South Africa and Test openers

[Richard]

What is it about South African selectors of late and their insistance that opening isn't a specialist position? In this Test, we're told, Neil McKenzie (a middle-order batsmen who's never had any pretensions whatsoever as an opener) is going to open the batting, with AB de Villiers (an opener who's never had any pretensions as a middle-order batsman) batting at six.

This is merely the latest in a baffling trend. Since 2001\02, these batsmen have opened in Tests for South Africa:
Gary Kirsten
Herschelle Gibbs
Graeme Smith
Boeta Dippenaar
Martin van Jaarsveld
Andrew Hall
AB de Villiers
Jacques Rudolph
And now McKenzie

Every single one of these has also batted in the middle-order. Every. Single. One. Now, van Jaarsveld can be counted-out as he only did it once in an emergency... except for the fact that a specialist opener, Rudolph, was already in the side and batted three in that match.

Specialist openers like Rudolph, Dippenaar and de Villiers have been forced to bat in the middle-order for countless matches. While people like Hall (and now McKenzie), who's never had any pretensions whatsoever as an opener, have been pushed up to open. Insane.

The only remotely decent arrangement they came to was when they had Smith and de Villiers opening and Gibbs at three. Even that was abandoned as they insisted on having Hashim Amla (someone with a terrible technique much best suited to being kept away from the new-ball) at three.

Why can South Africa not pick openers to open, middle-order batsmen to bat in the middle-order, and instead of thinking "he's too good to sit on the bench" when an opener has 2 or 3 bad Tests, either persist with him or drop him?

Is it any coincidence that the only consistent batsman South Africa have had in the last 6 years is Jacques Kallis, who's never batted anywhere other than four?

 

[chaminda_00]

Some of the best (better) opening batsmen over the years have been middle order batsmen who have had the technique or temperment to succeed as openers. There have probably been more middle order batsmen who have succeeded at the top recently then specialist openers e.g Langer, Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Shewag, Gayle, Vaughan, Jaques etc.

Not saying MacKenzie is going to succeed as opener, but it is something that has worked successfully for a lot sides. Sometimes only short term, but when teams take things series by series they may only want short term success.

 

[Goughy]

Im a little upset about this. It looks like the selectors have set McKenzie up to fail.

He is very popular in SA, is the best captain in the country has been brilliant for the last 3-4 years and had to watch whist less deserving players have been given the nod.

There is little doubt that there are some that dont want him there. By putting him as opener, he has a good chance of failing and they can turn around and drop him easily.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There have probably been more middle order batsmen who have succeeded at the top recently then specialist openers e.g Langer, Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Shewag, Gayle, Vaughan etc.

Wigga say what? Chris Gayle was picked for West Indies on weight of runs opening the batting for Jamaica.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wigga say what? Chris Gayle was picked for West Indies on weight of runs opening the batting for Jamaica.

Same with Jaques and Sehwag.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Same with Jaques and Sehwag.

Jamaica was a powerhouse back in the day.

 

[Richard]

Some of the best (better) opening batsmen over the years have been middle order batsmen who have had the technique or temperment to succeed as openers. There have probably been more middle order batsmen who have succeeded at the top recently then specialist openers e.g Langer, Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Shewag, Gayle, Vaughan, Jaques etc.

Not saying MacKenzie is going to succeed as opener, but it is something that has worked successfully for a lot sides. Sometimes only short term, but when teams take things series by series they may only want short term success.

Jaques is a case which has interested me - he didn't open in his first season at Northants, but has done (for his variety of domestic teams over here and NSW) ever since, and has excelled. I've often wondered what he was doing before he begun his First-Class career.

Vaughan actually did open for more of his domestic career than not, but there's no way he's had a good career as a Test opener.

I also very much hope Sehwag doesn't go down as a good Test opener, and very much believe that's do-able.

 

[Richard]

Same with Jaques and Sehwag.

As I said, I always wanted to know what Jaques' case was, but Sehwag has never opened for Delhi I don't think. He was pushed up to open in 2002, did reasonably well, then had that decidedly fortunate but still decent tour of Australia in 2003\04 and things exploded from there.

Sehwag's good fortune against Pakistan has made him look better than he is, but even excluding games against Pakistan his record as a Test opener is good. Which is odd given that Gambhir and Chopra have been Delhi's first-choice openers for, well, a long while (sure someone like SJS or Akhil would know exactly).

 

[Top_Cat]

Jamaica was a powerhouse back in the day.

Shame they couldn't hold onto those two or the WI could have had one heck of a top-3.

