Fascinating, not regressive

Let's get the immediate question out of the way. The return of Rahul Dravid to the ODI scene is not knee-jerk, nor is it regressive. The failures of some of India's young ODI batsmen against testing bowling has been a matter of concern for some time. Dravid is not out of touch with modern cricket; he showed as much in the IPL in South Africa, where the par score had come down by about 20 from the inaugural edition and where batting was not all about plain hitting. It is open to debate as to what this move says about the reserves of talent in India, but Dravid's comeback is every bit a fascinating story.

He was 34 when dropped, an "old man", a "misfit" in the youngsters' game, a terrible failure in his last few matches (80 runs in the last 10, to be specific). India's ODI team did well without Dravid for long enough to raise questions as to why he was not retiring from limited-overs cricket. For the shorter version of the game was supposed to have changed so much over the last two years as to not have any place for Dravid-like one-dimensional non-big-hitters. Why was he even playing the IPL?

With 333 ODIs and 10,585 runs to his name, it was not as if Dravid had anything to prove to anybody, although most of his ODI career has been about proving people wrong. But something inside must have told him, "This is not how I go". The thought of that drop would not have consumed Dravid over the last two years, during which he has faced a Test slump and come respectfully out of it, but he sure had some unfinished business left. There were no statements in the press that he wanted to play ODIs one more time, but neither was he going to let an opportunity pass.

If he chooses to be perverse, Dravid can draw pleasure from the knowledge that after the batting failures in the ICC World Twenty20 the selectors have had to come back to him, discarded when the going was good. Instead he has been practising for about a week now at the NCA in Bangalore, even on a public holiday when the academy was closed, with a white ball. That is how success has come to Dravid: more hard work, less flash.

In making this comeback, he has also taken a gamble. Playing ODIs again could have an effect on what remains of his Test career. Dravid can easily keep on playing Test cricket, go out on his own terms, and the memories of his struggles against Australia in home ODIs two years ago won't even be evoked. Now he has put on line the relaxed state of mind he attained after giving up captaincy, and playing only Test cricket.

It is a bold move by the selectors too, because it will be all too easy to criticise if it goes wrong. The seeds for Dravid's comeback perhaps were sown when West Indies first employed the short ball successfully against India in the World Twenty20, only for South Africa and England to take cue and expose their frailties against the bouncer. Virender Sehwag's unavailability must have made the decision easier.

It is a short-term selection all right, one that as of now doesn't keep the 2011 World Cup in mind; a lot of it anyway depends on how well Dravid does during the tri-series in Sri Lanka and the Champions Trophy. The selectors see him as a bridge for the Rainas and the Rohits, who have the obvious talent, but are yet to graduate to the next level. Rohit Sharma will surely be disappointed, but dejected he shouldn't be. He will know he needs better than four half-centuries in 41 matches to show for the talent he has. Perhaps the selectors also thought that in performing the Dravid-type role, in giving the other big-hitters the license, MS Dhoni might have lost his explosive game a bit.

Dravid is quite familiar with that "Dravid-like" role. He has batted around the Gangulys, the Sehwags and the Tendulkars all throughout his ODI career. Not much will change for him this time around. It's quite possible that he comes back and finds that ODI cricket has indeed changed drastically, but come Sri Lanka not much will have changed in Dravid's commitment.