It is time for Rohit Sharma to deliver

          Rohit Sharma seems to rarely turn up when there is serious work to be done, reckons the author. 

During the early 1990s, there was a Jamaican cricketer who made batting look the easiest thing in the world. His name was Richard Staple and last I heard of him, maybe a decade or so ago, he was captaining the United States cricket team. He didn't produce enough to become a regular member of the Jamaican team. His first-class average is a meager 18.25, 79 his highest score; but his batting was so effortless, so elegant that you never forgot him once you saw him play.

Staple was not an official member of the 1991 West Indies tour to England, but being in the vicinity he was drafted to play a tour game against a World XI at Scarborough. He was so composed making 40 in the first innings and 56 in the second, that then West Indies captain Richie Richardson was moved to remark that he was impressed by the Jamaican who, he gushed, was always "so easy."

I remember watching him make something like 10 for Jamaica at Sabina Park early in his career. I don't recall who the opposition was, but it was an innings that made me listen intently -- in vain as it turns out as I fully expected to hear big scores attached to his name and for him to quickly go on to bigger and better things. There was a forward defensive stroke during his short stay, nothing more than a gentle push, yet the ball sped from the bat as if shot from a gun.

A well-known Jamaican commentator used to regularly say that Staple would one day cause pandemonium on a cricket ground by the grandiosity of his strokeplay. That day never came. Staple played his last game for Jamaica in February 1995, and to sum up his cricket career succinctly: he promised much, delivered little.

India's Rohit Sharma should work to ensure that that doesn't become the story of his career. Sharma has already achieved much more than Staple, yet he runs the risk of following the same kind of narrative: that of the supremely gifted batsman who did his best to squander his abundant talent. The 27-year-old first wore his country's colours eons ago in 2007 and should by now have cemented his place in the side.

Now, there are persons whose opinions I respect, who are of the view that Rohit is not as special as many of us might think, and we are simply mistaking elegance for talent. That, I admit, is quite possible. Sometime ago some pundit offered that what former West Indies batting stylist Carl Hooper possessed was not extraordinary talent; rather, he was bequeathed a rare gift of movement that all mistook for extraordinary batting pedigree. I disagreed. I was of the view that Hooper, a man who could manhandle Shane Warne, had both an unusual capacity to hit a cricket ball, and an anatomy that facilitated graceful movement.

I believe the same is true of Rohit. Nobody who saw his Eden Gardens 264 in a One Day International (ODI) against Sri Lanka could come away thinking that he is anything but a supremely skilled batsman. No run-of-the-mill player can strike a ball as often and as effortlessly and as powerfully as he can. No ordinary player could treat international bowlers as if they were school children.

A few questions then arise: why is he sublime one game and terrible the one after? Why does he overwhelm an attack one day and then surrender meekly the next? Why does he scatter a few innings of charm and skill so lightly amongst others of casual recklessness?

Examples of soft surrender are not hard to recall: there was his gentle tap back to Nathan Lyon during the recent Test at Adelaide after being well set. Or look at his tortured stay during the second innings run-chase. Or take his outing at Southampton during India's last England tour, when, after being in no trouble and at a most inopportune time for his side, he hared down the pitch at Mooen Ali and give mid-off an easy catch. I could go on.

My guess would be that these instances have nothing to do with Rohit's abilities as a batsman. I hesitate to say this but he seems to rarely turn up when there is serious work to be done. His first-class average is a very healthy 57.76, and he counts 18 hundreds and 21 fifties in 67 games. Yet, although he began his Test career with two hundreds 177 and 111* -- in his first two Tests against a very friendly West Indies attack, he averages just over 40 in nine games.

His ODI and Twenty20 (T20) numbers are decent, and he is considerably more reliable in those shortened formats. One reason for this, in my layman's view, is that a batsman is able to play more freely in ODIs and T20s. To a much greater degree than in Tests, you go to the middle and you play your shots. The difficult task of building an innings, of struggling through and surviving difficult periods, of digging your side out of a deep hole, is more a feature of the Test game than it is of the other versions.

Though it may seem like it, I am not saying Rohit needs to buckle down; I'm sure he's trying his hardest. And I don't accept the view that he's not as talented as he appears; he has skills that only a few batsmen posses. But there is something about the art of batting under high pressure that seems to elude him, just like it has eluded a thousand players before him. Hopefully he gets it right in a hurry, for cricket will be a better, more appealing game whenever he does.