India's Test Opener

[ret]

Because one middle-order batsman with iffy technique can open with success, that doesn't mean another neccessarily can.

Same way just because Glenn McGrath started his career poorly, doesn't mean anyone who starts poorly is even remotely likely to emulate him.

did you read the rest of my posts on recent history of Ind specialist openers .... i have written as to why i think Ganguly will be a good fit for the opening position, including giving his avg of more than 46 while playing in the top order for Ind

 

[Richard]

And I gave reasons why I don't think he would, and why the fact that this didn't apply to Virender Sehwag isn't important.

Just because Indian openers haven't done very well recently that's no reason to stop picking them. Someone has to open the batting, and just because no-one's done it well recently there's absolutely no reason to suppose that a middle-order batsman can do it better than an opener.

 

[ret]

And I gave reasons why I don't think he would, and why the fact that this didn't apply to Virender Sehwag isn't important.

My point was just that when it was said that Ganguly's defense is not like Dravid's .... so i replied that even Sehwag's isn't .... i.e. what applies to one doesn't necessarily have to apply to other .... and you picked that thing out without seeing the pun in it .... thats why i said read the whole post

Just because Indian openers haven't done very well recently that's no reason to stop picking them. Someone has to open the batting, and just because no-one's done it well recently there's absolutely no reason to suppose that a middle-order batsman can do it better than an opener.

absolutely .... but my point is that we don't have to pick openers to open just coz they are openers and not that good .... the recent history has shown that picking openers just coz the are openers irrespective of the fact how talented they are has been a recipe for failure

it's better to pick 5-6 best batsmen in the country instead and make the one who is more suitable amongst them to open

I m for selecting the best 5-6 batsmen in the country than playing specialists just for the sake of playing them even if they are not that good .... and playing not that good specialist is the reason why India is doing so badly as far as opening is concerned .... add to that the reluctance of some of the talented batters to not open and stay in their comfort zone .... the entire thinking process is messed up .... unless we have a cool opener who can stake the claim of being amongst the top batsmen, along with showing international level class, in the country there is little point in playing such players

 

[Richard]

Princes of the middle-order can be paupers in the opening slots. That's why the question of "the best 6 (or 7) batters in the country" is not as simple as it may seem.

 

[ret]

Princes of the middle-order can be paupers in the opening slots. That's why the question of "the best 6 (or 7) batters in the country" is not as simple as it may seem.

you can see the examples of those who have done well as openers, if you browse the thread .... i would rather look at the half full glass than the half empty one

you have no evidence as to why Ganguly will not work as an opener other than your theories .... while I have given his avg of 46 playing in the top order in tests and then i can even see him leveraging on his experience of batting in the top order in ODIs .... I m not making a random pick

and as i said, i am practical rather than theoretical

 

[Richard]

I've given the fact that successful middle-order batsmen as-a-rule (this includes those with success at three) often tend to make pretty ordinary openers. Doubly so when they're technically distinctly limited.

This is all that's required.

 

[ret]

I've given the fact that successful middle-order batsmen as-a-rule (this includes those with success at three) often tend to make pretty ordinary openers. Doubly so when they're technically distinctly limited.

This is all that's required.

But there is a list of batsmen who have been successful which goes against that theory of yours .... Thats all thats required

 

[Arjun]

Reading this heated debate, I'd say that the theory of having a successful middle-order batsman like Ganguly opening is quite a good idea, especially if you look at his success in ODI's. However, if you look deeper, you'll find that he's almost as problem-ridden as the openers. To begin with, he's struggled like, oh well, an Indian opener, when he's facing Australia, South Africa, England or New Zealand- most of his best scores have come against minnows. Moreover, he's often cashed in on great starts and chunky cushions from the top four, but get him in when the openers have departed with one middle-order batsman for not too many, he struggles till he's out for not too many more. It's no doubt a good idea, but it would work a lot better with Tendulkar than Ganguly. But then, as with a few other risks in the team, I'm game for this.

 

[ret]

^ haha, based on that assessment of Ganguly, let alone opening, he should not be in the Ind team

 

[Richard]

But there is a list of batsmen who have been successful which goes against that theory of yours .... Thats all thats required

And there's also a list (much, much longer) of batsmen who haven't been successful which goes for it.

 

[ret]

And there's also a list (much, much longer) of batsmen who haven't been successful which goes for it.

but they were not ret's recommendation, were they

and I m taking abt someone who has played over 100 tests

 

[Richard]

It doesn't matter how many Tests you've played as a middle-order batsman (remember - three is the middle-order), opening is the same task.

 

[ret]

It doesn't matter how many Tests you've played as a middle-order batsman (remember - three is the middle-order), opening is the same task.

if such points were considered then world would have never got a Langer, a Sehwag, .....

 

[Burgey]

TBF to Jaffer, who was dire in Australia for the most part, he did make a 70 odd in the first test, didn't he? Will they sacrifice him mid-series when he made a score 2 tests ago?

 

[silentstriker]

if such points were considered then world would have never got a Langer, a Sehwag, .....

So because it can work out some time, its a good idea all the time?

 

[silentstriker]

TBF to Jaffer, who was dire in Australia for the most part, he did make a 70 odd in the first test, didn't he? Will they sacrifice him mid-series when he made a score 2 tests ago?

70-odd is not the type of score you can bank on, especially on a pitch like that.

 

[honestbharani]

Chopra, ftw.


But if they don't want to go back to him, for me, the next best option is Karthik. Then Gambhir. Gambhir has a real falling over to the onsite problem, one that will be exploited by most opening bowlers to a decent extent. But if he can somehow get better at it, I do think he can be a really good option.

 

[ret]

So because it can work out some time, its a good idea all the time?

i clearly explained why is it good as of now .... read playing dud specialists vs top batsmen

 

[Nishant]

TBF to Jaffer, who was dire in Australia for the most part, he did make a 70 odd in the first test, didn't he? Will they sacrifice him mid-series when he made a score 2 tests ago?

exactly...that would be quite unfair on him...i reckon he should be given a few more test matches...then a decision should be taken. But, it is also important that Jaffer knows that his palce is most certainly up for grabs and that there are other players waiting in the wings.

 

[silentstriker]

i clearly explained why is it good as of now .... read playing dud specialists vs top batsmen

Ganguly is not, nor has he ever been, a top Test batsman. He has had some good bit of form from time to time, but he has never been a great Test player. He has been merely acceptable. His average has hovered around 40-42 for almost all his career, and that's pretty indicative of his actual ability in Tests.