 

[chaminda_00]

Jaques is a case which has interested me - he didn't open in his first season at Northants, but has done (for his variety of domestic teams over here and NSW) ever since, and has excelled. I've often wondered what he was doing before he begun his First-Class career.

Batting at 3 for Sutherland and NSW 2nds. He opened the batting here and there, but mainly due to limited options. NSW had a hole at the top of the order after Taylor and Slater retired so they pushed him up to open the batting. As at the time the middle order was stacked (Bevan/S Waugh, M Waugh, Clarke, Thornley) So there was no spot for Jaques when Clake wasn't in the ODI squad. Also Matthew Phelps was ahead of him in the peaking order as well in the middle order as well. The rest is history, but doesn't make him a specialist opener.

 

[chaminda_00]

Vaughan actually did open for more of his domestic career than not, but there's no way he's had a good career as a Test opener.

I also very much hope Sehwag doesn't go down as a good Test opener, and very much believe that's do-able.

Their overall records with averages of 45 plus as openers would say otherwise, unless of course you use some selective stats to prove nothing.

 

[Top_Cat]

Batting at 3 for Sutherland and NSW 2nds. He opened the batting here and there, but mainly due to limited options. NSW had a hole at the top of the order after Taylor and Slater retired so they pushed him up to open the batting. As at the time the middle order was stacked (Bevan/S Waugh, M Waugh, Clarke, Thornley) So there was no spot for Jaques when Clake wasn't in the ODI squad. Also Matthew Phelps was ahead of him in the peaking order as well in the middle order as well. The rest is history, but doesn't make him a specialist opener.

Yeah but where do you start categorising batters? By the same rationale, Mark Waugh was a specialist opening bat for Bankstown and was forced to bat down the order for NSW and Australia. If the cut-off is FC cricket, Jaques is a specialist opener which I reckon is right because at grade level, some players bat all over the place. Although, it does ask the question just how important it is to categorise players. If you're good enough to play FC cricket, you're probably largely good enough to bat in most spots. Problems only seem to occur when players are shuffled around too much.

 

[chaminda_00]

Wigga say what? Chris Gayle was picked for West Indies on weight of runs opening the batting for Jamaica.

Wasn't his first 10 or so innings in ODIs as a middle order batsmen. Was under the impression he only got put up to open the batting to get Jamaica or West Indies to faster starts in OD matches. Also started his Test career at No 3. Was always under the impression he was middle order batsmen that was asked to open after initial success in that role.

 

[chaminda_00]

Yeah but where do you start categorising batters? By the same rationale, Mark Waugh was a specialist opening bat for Bankstown and was forced to bat down the order for NSW and Australia. If the cut-off is FC cricket, Jaques is a specialist opener which I reckon is right because at grade level, some players bat all over the place. Although, it does ask the question just how important it is to categorise players. If you're good enough to play FC cricket, you're probably largely good enough to bat in most spots. Problems only seem to occur when players are shuffled around too much.

The thing is he started his FC career for Norts as middle order batsmen. Only started opening for NSW as there was no spot in the middle order.

But at the end of day when it comes to Gayle, Jaques, Shewag, Atapattu, Vaughan, Langer and Mark Waugh, they really aren't middle order batsmen or opener batsmen. They are what you call specialist top order batsmen.

The real issue only comes when you push lower middle order batsmen like Jayasuriya to open the batting. Jayasuriya worked but more often then not they fail.

 

[gettingbetter]

I think what cat is trying to say is that the is a hyper-sensitivity associated with batsmen playing out of position - if you can make it to such a level e.g. FC, surely you can bat everywhere. Adding to that, I tend to agree, and shortcomings are due to an individual's technique, not what postion they bat.

 

[Prince EWS]

There is a difference, however, with proving yourself as an opener in domestic cricket then being selected as one in test cricket, and being selected as an opener in test cricket despite being a middle order player at domestic level.

It does, in some cases, stink of selector arrogance. Almost like "I don't care where you think you should bat or where you've always batted, I've seen you bat and your technqiue is suited to #5!!" sort of thing, but sometimes it is correct. Herschelle Gbbs, for mine, is not a test opener. His technique has not only got worse as years have gone, but that weakness has become so widely known that all bowlers exploit it and he doesn't really have an answer anymore. Removed from the new ball, he handled it better, but when thrust back up there, he failed again.

De Villiers... well, I think they're grooming him to take over from Boucher. As an opening batsman he was being found out technically, much like Gibbs, but they don't have #6 options banging down the door, and they want to give him international experience. Right move? Probably not. Seemed decent enough at the time though, even to me.

