The Antithesis of India's middle-order muddle - It's now a problem of plenty

Over the past few years, India's middle-order has braved through a crisis. We've witnessed the rise and fall of truckloads of contenders for the No. 4 and No. 5 spots in ODIs.

Yuvraj Singh, M S Dhoni, Suresh Raina, Ambati Rayudu, Rishabh Pant, Dinesh Karthik, Vijay Shankar, Kedar Jadhav, to name a few. Shreyas Iyer and K L Rahul are the most recent additions to the list. We've endured Virat Kohli backing umpteen candidates for those two spots and throwing them under the bus after a few poor outings.

The approach of incessantly experimenting with the playing XI, particularly the middle-order, has had an adverse impact on their morale.

The emergence of Shreyas Iyer has been a colossal relief for the team management and the fans. K L Rahul's adaptability has been a pleasant surprise. After years, there seems to be a consensus amongst cricket pundits on Team India's ideal middle-order for ODIs.

However, the conclusion of the recent India-Australia series has sounded a note of caution, albeit to a fresh consideration. Is Team India utilizing its resources optimally? While it may still be early to term this a concern, I believe India is suppressing the potential impact of some of their players in the middle-order and consequently, not playing its best ODI XI. Here is a look at the factors.

Lokesh Rahul - Where should he should bat?

Is Rahul's batting prowess being wasted away at No. 5?

KL Rahul started as an orthodox opening batsman, with doubts as to his suitability for the shorter formats - ODIs, and T20Is.

Rahul has been a prolific run-scorer in the IPL, winning the Orange Cap in the recently concluded season. He's a certainty in India's white-ball playing XIs, designated as India's white-ball wicket-keeper. He was even appointed Virat Kohli's deputy for the recently concluded India-Australia series.

Although KL Rahul is scoring runs in heaps at No. 5 for India, one must wonder whether his batting mastery is being fully utilized at a position that low. Rohit and Dhawan are indispensable at the top of the batting order, while Kohli cannot be dislodged from No.3. But the only reason KL Rahul doesn't bat at No. 4 is because Shreyas Iyer doesn't seem to be adept at batting at No. 5, which requires him to finish games with the lower order on most occasions.

Hardik Pandya and Ravindra Jadeja as specialist batsmen

Hardik Pandya and Ravindra Jadeja have staked a claim for a higher position in India's batting line-up with their match-winning performances. Their striking ability augments their utility to Team India's middle-order.

An overwhelming positive for Team India from the India-Australia series has been the evolution of Hardik Pandya and Ravindra Jadeja as specialist batsmen. While both of them have always been destructive finishers in the death overs, their heightened sense of responsibility when the top- and middle-order collapsed impressed me most.

But Hardik Pandya at No. 6 and Ravindra Jadeja at No. 7, on most occasions, will face at most, a few deliveries during the death overs. A higher position will allow them to face a few deliveries to get their eye in, before going hammer-and-tongs at the fag end of the innings. Jadeja and Pandya are match-winners and can significantly impact the result if they get better opportunities.

Extra Batsman or Extra Bowler - What does Team India need more?

B Kumar's inclusion will strengthen Team India when he is fit and ready to represent the country.

India has been blessed with a plethora of top-quality pace bowlers in this era. Bumrah is the undeniable leader of India's pace battery. Mohammad Shami, Deepak Chahar, Navdeep Saini, Shardul Thakur and T Natarajan are the other pacers staking a claim for a place in the side. A significant name missing from the list owing to injury is Bhuvneshwar Kumar. Once Kumar is fit, he will be a prime contender as well.

Another facet of Kumar's cricket is his ability to chip in with the bat. With ODI cricket gradually leaning towards players with more than one competency, we must ponder on what suits India better - a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat. The latter seems more prudent, considering India's formidable batting order. Further, the addition of Kumar will facilitate specialization within the bowling line-up in terms of the phase at which different bowlers will bowl. On the flip side, playing a batsman like Shreyas Iyer is expected to expose India's weak-link - the sixth bowling option.

Conclusion:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". While this argument is justified, India is probably sleeping on the opportunity to further strengthen its side on the premise that its current playing XI has been dishing out stellar performances - a lack of foresight.

Iyer has been fantastic playing the role assigned to him at No. 4. But his inclusion pales in comparison to the potential impact that Rahul, Pandya, and Jadeja can if they bat higher.

Also, India can play an additional bowler if Iyer is not a part of the playing XI. Shreyas Iyer is certain to be a vital cog in India's batting order for years to come with the batting trio of Rohit, Dhawan, and Kohli gradually aging into the twilight of their careers. However, at present, I see brighter prospects on the inclusion of a bowling all-rounder at the expense of Iyer, for which Iyer is at absolutely no fault.