Why Virat Kohli should bat at No.4 in World Cup

Situation-based batting order

Why have only one when you can have two?

Kohli coming in at No. 4 is not a constant. It depends on the situation that India find themselves in at the batting crease, which Dhoni was quick to clarify. Kohli would only be demoted if India lose a wicket early. I have always believed that cricket needs to move from position-based batting orders to situation-based batting orders. You need to be flexible and play according to the situation.

You can’t open with Hashim Amla in a 10-over match, although he is your regular opener, and you can’t send in Jacques Kallis if your first wicket falls in the 30th over and the team needs to score at 9 runs per over. Likewise, you can’t play Eoin Morgan anywhere on low and slow wickets, leave alone in the middle order, despite him being a top class T20 player: something that Kolkata Knight Riders found out the hard way.

In case of India, if the openers fare well and Kohli doesn’t get demoted, the No.4 may or may not even be required to bat with the likes of Dhoni, Raina and Jadeja coming down the order.

Kill two birds with one stone

In addition to all these, who is your No.4 if Kohli bats at No.3? Ajinkya Rahane? Someone who has been a proven failure at the slot? Not just that he averages 23.88 in his 9 innings there, but his drawbacks have been quite obvious: he needs to accelerate, as the position demands him to, and does it without having settled in; as a result, he gets out. That he can neither rotate strike nor slog balls out of the park only add to his woes.

Ambati Rayudu? Rayudu’s skills are limited when it comes to playing overseas. He can neither play swing nor slog pacers; it means he can neither be sent in when a couple of wickets fall quickly nor be asked to up the tempo after a steady 140/2 in 30-odd overs. A good addition back home, he isn’t yet ready to do it in unfamiliar conditions. It also explains why he hasn’t been as successful with Mumbai Indians after the first couple of seasons; he was demoted following the arrival of Rohit Sharma and has since then struggled to make his presence felt..

Dhoni wouldn't move anywhere from No.6. I find it amazing that he is reluctant to be flexible with his batting position despite saying this very recently: “I know a lot of teams are not very flexible. They want their respective players to bat at a certain slot, but cricket I feel has evolved. It's the number of overs that is more relative to the game. For example, if you have a Super Over, you don't really send your openers. In a normal game, you will send your openers but in the Super Over, you will send somebody who can slog and hit the ball. You have to adapt yourself according to the demands of the game."

So much for flexibility.

Suresh Raina will be sorted out in such an important position. India could have done with Robin Uthappa in the batting order, someone who could have been floated around to suit the team’s needs. Instead, he was tried as an opener: a slot that he is never going to succeed at outside subcontinent with his suspect technique against the moving ball. However, if you take that out, he is adept in dealing with the rising ball and can clear the ropes. An opportunity missed?

The team management has dug a hole for itself. Now, it needs to stop digging further and look for practical solutions. It seems to have found one by chance. Dhoni’s rationale behind demoting Kohli is poles apart from why I think he should be batting lower down the order: he hasn’t still figured out that Rahane and Rayudu are terrible options at No.4; he just wants to strengthen the lower-middle order. But as long as it solves the problem, it doesn’t matter. The end sometimes justifies the means.

If Kohli occupies the No.4 slot, Rahane can be expected to do a reasonable job at No.3 if a wicket falls early - which is when he is likely to be promoted ahead of Kohli. Opening and batting at one-down are very much the same. Kane Williamson, Ian Bell, Gautam Gambhir, Kumar Sangakkara and many others have alternated between the two positions and have pulled it off admirably well.

Rahane needs powerplay restrictions to get his innings going, and this is as close as you can get to making use of him in an ODI side if he isn’t allowed to open.

What scoreboard pressure?

Coming in at 30/2 in 8 overs is same as coming in at 8/1 in 3 overs knowing you are more likely to have an opener at the other end who could get out anytime and the batsman who follows at No.4 isn’t any better. Both the situations are equally worse.

It is understandable if you have all your slots covered and you play your best batsman at No. 3. You don’t, so you have to do something out of the box to maximise the contributions from every player. Also, the best chance of taking a wicket for a bowler in Australia and New Zealand is with the new ball, so why do you play it into their hands? It isn't being defensive. It is a calculated move. There is a fine line between the two.

When you tinker with a player's batting position, the first thing that should be made sure is that if the player will be able to deliver to the same extent in his new role. The kind of player Kohli is, it comes as the last. And his numbers at No.4 only justify it: 1721 runs in 35 innings at an average of 61.46. One-third of his ODI centuries have come when he has come in as a two-down batsman: that’s a century in every 5 matches.

The move will plug a couple of loopholes: One, India will manage one more batsman who can contribute – in the form of Ajinkya Rahane at No.3; two, India will still have a world-class batsman, just that he will be batting at No.4 in some matches.

Now, tell me why should Kohli bat at No.3?