“Don’t fix something unless it’s broken.”
It’s an age old saying that has often been the guiding principle for many successful teams in history, across sports.
What the adage tries to convey is simple: if you’ve been winning doing something with a particular set of players, why even tinker? Why bother making changes?
In this World Cup, apart from making a couple of forced changes, India have abstained from tinkering. The make-up of their batting order from No.2 to No.5 — Rohit, Kohli, Iyer, Rahul — has remained constant.
And the same has yielded them tremendous success: 31 games into the World Cup, India are outright table-toppers and are yet to lose a match. They are, at this point, tearaway favorites to lift the title.
Yet if and when Hardik Pandya returns to the starting XI, the Men in Blue might just have to ponder fixing their batting line-up that is not broken by any means.
For six games into their campaign, the presence of Shreyas Iyer in the batting line-up is starting to feel a bit redundant.
Iyer’s spot in the starting XI was in jeopardy a month ago after he sustained an untimely injury setback during the Asia Cup, but the 28-year-old took back his (rightful) No.4 spot in the three-match series against Australia, on the back of a sensational, authoritative 86-ball ton in Indore.
But as we slowly approach the business end of this World Cup, there are legitimate concerns whether Iyer fits into India’s best XI.
Iyer’s quality has never been in doubt, and his past exploits in ODI cricket — 46.17 average, 97.88 SR — certainly warranted him starting the World Cup at No.4.
Even now, his numbers in this World Cup are by no means bad enough to warrant getting dropped: he’s averaging 33.50 and has seen the side over the line in two low-pressure chases (25* vs Afghanistan and 53* vs Pakistan).
Why his spot could be — or rather should be — in jeopardy is because he’s no longer adding a different dimension to the batting line-up.
Heading into this World Cup, Iyer’s USP was his ability to soak up pressure and bring stability to the middle-order by proving to be that added blanket of security for the side at No.4. Sure enough, his ability to take down spin stood out, but he was a lock more so because the side needed another reliable anchor that could row the team away from trouble if and when there was a crisis.
However, so far in this World Cup, instead of being the fireman that extinguishes the smoke, Iyer has proven to be the guilty party responsible for starting the fire.
India have endured two powerplay collapses in this WC and Iyer has been at the heart of both. This in itself is not an issue. The problem, rather, is the way he’s approached both situations.
Against Australia, walking in at 1 for 2 with the team under siege chasing 200, Iyer perished attempting a casual drive on the up. On Sunday against England, he had the opportunity to make amends in a somewhat similar — but relatively low-pressure — situation but once again threw away his wicket just 15 balls into his innings, this time attempting a pull that was not on.
He walked into bat in a vastly different situation in the New Zealand clash in Dharamshala but, again, had an opportunity to really leave a mark. A target of 274 was tailor-made for Iyer, and on this particular occasion, he entered with the score 76/2.
However, 29 balls and 33 runs later, he was back in the hut again.
All these situations were right in Iyer’s ballpark — it was what he was picked for — and yet he couldn’t capitalize. Not once, not twice, but thrice it was KL Rahul that had to restore stability by mopping up the mess.
These string of failures — or rather blown chances — from Iyer are what have brought about the following question: if Rahul is anyway going to be doing the job that Iyer was originally picked for, would India simply be not better off moving Rahul to No.4 and replacing Iyer with Suryakumar Yadav, once Pandya returns?
The more you think about it, the more the proposed change makes sense.
Rahul can do what Iyer does — and do it better — and Iyer cannot do what Suryakumar does towards the back end of innings. Given that, if you are to pick two between these three, why would you not go for Rahul and Suryakumar?
Iyer and Suryakumar’s (and even Rahul’s) respective showings against England have only strengthened this argument.
The obvious con of replacing Iyer with Suryakumar — once Pandya returns — is that India will have to move Rahul up to No.4, away from his favorite No.5 slot where he’s amassed 1023 runs @ 56.83. In the zone Rahul currently finds himself in, you really don’t want to be tinkering with him.
However, as Rahul showed in both the Asia Cup and the subsequent ODIs against Australia, he’s more than capable of seamlessly slotting in at No.4 while exhibiting the same invincibility. In fact, in his ODI career, the 31-year-old has batted 11 times at No.4 and averages 60.13. His last five scores at No.4 read 52, 58*, 19, 111* & 32.
Another byproduct of this change will be Pandya moving a spot above to No.5 which, again, he’s done plenty of times in the past. Pandya played at No.5 as recently as August — against West Indies — and scored an unbeaten 70* off just 52 balls.
Plus, you also get the sense that India need a bit more reinforcement down the order due to how undercooked their finishers are. In the games he played, Pandya did an admirable job with the ball in hand but the 30-year-old is severely undercooked with the bat, having batted just twice since the start of September. So far in this World Cup, he’s faced all of 8 balls.
Ravindra Jadeja did well to take the side over the line against New Zealand, batting alongside Kohli, but the jury is still out on his form with the bat. Especially his ability to go big, with his strike rate for the calendar year reading 67.23.
Considering this, retaining Suryakumar in the XI, even when Pandya returns, might actually be a necessity. Losing Iyer will relatively be a much softer blow considering every top-order batter barring Shubman Gill has been in sublime touch.
What India will definitely miss if Iyer drops out is his ability to destroy spin in the middle-overs: against slower bowlers in the 11-40 phase in ODIs, the right hander strikes at 102.59. It has dropped to 93 in this World Cup but it’s still significantly higher than Rahul’s subsequent SR (in this WC), which is 76.26.
But India, going forward in this WC, do not play in spin-friendly venues and, moreover, teams have also been smart enough to constantly target Iyer with pace.
In his ODI career, the 28-year-old averages just 35.78 versus pace (as compared to 79 versus spin) and in this World Cup, this average has further dropped down to 20.33. Teams have taken note of the fact that, heading into this WC, 76.31% of Iyer’s dismissals in ODIs had come against pace.
They’ve also bombarded him with short balls, a discernible weakness of his; the pull shot resulted in the demise of Iyer in both the New Zealand and England clashes.
Teams have always been ‘in the game’ when Iyer has been in due to how fidgety and restless he’s been, particularly against the quicks.
It’s been pretty much the exact opposite in the case of Rahul, who has looked impregnable whenever he’s walked in, with teams finding it impossible to devise an effective strategy to dismiss him cheaply.
So far in this World Cup, Rahul has been dismissed only once every 136 balls. Iyer, in comparison, has lasted nearly 100 balls fewer (dismissed once every 39.5 balls).
Intent against spin might be one metric in which Iyer trumps Rahul but the wicket-keeper batter has the better of the former in nearly every other area.
Whether the management prefer to stick or twist (with Iyer), then, might entirely depend on how much faith they have in Suryakumar’s finishing abilities, given Rahul, if anything, seems an upgrade over Iyer at No.4.
It is seldom advisable to fix something that is not broken but doing so might just be the brave call that might propel India all the way to the title.
Follow us on
Cricket like never before!
@2023 cricket.com | All rights reserved
