly special. Brian Lara has done it in Tests and Sachin Tendulkar has done it in one-dayers. In Kolkata Laxman earned the right to be spoken of in the same breath as these modern masters. Yet he has now sunk to a depth so low that batsmen of modest abilities like Mohammad Kaif and Hemang Badani (in the one-dayers) and Bangar, whose medium-pacers are a bonus, are considered better than him.

A few of Laxman's shortcomings are obvious. As Mansur Ali Khan points out in an interview in Wisden Asia Cricket this month, his footwork is suspect and he is not always perfectly balanced while driving on the off side. But more than lack of footwork, what besets him nowadays is a clear lack of confidence.

In eight Tests since Australia left India, Laxman has averaged 34.45, which is only a couple of points lower than his career average, but at least 10 short of expectations. Every failed innings has brought more pressure and self-doubt. A string of scores around 30 brought a demotion from No. 3 to No. 6 against South Africa. A patient 75 against England at Ahmedabad took him back to No. 3 at Bangalore, but he was shunted down again after one failure. For a confidence player like Laxman, this could have been debilitating. When the selectors picked five bowlers and made Sehwag sit out the first Test against Zimbabwe, Laxman's place was on the line and he batted like a man on trial, prodding and pushing before tentatively edging a ball to silly point.

Few batsmen have been moved around as much in such few matches. Ravi Shastri batted in 10 of the 11 positions in Test cricket, but for him it was a matter of moving up the order as his batting gradually eclipsed his bowling. In Laxman's case, it has been matter of expediency and adjustment. In 50 innings, he has batted in virtually every position open to a specialist batsman: four times at No. 7, 10 times at No. 6, once at No. 5, 12 times at No. 3 and 23 times as an opener, much against his inclinations. It doesn't help that coach and captain don't agree on Laxman's best position. John Wright would have him bat at No. 3 where he averages 52.25. But Sourav Ganguly is not inclined to bat at No. 6 himself and wouldn't want to push Rahul Dravid so far down and Laxman, who has not got the scores recently to stick to his guns, is a convenient pawn.

No. 3 is the place for him. He is much better off striking the ball into open spaces than grafting and working the singles. A newer, harder ball and an attacking field will allow him play his natural game and bring better returns for his flowing drives. He is of greater use to India coming in at 5 for 1 than 52 for 4. His talent is unquestionable, but his temperament is not foolproof yet. He needs the security of a tenure.

At the launch party for Wisden Asia Cricket in Mohali last December, the chairman of the Indian selection committee Chandu Borde remarked in jest that Laxman needed to get married. "That will settle him down," he said. Matrimony can wait, Laxman needs a settled batting position first.

Sambit Bal is editor of Wisden.com India and of Wisden Asia Cricket magazine. His column appears every Monday.

More Sambit Bal
Tendulkar: destiny's child

The uncommitted committee

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd