Dhawan or Rahul?

It took only one innings for Team India to move from "plenty of problems" to a "problem of plenty". Before they got to Bangladesh, there were all sorts of issues to do with their opening batsmen in Test match cricket. Since the start of 2014, leading into this Bangladesh series, different sets of Indian openers had managed only two 50-plus partnerships, which led to poor results. While M Vijay grew in stature during this period by scoring runs in every Test series barring the one in New Zealand, his partners at the other end kept taking turns. India persisted with Vijay and Shikhar Dhawan in South Africa, New Zealand, and on the first part of the tour to England, the lack of runs from Dhawan led to Gautam Gambhir being picked for the last two Tests against England. That didn't solve the problem; in those brief outings Gambhir didn't look the same player who had scored over 8000 international runs. India then went back to Dhawan in Australia, but like in England, the mantle was then handed over to KL Rahul, who scored a brilliant century in Sydney. It was then felt that the opening debate was settled for good.

But Rahul falling ill opened the doors for Dhawan's arrival yet again, for the Test match against Bangladesh. And he has made the most of that opportunity, stirring up an interesting debate. What do you do with Dhawan considering his return to form? And is it really a return to form or more to do with the fact that he was always likely to play better in subcontinental conditions? More important, now that Dhawan is back, what do you do with Rahul, who scored a century in his second Test match against Australia in Australia? Do you follow the Australian policy of giving the place back to the original owner (Rahul, in this case, for he missed a match because of illness and that opening slot is rightfully his)? After all, he scored a century the last time he played a Test match, and also, he provides a ray of hope with regard to solving India's overseas opening problem. But then, how do you bench a guy who has scored 173 off 195 balls? Shouldn't you go with current form, prudence dictating that you don't ruin the present for the sake of a bright future?

Then again, if you don't have an eye on the future, you will keep investing in the wrong people to achieve short-term results, which will be detrimental in the long run. India are playing in the subcontinent for the next 12 months, and in all probability they will win more often than not. Yet they will be well served to not lose sight of the need to do well overseas.

Dhawan's biggest strength is the rate at which he scores his runs (albeit in the subcontinent), and he is a tempting option for the captain to have at the top in every game. If he stays at the crease for a few hours it's almost certain that he'll give his bowlers more than enough time to take 20 wickets. It is something Virender Sehwag was able to achieve, and that makes Dhawan an irresistible option. It's not that Dhawan can't score runs outside the subcontinent, because he did manage to do so in New Zealand. It's just that he couldn't keep the same discipline going on the tours to England and Australia. His Test average for his 10 overseas Test matches before this Bangladesh one is 29.

On the other hand, Rahul seems better equipped technically to succeed overseas, for his batting is built on fundamentals that are ideally suited to the longer form of the game. He leaves a lot of balls alone, plays close the body, and rather than bludgeoning the ball, tries to time it, as all good Test openers should. He has a decent square cut and pull shot, which allow him to score runs with the horizontal bat on harder, bouncier pitches overseas. He also has the ability to bat time and convert starts into big hundreds - which he has done for Karnataka. However, he might not score as freely as Dhawan on the subcontinent, for here you have to go towards the ball quite often, instead of allowing the ball to come to you. Overseas you need to use the pace on offer; on the subcontinent you need to manufacture it. But Rahul hasn't been tested on this aspect yet and we must reserve judgement.

Dhawan, while he is scoring runs in familiar conditions, needs to continue to work on areas that led to his failures overseas, for the best time to improve is when you aren't thinking about where the next run is going to come from, and you are in that space only when you're in top form.

In my opinion, the way forward from here is to include both of them in the mix for the next home stretch. India might want to continue with Dhawan for the next few Tests, but Rahul must not be made to sit out more than a few matches either. He must not feel the need to change his game radically to become a part of this Test team. Not everyone can bat at Dhawan's pace, nor should they.

Like Sourav Ganguly needed Rahul Dravid to become a great Indian captain, Virat Kohli will need players like Rahul and Cheteshwar Pujara to scale similar heights away from India. I hope this fact is not lost on the team while they enjoy a good run at home.