Stereotyping Dravid

I write this as the second day's play ends in the Test-match at Trentbridge. I wrote an article on Cricinfo comparing Dravid and Ganguly a couple of years ago in which I predicted that Dravid may not have a swansong end to his career for the one thing he lacked which his co-debutante had in plenty was a sense of timing and occasion. Over the last two years, watching Dravid falter against good bowling attacks on most occasions, I feared that I had been right. Whether Rahul Dravid is scripting a fairy-tale final few chapters of his career or this is a second wind that may yet last another season or two, only time will tell. What his last three centuries have done is reinstate my belief in something that has been true for Dravid through most of his career. He is the most constantly evolving batsman of this generation.

One of my major grouses in recent years has been how unimaginative and cliche-ridden cricket journalism, in general and cricket commentary, in particular has been. I have always believed Rahul Dravid to be a prime victim of this. Over the years, he has been stereotyped as the defensive wall in a line up of more attractive and flamboyant stroke-makers. I am really tired of expressions like solid, orthodox and straight-from-MCC-coaching manuals being used to describe Dravid's technique. These descriptions are not only inaccurate but have been a disservice to Dravid, for by stereotyping him as such, we have made him too easy and consequently, boring to analyse.

Dravid is a defensive batsman, an old school batsman who puts a greater price on his wicket but he is not an orthodox batsman. An orthodox technique is based largely on the idea of economy and efficiency of movement. Dravid's technique is his own. He gets beside the line of the ball rather than behind it like say,  Tendulkar, a much more orthodox batsman, does. He has a high back-lift which comes down at an angle from the direction of the third man, something the coaching manuals would frown upon. Most Indian batsmen like Tendulkar, Sehwag and Laxman rely greatly on a steady balance for strokeplay. Dravid has always been more in the mould of Lara and Ponting in his high backlift and shuffle. Yet, unlike them and other batsmen with high backlift like Yuvraj and Yusouf, Dravid doesn't rely on great bat speed. His bat comes down more cautiously, more watchfully and with lesser flourish. He plays often with an angled bat outside the off stump, a recipe for disaster on seaming tracks some would say, but Dravid makes it work by watching the ball till the last moment and softening his grip if the ball jumps or moves away late.

What makes Dravid's technique work, especially his method of getting beside the line of the ball is that he plays the cricket ball later than I have seen anyone do. This allows him to control the height better and the angle at which is bats meets the balls most often ensures that he keep it on the ground. That is what ties together his entire technique. Everything he does, every adjustment he seems to have made over the years seems to be devoted to that one objective of keeping the ball on the ground. This is what makes his technique so different from any other batsman. 

An aspect of Dravid's batting largely ignored around all this talk of him being an orthodox, defensive wall is his strokeplay. Lara, who I always thought was the most attractive strokemaker of this generation was all about the high back-lift, great bat-speed, twinkle toes and an extravagant flourish. He brandished his bat like a sword, swiping and thrusting. Dravid's strokemaking lacks that violence but is replaced by an ornate quality. His batting is a lot about the curves and angles that his bats makes. It has a carefully constructed beauty as opposed to Laxman's careless drives and flicks, which often escapes us for Dravid, being the wall is not associated with beauty. His on-drive in second only to Mahela Jayawardena's in modern times. His bat comes down at its usual angle and he plays it very late, his front foot across and his entire body leaning on it with the ball right under his eyes. He plays a prettier late cut, I believe than anyone else in this era. Dravid likes to get on to the front foot and commits to an early front foot movement on all his strokes, yet he manages to not get scissor-footed which most who get the front foot across right away might be wont to. For the late cut, once he picks the length, he rocks back using the depth of the crease, shifts his weight on the back foot and plays it very fine and late. 

But the most important feature of Dravid's technique is its constant state of evolution. For instance, in the last few months, with his reflexes having slowed down, he shuffles much less, staying on the leg-stump and looks to score much more through the steer to the third man. He is undoubtedly someone very deeply aware of his game and more than anything else that is what makes me doubt my prediction of two years ago. Someone who tinkers with and works on his arsenal in such detail even at this stage certainly continues to enjoy his game. This could well be Dravid's second wind.