Originally Posted by Arachnodouche
People like Warner and Alviro Peterson (and Sehwag on more than the odd occasion, though he has the record to back him up unlike the other two) have no business playing in Test sides tbh. It's a five day game and while one can make allowances to an extent for scoring fast and demoralizing the opposition, the primary job of the opener has always got to be to grind it out. These guys might be gifted strokemakers but their mental build is just not suited for long form cricket.
I think a lot has changed by how we watch cricket. Even the most T20-hating and test-loving cricket fan has probably been influenced by fast run scoring.
Furthermore, it seems to be planted in the watcher's mind that openers not only must be fast scoring, but also must be top scorers. Whereas there is some common sense cricket idea that an opener should also simply take off the shine of the new ball.
One of the most, imho, silly discussions of recent times, has been about Shane Watson, as an opener. If one takes a look at his strike rates at Tests, ODIs & T20s, one cannot deny that he has simply understood how each format should be approached. Watson has terribly few centuries, yet not too many low scores. If you have this guy in your test line-up anyway
, and you have a choice to put in him in on any number from 1 to 6, and you know he won't score big, but won't get out for a few either, it only makes sense to use him as an opener.
On the other hand, I've always wondered why Michael Clarke & Chiv Chanderpaul come in at 5.....