Vijay Shankar emulating Kallis and Watson might not be as absurd as it sounds
On 15th April 2019, the Indian cricket team selectors sprung a surprise when they opted for Vijay Shankar ahead of Ambati Rayudu. Though the all-rounder had done decently in the build-up to the competition, there remained skepticism around his ability to handle pressure on a stage as grand as the World Cup.
Yet, MSK Prasad, Ravi Shastri and Virat Kohli entrusted Vijay Shankar with the responsibility of batting at No.4 – a conundrum that had incessantly bogged India down prior to the World Cup.
Unsurprisingly, the decision was met with severe opposition, with MSK Prasad’s branding of Vijay Shankar as a "three-dimensional" cricketer drawing plenty of flak. The aforementioned incident blew up in proportion when Ambati Rayudu famously quipped that he had bought 3D glasses to watch the cricketing extravaganza.
Through all of it, though, plenty conveniently forgot that Vijay Shankar had only made his India bow a year earlier. And, at that juncture, his inclusion was a gamble that neither India nor the player (arguably) was ready for.
Since then, Vijay Shankar has been at the centre of ridicule, often being taunted for his inability to produce the performances expected of a "three-dimensional" cricketer. A few weeks ago, those clamours reached a crescendo during IPL 2021, wherein Vijay Shankar was at the heart of the numerous batting collapses the Sunrisers Hyderabad suffered.
More recently, though, and specifically a couple of days ago, the all-rounder came out and spoke about his intention to bat higher up the order across formats. In fact, he even mentioned that he was contemplating switching to a different domestic side to ensure that he got the batting exposure he desired.
A little later, he drew further parallels between the roles all-rounders are envisioned to perform and the way players such as Jacques Kallis and Shane Watson bucked the trend. And Vijay Shankar made it pristinely clear that he intended to be included in the latter bracket – a top-order batter who could also double up as an all-rounder.
As expected, Twitter and other social media platforms had a field day decoding the logic behind Vijay Shankar’s comments. Or, in blunter terms, the absurdity of it all.
On finer introspection, though, it might not be something that is truly beyond him. While it might sound extremely ludicrous to argue for a batter who has frustrated more often than he has mesmerized, there might actually be some merit to how Vijay Shankar views himself and the ripple effect it could create on the Indian cricketing landscape.
Vijay Shankar's ideal batting position is higher up the order
Ever since breaking onto the scene in the mid-2010s, Vijay Shankar has looked a batter boasting a proficient technique and one blessed with sublime timing. Additionally, he is a caresser of the ball, as opposed to being a bludgeoner like Hardik Pandya. Consequently, he hasn’t enjoyed the rub of the green when playing the finisher’s role for both India and SRH.
The few times he has been accorded an opportunity to bat longer, he has made a decent splash. In 2019, when India toured New Zealand, the Men In Blue found themselves perilously placed at Wellington, with the Black Caps reducing the visitors to 18/4 inside the Power Play.
Vijay Shankar strode out and adapted himself to the adverse circumstances beautifully. Unfortunately, his essay was overshadowed by a mix-up with Ambati Rayudu (of all people). A few weeks later, he played another sumptuous 40-plus knock against Australia at Nagpur – an innings that, rather astoundingly, again ended with a run-out.
Through both those games, though, Vijay Shankar had elicited the natural ability he possesses and that he has the technique to tackle the questions international bowlers pose. Furthermore, his tendency to play the ball late and use the pace of the bowlers portrayed that he could even be a bankable overseas option for India.
However, such glimpses have been fleeting, at best. Not just because Vijay Shankar has failed miserably in the other opportunities presented to him, but also because he has rarely been handed his preferred batting position at SRH and of course, for India.
On the domestic front, when given an opportunity to bat higher up by Tamil Nadu, Vijay Shankar has excelled. The 2014-15 Ranji Trophy season, in particular, springs to mind, where he aggregated 577 runs, which included scores of 82, 91, 103 and 111 in the knock-out phases.
Thus, it might not be a stretch to suggest that Vijay Shankar, even in lieu of the stick he has received, has not really been given the requisite platform to flourish.
Though that could be looked upon as a flimsy excuse, considering his temperament has been questioned, it could also be something that explains how a proven domestic performer (he averages 44.84 in first-class cricket and 38.10 in List A cricket) has fallen so flat on the international stage.
By that yardstick, Vijay Shankar might even be right in saying that he shouldn’t be shoehorned into a role that isn’t just suitable to him, but also mercilessly exposes the shortcomings existing in his closet.
Yet, there is something special about him, whether it be his elegant batting style or the way he executes drool-worthy shots. More plainly, something that forces India to keep him in the loop and not thrust him by the wayside entirely.
After all, wasn’t that one of the primary considerations for fast-tracking Vijay Shankar into the World Cup squad in the first place?
Back then though, the ‘three-dimensional’ tag was also flippantly thrown around to hastily cover up a decision that had reeked of recklessness and indecisiveness – the tremors of which are still felt by Vijay Shankar.
Though it might sound a little far-fetched, Vijay Shankar, despite all the criticism, has the talent and the technique to justify the tall claims of wanting to emulate Jacques Kallis and Shane Watson.
As far as temperament is concerned, well, that is something that can only be answered by the dimension of time.
Also Read: Bhuvneshwar Kumar: The ideal Indian Test bowler who wasn't