Former Indian batsman VVS Laxman has explained why Virat Kohli must bat at number 3, regardless of all possible factors. The pundit also slammed India’s tactics, claiming that they should have played their most balanced XI in the first ODI against Australia as a primary strategy.
Australia absolutely carted India by chasing an average total of 256 without losing a wicket. Centuries by David Warner (128*) and Aaron Finch (110*) took them home without any fuss, after Mitchell Starc (10-0-56-3) and co. had put in an all-round shift in the first innings.
The hosts decided to play KL Rahul, Shikhar Dhawan and Rohit Sharma in the same XI, a game plan that pushed skipper Kohli down to number 4, and in-form Shreyas Iyer to three-down. Eventually, Kohli only managed 16 runs, while the latter added four to the total as India faltered after the fall of Rahul’s wicket.
Kohli, by far, India’s best batsman if not the world’s, only stepped into the crease after the mid-way stage. Laxman, substantiating on the matter, asserted (via TimesNow):
“Virat Kohli is a world-class player. Sachin Tendulkar was the best player world cricket has seen. Sachin never ever relished batting at No. 4. You want your best batsman to play the maximum number of deliveries. You want your best batsman to set the game up and finish the game, especially against a quality attack. And if there is any team where India cannot afford to experiment, it is this Australian bowling line-up.”
Shedding light on the overall strategy, he opined:
“Especially in a 3-match series. You have to have your best game plan, the best strategy in the 1st match. But I don’t see this (Kohli batting at number 4) working.”
Kohli and co. will have to reassemble and jot their best batting order without further delay, as this Australian setup could kill the series off at Rajkot itself. Not only the willow-wielders, but the bowlers will have to fabricate specific plans and areas against the upbeat Aussies.
The second of the three-match ODI series is scheduled to take place at Rajkot, on January 17.
Leave a Reply