Dippenaar averages a tick over 20 opening in tests and over 33 in the middle order - it's easy to see why he was pushed down the middle despite being a "speciliast opener", especially when you take into account that he normally bats three at first class level.

Andrew Hall was, as far as I know, a first class opener for at least part of his career before opening in India.

McKenzie though - it just shows the lack of other options about. Probably would have picked Dippenaar myself, but seeing his test opening record in comparison to his middle order record, I don't know what I'd have done. Not much else left to do but promote De Villiers.. just as he's finding his feet at 6, too...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Daren Powell was a batsman back in his school days. That doesn't make him anything other than a pace bowler these days. Brad Hogg started as a batsman and turned into a spinning allrounder. Gary Sobers was a spinner.

Point being that simply because a player starts out in a particular role doesn't permanently dedicate him/her to that role. Some players are naturally suited to opening the batting, but merely requiring the opportunity to do so. The preferred role of a player throughout the majority of a career should be taken as definitive.

It's not about how a player starts out. It's about how he defines himself over the course of a career.

Note that this is reference to domestic level. I firmly believe that players should be selected internationally in the role they've prospered in domestically.

 

[Richard]

Their overall records with averages of 45 plus as openers would say otherwise, unless of course you use some selective stats to prove nothing.

Selective, genuinely researched stats tend to prove far more than spoon-fed stats.

 

[Richard]

There is a difference, however, with proving yourself as an opener in domestic cricket then being selected as one in test cricket, and being selected as an opener in test cricket despite being a middle order player at domestic level.

It does, in some cases, stink of selector arrogance. Almost like "I don't care where you think you should bat or where you've always batted, I've seen you bat and your technqiue is suited to #5!!" sort of thing, but sometimes it is correct. Herschelle Gbbs, for mine, is not a test opener. His technique has not only got worse as years have gone, but that weakness has become so widely known that all bowlers exploit it and he doesn't really have an answer anymore. Removed from the new ball, he handled it better, but when thrust back up there, he failed again.

De Villiers... well, I think they're grooming him to take over from Boucher. As an opening batsman he was being found out technically, much like Gibbs, but they don't have #6 options banging down the door, and they want to give him international experience. Right move? Probably not. Seemed decent enough at the time though, even to me.

Dippenaar averages a tick over 20 opening in tests and over 33 in the middle order - it's easy to see why he was pushed down the middle despite being a "speciliast opener", especially when you take into account that he normally bats three at first class level.

Andrew Hall was, as far as I know, a first class opener for at least part of his career before opening in India.

McKenzie though - it just shows the lack of other options about. Probably would have picked Dippenaar myself, but seeing his test opening record in comparison to his middle order record, I don't know what I'd have done. Not much else left to do but promote De Villiers.. just as he's finding his feet at 6, too...

I don't think de Villiers will ever find his feet as a lower-middle-order batsman. Ever. He's never batted there. I've had the discussion about his technique and opening with you before, people can make successful Test openers despite not appearing to be technically proficient enough. I don't feel de Villiers has failed at Test level as an opener sufficiently for people to write him off and say he should never open again in a Test - certainly not if the only alternative is McKenzie.

Regarding Dippenaar, I certainly don't feel he's conclusively someone who'd be best in the middle-order. In his first 29 innings against Test-class teams as a middle-order batsman he averaged less than 26, little different to his average as an opener of 23. He's had a few innings which have pushed that up (one of which was decidedly fortunate) of late, but his Test career has always been a mess in so many ways. I don't ever see him becoming Test-class wherever, really.

Gibbs has not been a Test-class opener (or middle-order batsman either for that matter) for a long time now. It's annoying that he got back in the team in 2004\05, pushing de Villiers down the order and starting the problems. I'd have preferred it if he'd either not gone out ITFP or if de Villiers had simply kept him out.

 

[chaminda_00]

One thing I hear a lot is, "Batsmen A doesn't have the technique to open the batting." But IMO it has as much to do with a batsmen temperment whether they succeed at the top as it has to do with their technique. Especially in the day and age of flatter pitches.

How many opening batsmen recently have had the technique to truelly succeed as opening batsmen recently. So many opening batsmen these days have a significant fault in their technique that in theory should make then useless as openers, but most get around it due to their temperment and ability to work around their fault.

Probably the best opening batsmen of this generation Matthew Hayden is perfect example You don't need a perfect technique to succeed as opener, as just as Test batsmen in general. You need to have the right temperment to get the most out of your strengths.