SaeedAnwar
U19 Debutant
If you look at most teams they open with left handed batsmen or atleast the first batsmen is always a lefthanded, why is that? does it make a difference?
Or any of the others you mentioned for that matter. "Stylish" left-handers tend to be pigeon-holed as, if anything, middle-order dashers.I wouldn't consider guys like Gayle and Hayden to be stylish tbh.
No they don't.Left handers look more stylish and hence tend to appeal to coaches as elegant good sound relaxed technical players, thats why they prefer them at the opening slot.
Yeah, you couldn't help but like him really. Looked out of his depth most of the time, but was good enough to come through the blackwash series intact. Given that his penultimate test saw him pass 200, I did occasionally wonder why he never got another go circa 1986-1988, when he seemed to have been overtaken by Slack, Benson, Moxon, Curtis and pretty much any other opener that you care to mention.I suppose he (Fowler) was very fortunate to have a Test career at all - has Goochie's South African error of judgment to thank for it - I always liked him though and he did very well for a bloke who always looked like he was going to get out next ball
Based on personal experience, I've never believed this. I know that I aim each delivery itself, I don't rely on muscle memory or pre-programmed ideas of where to bowl. I have plenty of problems bowling too many deliveries down the leg-side to RHBs when it doesn't swing, and LHBs when it does - regardless of whether there are two RHBs or (though this is rare at my level) two LHBs. The only type of bowlers who might tend to struggle are the real "metronome" types like Curtley Ambrose and Angus Fraser, and even them I don't remember having many real problems TBH.Having a left/right handed opening pair can help disrupt the opening bowlers so that they can't quickly settle on a line and length.
Either that or they're 'nuggety' batsmen - another descripion that never gets applied to RHers.No they don't.
There's a mythical status sorrounding lefties in sport - the same thing happens in football.
You get elegant left handers in cricket - in football you get players with a "cultured left foot" or a "wand of a left foot." There's no equivelant description afforded to right handers.
It doesn't really matter whether the theory is right or wrong. The point is, it's a widely-held theory and that means that selectors use it, and so it will (I think) go some way to boosting the number of LH openers that we see.Based on personal experience, I've never believed this. I know that I aim each delivery itself, I don't rely on muscle memory or pre-programmed ideas of where to bowl. I have plenty of problems bowling too many deliveries down the leg-side to RHBs when it doesn't swing, and LHBs when it does - regardless of whether there are two RHBs or (though this is rare at my level) two LHBs. The only type of bowlers who might tend to struggle are the real "metronome" types like Curtley Ambrose and Angus Fraser, and even them I don't remember having many real problems TBH.
Actually (and sorry for quoting my own post) that piece on confirmation bias should be required reading for just about all CW posters. It gives a horribly accurate insight into so much of what we do when we (a) watch cricket and (b) get into arguments with each other. Well, that's true in my case anyway.(There's a name for this kind of reinforcing-your-favoured-theory bias, but I can't remember what it's called. Edit: wikipedia tells me it's called confirmation bias).
Nah, left footed players in football don't have feet, they have pegs.No they don't.
There's a mythical status sorrounding lefties in sport - the same thing happens in football.
You get elegant left handers in cricket - in football you get players with a "cultured left foot" or a "wand of a left foot." There's no equivelant description afforded to right handers.
I do hope not. If you consider a LHB over a RHB (or vice-versa) purely because of which hand he bats with, rather than considering how good his technique, hand-eye coodination, shot-selection etc. are (ie, all the things that make it likely his run-scoring prowess is going to be higher - so thus how high his batting average is), I'd say you're playing a dangerous game.It doesn't really matter whether the theory is right or wrong. The point is, it's a widely-held theory and that means that selectors use it, and so it will (I think) go some way to boosting the number of LH openers that we see.
It's, essentially, something that's never possible to prove conclusively, and to disprove it conclusively would be damn hard as well. No-one can possibly give the definite reason why a bowler is\isn't struggling to hold the right line - even the bowler himself can merely be fairly sure.As for whether it is in fact right or wrong, I think I disagree with you. Having a LH/RH opening partnership can, I think, upset a bowler's line (it certainly does / did for me). That said, when I'm watching the pros and they fire it down the leg side, I instinctively tend to rely on it as evidence to support and reinforce my theory rather than accepting that they might just be bowling crap, and would have been just as inaccurate bowling at a pair of right-handers. (There's a name for this kind of reinforcing-your-favoured-theory bias, but I can't remember what it's called. Edit: wikipedia tells me it's called confirmation bias).