NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Mark Richardson probably one of the ultimate manufactured openers. From spinner to top order anchor, what a guy. Wish he still played.
It's true, read Vaughan's book last week and he mentions how he opened in all his early matchesYea Langer would be a better choice.
Didn't realise MP opened when he was younger though always thought he a middle-order bat all the way up. I dont mind taking your word for it, but by chance you have any proof of this?
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.If he's equipped to open the batting and he's asked to open, he's an opening batsman. If he's not good at it, he's merely a bad opening batsman. A lot of "natural" openers are bad at what they do.
I'm well aware of the antics of Prince and Boucher (and Ant Botha) as under-19 international openers but it's news to me that Prince was ever much of an opener apart from there. Wonder when he was manufactured into a middle-order batsman.By Richard's logic/theory, Ashwell Prince is a 'natural' opener. He opened as a schoolboy and for RSA U19's alongside Mark Boucher.
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.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."
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.What exactly are these reasons?
You're stating your opinion without actually giving a reason for why you believe that to be the case.
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.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.
Was, more like. At the present time opening is generally no more difficult and not-irregularly easier than batting in the middle.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.
= Gooch.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.
Is anyone saying they should be?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.
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.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.
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.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."
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.= Gooch.
And my point is why should it matter, once the manufactured opener is a good opener?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.
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.And my point is why should it matter if the manufactured opener is a good opener?
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 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 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.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".
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.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.