I am not sure what you found funny in that. For centuries cricket has been confined to colonial establishments hardly venturing beyond the commonwealth. Alongwith it came the rigourous discipline in observing standards and "text book" stuff even though there is no point in it. No wonder the most successful batsmen today are guys who are "unorthodox" like Sehwag, Hayden, Tendulkar to some extent than guys like Ian Bell, Alistair cook etc.Haha, well if you say something funny it's not unreasonable to expect people to laugh.
I honestly think he'd be better at it if he more of a go at it TBH. The first thing to note is that he's often been in iffy form before opening or after opening anyway, so his record opening isn't a representation of what it would look like if he did it permanently. I also think he's just convinced himself that he's crap at it which obviously can't have a positive effect on him.Dravid being, ironically, crap at opening.
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I was not replying to Richard but to the opening 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."
Yeah, that's it.I honestly think he'd be better at it if he more of a go at it TBH. The first thing to note is that he's often been in iffy form before opening or after opening anyway, so his record opening isn't a representation of what it would look like if he did it permanently. I also think he's just convinced himself that he's crap at it which obviously can't have a positive effect on him.
1500 runs @ 48 with 4 centuries.Need to separate the LHBs from the RHBs.
LHBs enjoy such a big advantage that usually if they are patient ala Katich, Prince, Smith, Strauss, Gambhir or even Hughes, they will end up being successful.
Now which are the RHB openers who dont meet the "necessary" skills, but are successful?
Sehwag, Dilshan, Watson, and ? I cant think of any more. Sehwag is a separate case altogether. Dilshan and Watson are just starting out. Watson has already had trouble opening in ODIs. I'm positive that they wont last long as openers.
If you take it to the nth degree then yeah.By Richard's logic/theory, Ashwell Prince is a 'natural' opener. He opened as a schoolboy and for RSA U19's alongside Mark Boucher.
True. Though there's only 2 opening spots at any given time. Had things been different, I feel pretty confident Hayden wouldn't have knocked back batting in the middle order on the 93 Ashes tour, just as Langer didn't knock back opening in 2001 .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.
Yea Langer would be a better choice.Vaughan's actually the opposite. Was an opener all age-group career then got to Test level and we found he was much better in the middle-order.
Langer would be a better example.