Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 116

Thread: Manufactured openers' success

  1. #46
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    It's just funny to compare Richard's ideals of only opening batsmen opening the batting to the strict division of labour of colonial times. Trade unions used to be crazy about it over here. Trade unions would object any time a non-engineer did a little bit of work normally done by the engineers, so paranoid were they that their jobs were under threat.

    Richard's theories on opening batsmen remind me of that. Despite Sehwag obviously doing a significantly better job opening the batting than any "real" opening batsman in the world, he objects because he isn't a qualified member of the Opening Batsmen's Union as defined by him. It's absurd. All I could say was "Lol."
    It's not really absurd - as I said to Camps just above, who's best (whether Sehwag is indeed a better opening batsman than for instance Michael Slater or Saeed Anwar is a MOO but it's certainly far from an absurd idea) and who's a natural in the role are two different things. I don't "object to" Sehwag being considered as among the best openers ever on the basis of him being merely manufactured into the role, I am less certain than some because I have always retained serious doubts about his ability to succeed against quality seam bowling with a new ball behaving as a new ball should. Until he gets the chance to dispell that and does (he's had no more than the odd chance all career and has failed each time he has) I'll retain that doubt and say I'm far from certain he is fit to rank with a Slater or Saeed.

    Being natural or manufactured is a completely separate issue to how good someone is. Though sometimes whether one is natural or manufactured can impact on how good someone is.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #47
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    What exactly are these reasons?

    You're stating your opinion without actually giving a reason for why you believe that to be the case.
    I'm not really stating an opinion - I'm stating how things appear for all intents and purposes to be. The reasons have been alluded to by some others. It's in no small part due to mindset, but technical issues do come into it as well.

  3. #48
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by four_or_six View Post
    I think it's refreshing to see these 'non-specialists' performing at the top of the order because I'd rather watch the best players playing tests and ODIs, than have them not in the team because their spot in the order isn't available.
    Sometimes how good someone is depends on where they bat in the order. Someone might be a fine middle-order player and a poor opener; someone else might be moderate in both roles but if the vacancy is at the top of the order the player you perceived as lesser might actually do a better job.

    This certainly isn't an invariable case with no or even few exceptions, but there is plenty of merit in saying that only those who've long-term performance in the role behind them deserve consideration.
    I think most of the former players complaining about some of these guys opening seem to be openers themselves who like to remind everyone how hard opening is.
    Was, more like. At the present time opening is generally no more difficult and not-irregularly easier than batting in the middle.

  4. #49
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    9,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    For me a manufactured opener is someone who's had no serious proposition as an opener until the age of ~20 then gets pushed up to open. Simple as that.
    = Gooch.

    Not sure I really buy the "natural opener" thing at all TBH.


  5. #50
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    But if you're good enough to be an opening batsman, then you shouldn't be denied the opportunity to be one. If a bowler has the ability to bat, no one's going to deny him that opportunity to be an allrounder because it's a "specialist" job.
    Is anyone saying they should be?

  6. #51
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    If you've got the technique to be successful at FC cricket, generally, you've got the technique to succeed no matter where you bat and for whom.
    Hmm - more often than not possibly but not I'd say regularly enough to say "generally". And in any case it's far from just about technique, mindset is very important as well - possibly more so than technique.

  7. #52
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    67,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    It's just funny to compare Richard's ideals of only opening batsmen opening the batting to the strict division of labour of colonial times. Trade unions used to be crazy about it over here. Trade unions would object any time a non-engineer did a little bit of work normally done by the engineers, so paranoid were they that their jobs were under threat.

    Richard's theories on opening batsmen remind me of that. Despite Sehwag obviously doing a significantly better job opening the batting than any "real" opening batsman in the world, he objects because he isn't a qualified member of the Opening Batsmen's Union as defined by him. It's absurd. All I could say was "Lol."
    There are actually some pretty valid historical reasons why the unions used to be so heavy on demarcation disputes. Makes for some interesting reading tbh.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
    - JK Galbraith
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**** over your head and get a woolly bull to f**** some sense into you.

    "Do you know why I have credibility? Because I don't exude morality." - Bob Hawke

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  8. #53
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    = Gooch.
    I don't really mind if Gooch is or isn't a manufactured opener. He is irrelevant to the point I'm making - and he's my foremost cricketing hero regardless of whether he's opener or middle-order batsman.

  9. #54
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    So? A natural opener in my book is one who's grown into the role. Natural\manufactured and good\bad are not the same thing.
    And my point is why should it matter, once the manufactured opener is a good opener?

    EDIT: Rephrased for clarity.
    Last edited by Mr Mxyzptlk; 16-12-2009 at 04:50 PM.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."

    The...er...Twitter[/SIZE][/CENTER]

  10. #55
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,639
    I don't really believe in players being manufactured into anything at all, because in my mind all players are manufactured to what they turn out to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl Rose
    The internet is a big garbage can


    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  11. #56
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk View Post
    And my point is why should it matter if the manufactured opener is a good opener?
    As I say - where have I (or to my knowledge anyone) ever said it should? Some of the best ever openers were (apparently) manufactured - Gooch and Merchant to name a couple.

  12. #57
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    9,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    I don't really mind if Gooch is or isn't a manufactured opener. He is irrelevant to the point I'm making - and he's my foremost cricketing hero regardless of whether he's opener or middle-order batsman.
    I just don't see it being a particularly coherent distinction, let alone one that can be defined by reference to the specific age at which you were "manufactured".

  13. #58
    International Vice-Captain Jungle Jumbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,898
    The phrase 'manufactured' just makes it sound like opening is something Sehwag, Dilshan et al weren't naturally good at and thus required a lot of input from coaches to make this significant change. The immediate success of both the players mentioned above, plus, say, Watson this summer gone, would suggest that this is not the case.

    Personally I feel the whole distinction between an opener and a middle-order bat is exaggerated, especially on the technical side of the game. Sometimes we rarely see any swing after the first five overs and I reckon most batsmen would prefer to face the harder ball from the start anyway. Like EWS said re. Dravid, the change is more psychological, and that is probably a product of theoretical orthodoxy than anything else.

  14. #59
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    I just don't see it being a particularly coherent distinction, let alone one that can be defined by reference to the specific age at which you were "manufactured".
    I didn't really pretend it was. Natural\manufactured is always going to be vague and unspecific because you cannot manufacture something without something natural to manufacture it from.

  15. #60
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    40,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    If you've got the technique to be successful at FC cricket, generally, you've got the technique to succeed no matter where you bat and for whom.
    Well, not a few players have been found out at the Test level when they are machines at the domestic level. But yea, the general tendency these days of pitches and bowling makes the position of an opener not a specialist one. Right now, as a selector I'd just pick the best batsman in FC cricket and bat him anywhere in the top six where there is an opening. I wouldn't necessarily look for the best opener in FC cricket just because that's what my Test team might need.

    This is my personal fantasy, but if we were to return to pitches like the Perth of old, or crazy swinging conditions, I think it would become a specialist position again.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Secret of Glenn McGrath's Success
    By Top_Cat in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 09-11-2016, 02:02 PM
  2. Select TWO openers: Best of 00s
    By bagapath in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 09:54 PM
  3. Poll: Openers in India All Time Test XI
    By weldone in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 19-06-2008, 03:43 AM
  4. Why Has 20Twenty Cricket Been A Success?
    By a massive zebra in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 09-01-2005, 06:16 PM
  5. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 20-12-2004, 01:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •