Watching Suresh Raina score the explosive century in the second ODI made one wonder why he hasn’t been able to make the cut in Test cricket as yet. So much abundant natural talent, but very little to show in the highest examination this game imposes on its practitioners: kind of sad. Raina made his Test debut in 2010 with a century and was instantly held as the next big thing. But he has since floundered, being more out of than in the team and has played only a measly 17 matches in the longest format.
To draw a comparison, Raina’s career (as yet) is uncannily similar to Michael Bevan’s. The Australia left-handed batsman was widely regarded as a superb one-day player but in Tests he finished a disappointing also-ran. Bevan played only 18 Tests and scored 785 runs (average 29.01) in over a decade in international cricket. Raina has played 17 Tests as yet and scored 768 runs (average 28.44) since 2010.
In ODIs Bevan scored 6912 runs in 232 matches at an outstanding average of 53.58. Raina has 4763 runs in 193 matches. His average of 35.81 ostensibly pales in comparison to Bevan’s, but that’s largely because the Aussie had an unusually high percentage of not outs. Outstanding fielding and running between the wickets has been a feature of their cricket too. Both have been handy bowlers with their slow stuff, though Raina bowls off-break while Bevan bowled left-arm. How come their match-winning ability in ODIs failed to find an echo in the environs of Test cricket? Why is it that some players can adapt to different formats easily while others struggle?
Cricket history suggests there are three categories when it comes to playing different formats: those who adapted instinctively like say Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, A B de Villiers, M S Dhoni et al; those who adjusted to limited overs cricket over time like say Sunil Gavaskar and Rahul Dravid; others who settled into one of the two formats, like say Nick Knight who became an ODI specialist or VVS Laxman who specialized in Tests.
Of the three, the second and third are both interesting and intriguing. As in almost everything in the game, the two crucial factors in making this adaptability (or otherwise) revolves around technique and temperament. But how this works is fascinating.
In my opinion, batsmen who are technically well-equipped have to make a change in mindset to also succeed in ODIs; those who are adept at ODIs and have strong of desire to succeed in Tests will still have to improve their technique otherwise they will be found wanting. By and large, batsmen with good technique seem able to make the adjustment far more easily to ODIs than the other way around as the examples of Gavaskar and Dravid and Bevan and Raina would highlight.
For instance, Bevan and Raina were exposed early and so badly against the short-pitched delivery in Tests that they could not hold on to their places and over time lost the trust of selectors. To come back to the present, can Raina still make it as a Test batsman? He is still only 27. Age is on his side. But to make a mark in the five day format, there is hard work ahead to improve on the basics.
Given the recent struggles of the Indian batting, there is both opportunity and incentive for Raina to aim for a Test recall. It would be a pity if such a fine talent is remembered only for his prowess in limited overs cricket, not at the highest level.
