Should Tendulkar be moved up to number 3 in test matches?

[Crookbond]

There may be a case. Needs for discussion based on team composition.

[yoda]

he should move to #16.

[yoda]

he should move to #16.

Sachdan, if you have something to say about this post, say it here, stop bothering people via PM. Yes I want him to retire and if he won't, be dropped. If you want him to keep playing forever, that's fine with me. Don't go around biatching that if people have a different POV from you, that they hate him like P@kis or whatever.

[cowboysfan]

I want him to retire too,its not pretty watching him against good spinners anymore.

[ganeshran]

Laxman should retire now, SRT can carry on till next year. Even at home our batting isnt as strong as we'd like to think. England, West Indies and NZ all of them ran us very close to defeat. If Laxman retires, we have 3 slots for youngsters in the team - Pujara, Rohit and Kohli can occupy the places and make the spots their own

[King Khan]

Sounds unbeleivable to me, that Pujara & Rohit replacing Tendulkar & Laxman! These old hogs needs to retire by themselves now, coz any replacement for them will allways look funny. These new 3/4 opened slots are the future of Indian test cricket. And they need to be tested as early as posiible, without sticking with so called #1 side of past.

[jairamesh]

I wouldn't put much faith on Sehwag lasting or delivering any longer in the Tests format especially against better bowling attacks.

[CSK Fan]

lol...he never moved up when India desperately needed openers ..why should he will do now

+1. And who is going to move him? :cantstop:

That would have been one of the stupidest decisions ever. Equally stupid as moving Dravid up as an opener (I seriously believe that move affected Dravid's career in the long run). When will you T20 fans understand that test cricket is a much different cup of tea and there is a reason there are specialists for each position

[rkt.india]

That would have been one of the stupidest decisions ever. Equally stupid as moving Dravid up as an opener (I seriously believe that move affected Dravid's career in the long run). When will you T20 fans understand that test cricket is a much different cup of tea and there is a reason there are specialists for each position

Agree. But still examples where middle order batsmen opened and were successful. Though, Agree, it would have been a stupidity to sacrifice your best batsman at a number where he has never batted in that format. No team does that. It happens in ODIs regularly where best batsmen open to bat as long as possible, but tests are a different commodity altogether. Dravid open because he had that game and technique to survive and polish the shine off by being patient.

[bulbul]

That would have been one of the stupidest decisions ever. Equally stupid as moving Dravid up as an opener (I seriously believe that move affected Dravid's career in the long run). When will you T20 fans understand that test cricket is a much different cup of tea and there is a reason there are specialists for each position

why..he opens in ODI for his stature as a batsman it shouldnt be too difficult to adjust.. add to that reason is for benefit of team not indivdual..if everyone go by your argument what about team's requirement??

[Precambrian]

why..he opens in ODI for his stature as a batsman it shouldnt be too difficult to adjust.. add to that reason is for benefit of team not indivdual..if everyone go by your argument what about team's requirement??

Because in ODIs, the number of overs are limited. And it is imperative that your best batsmen gets to bat the max no. of overs, especially if he's capable of both attacking and also providing a pillar to the innings. Opening test matches and opening ODIs cannot be really compared. That will be downright disrespectful to the art and craft of test match opening batting. So is the craft at no.4 which is substantially different from that of an opener. Batting at no.4 is not a cakewalk. He has to expect to come in at any time in innings. Maybe in the first over itself on a greenie. Maybe against a 77 over old ball on a dusty track against spinners. Maybe first ball of the second new ball. His duties also are varied. If two wickets are gone quickly, he has to drop anchor and steer the team out of trouble, if he comes in at say 150-2, he has to ensure the momentum is kept and up the ante and build a sizeable score. I am sure Sachin will be able to adapt and cope at no.1 if asked to in tests. But then, we'll be losing out on the services of arguably the best no.4 in test cricket history. Why fix something that isn't broken? Similar arguments hold good for no.3 as well. Pujara has batted at no.3 and has shown he has the temperament, let's groom him for the job in the long run. Asking Sachin to bat up at no.3 and Pujara at no.4 is not really going to answer anything the long run really.