It has become an almost 'holy' ritual over the past few years. The weeks preceding any Indian Test series are filled with discussions on who the openers, wicketkeepers and all-rounders will be, and why we have failed in our search for so long now.

Do you think it just might be possible that the crux of the problem lies entirely in a hitherto unexplored quarter? In my opinion, the inflexibility of the Indian Test middle order is the cause of our never-ending hunt. The reason for this rigidity lies in the one weak link in our middle order that is being (deliberately?) overlooked by the selectors and the media alike.

Vote for Impeachment

Sourav Ganguly is not a Test opener, an all-rounder or a wicketkeeper. He has averaged only 31.7 runs over 60 Test innings in the past four years, while Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman each average over 50. If you think 31.7 could be misleading, sample this: Barring one good series against England in 2000, Ganguly's average is a pitiful 25 runs per inning. If anything, his figures went up thanks to the England series. And just for the records, in the same tour Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag all had big hundreds. Now, does that sound more like a result of the English weather than individual skill?

Here are some more facts: Ganguly has hit less than 10 runs per innings in about 40 per cent of the games, and almost 70 per cent of the time, he has scored less than 30. To put that in perspective, assuming the first 30 runs are the toughest to hit, he doesn't get past that point every 7 out of the 10 times he's at the crease. This doesn't seem particularly right for a 'world-class' batsman.

Sure, numbers aren't everything. One may say he brings in a lot of intangibles to the team -- the captaincy, the assertive leadership, handling the press, backing the junior players. As far as aggression and PR are concerned, I agree he does possess certain qualities that past Indian captains lacked. His backing of youngsters has indeed helped nurture a crop of new bowlers and ODI batsmen, but he appears to have turned a blind eye towards the batting needs of the Test team.

True, India has invested a lot in Ganguly in terms of experience as a batsman and a captain. But what is the value of experience if it does not translate into performance? A captain has to lead by example, which literally means scoring runs. Ganguly has earned just one 'Man of the Match' award as the Test skipper. He is not known for any fantastic or radical decisions on the field either. Surely, his 'aggressive' image cannot be the sole reason for him being locked into the team.

Ganguly's ODI performances seem to have masked his lack of Test talent. Are the selectors aware that his Test average is lower than that of his one-dayers? Not many Test batsmen can boast of this dubious distinction. His ODI average has consistently been in the mid 40's. However, his Test average has declined from the 50's (before 2000) to the low 30's since then. It is quite evident that opposing bowlers have figured out his weaknesses. Even over four long years, Ganguly has been unable to rise above his shortcomings. Clearly, his strengths lie in the shorter version of the game and bold off-the-field behaviour. Does being captain of the ODI team automatically make him the head of the Test team? Perhaps we should take a hint or two from Australia.

A square peg in a round hole

Where does Ganguly fit in the Test team?

An ideal team should have five Batsmen, four bowlers, one all-rounder and one wicketkeeper. Of course, it can be tweaked a bit here and there, depending on various situations. Let's see how it could work:

Openers:?, ? (Ganguly clearly is not interested in opening)

Middle Order: Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman. (All three scoring better than Ganguly)

All-Rounder: ? (Definitely not Ganguly)

Wicketkeeper: ?

Four bowlers

To find a spot for Ganguly in the team, one of the following must happen

The all-rounder must open

OR

One of the regular middle order batsmen must open

OR

The wicketkeeper must open

OR

Forget the all-rounder.

Historically, during Ganguly's captaincy, at least one of the above situations has always been true. Thanks to this, India has not been able to produce a stable opening pair or an efficient all-rounder. Even if the selectors found decent prospects, the playing XI was not flexible enough to accommodate the right people at the right positions.

At least seven different players have been tried for the two opening slots with poor success. Of these, only Shiv Sunder Das, Sadagoppan Ramesh, Wasim Jaffer and Virender Sehwag were specialist openers. Whenever two of these four opened, there was no all-rounder in the team. If an all-rounder was needed, he had to open the batting [Sanjay Bangar]. There were also times when Laxman or Parthiv Patel was made to open the innings, to make way for an additional batsman or bowler.

All of the above situations resulted either in one or more players in uncomfortable positions or an unbalanced team.

This brings us back to the question of where does Ganguly fit in the line-up. Since he is not capable of opening the batting, someone else always has to be shoved around to accommodate him in the middle order. Is it really worth jeopardizing the country's performance with unsettled players, in order to ensure Ganguly's redundant presence in the team?