• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Manufactured openers' success

Matt79

Global Moderator
Point is, whilst said problem does exist and has been exposed plenty of times, he's still scoring. Can't just drop him from opening because his dismissals look bad if he's scoring runs or what might happen, especially since the team has benefitted immensely from it.
Tsk tsk TC. After this long on CW, you should know there is an element in CC who hold that 'my theories'>reality!
 

bunny

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Point is, whilst said problem does exist and has been exposed plenty of times, he's still scoring. Can't just drop him from opening because his dismissals look bad if he's scoring runs or what might happen, especially since the team has benefitted immensely from it.
Where did I say that Aussies should drop him? I just said that, imo, he wont be successful as an opener. This thread was about successful manufactured openers, and I said that Watson might be in trouble soon, and that's just an opinion.
Btw, I also believe that Marcus North is going to be in trouble soon, but he too has been successful. So, of course, cant drop him.
And, I also believe that Stuart Clark should have been the number 1 bowler for Aussies, not Mitch. At least that's coming out in the open.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Given Hussey's enormous success in the middle order, I'm not sure on what grounds he should have been pushed up to open.
On the grounds that he's an opener and there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that he would not be able to repeat his middle-order success at the top.

If Jaques had not been picked - or if Hayden had retired alongside Langer and Jaques and Hussey had opened at the start of 2007/08 - that would've made perfect sense. That's not to say that bringing Jaques in didn't make sense, but there is no way on Earth that Hussey being pushed up to open would've been anything but a perfectly sensible move. And certainly it'd have been far more sensible than Watson or Katich being picked to open.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Jacques replaced Langer, Hussey was well established in the middle order and was massively successful. When Jacques got injured, Katich was in the middle of an epic season domestically, and the Aussies had 2 options: have Katich open, or put him inthe middle order where he hadn't set the heather alight previously. Putting Katich in the middle order would have disrupted the Ponting-Hussey-Clarke-Symonds unit tha had performed well up until that point.

There were no grounds for putting Katich inthe middle order and pushing Hussey up to open.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
There were plenty. If you seriously worry about disrupting a three-to-six order you're worrying about such ridiculously trivial details that you need to be sacked (none of Ponting, Clarke nor Symonds would've had to move, only Hussey). When Hayden (not Jaques) got injured it'd have made far more sense to push Hussey than Katich up to open if both were to play. Hussey had been an opener, Katich a three\four; it had never, once, worked the other way around.

That Katich had underwhelmed in the middle-order in Tests previously is completely irrelevant. If you think he's going to underwhelm again, don't pick him; if you think he can do a good job, pick him and bat him at four.
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
Dont think this is accurate.

Hussey made his debut as Langer replacement vs WI 05/06, when Langer retured unitl hsi retirement in 06/07 Hussey proved his versatility by batting in the middle-order with very good success.

When Langer retired, there was no need then for Hussey to more from # 4 since he was in super form then. So then a natural opener in Jaques came in.

Hayden got injured vs WI 08. Then Katich opened, maybe Hussey could have opened here & Katich @ 4 then. But with Hussey as i said batting so well @ 4, Katich got a run & has proven be very excellent manufactured opener.

The when Hayden retired a natural opener in Hughes came in to partner Katich. Given's Hussey's indifferent form since SA 08/09, during the Ashes Watson really was the only option to open with Katich.

But i personally do feel Watson shouldn't be opening for AUS given his imprtance as an all-rounder & his injury record. Hughes & Jaques/Katich should be opening IMO TBH.

With De Villiers yes he is natural opener. But i honestly feel he better suited to batting in the middle-order. McKenzie worked very well as a manufactured opener for a period i'd say.
AB isn't a natural opener, has always been a utility batsman. He opened on occasions as a schoolboy but similarly batted middle order with JP for RSA U19's. Toured England in 03 and opened in the limited overs games but was batting middle order in the four day games against England U19.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
There were plenty. If you seriously worry about disrupting a three-to-six order you're worrying about such ridiculously trivial details that you need to be sacked (none of Ponting, Clarke nor Symonds would've had to move, only Hussey). When Hayden (not Jaques) got injured it'd have made far more sense to push Hussey than Katich up to open if both were to play. Hussey had been an opener, Katich a three\four; it had never, once, worked the other way around.

That Katich had underwhelmed in the middle-order in Tests previously is completely irrelevant. If you think he's going to underwhelm again, don't pick him; if you think he can do a good job, pick him and bat him at four.
Haa totally wrong uncle Rich. Firstly was NO reason to move Hussey from #4 at the time. Can't you accept that JUST POSSIBLYY that Katich had the versatily to open (past ODIs) & the selectors went on a bit of instinct?. After all they where toruing the Windies. It was a selectorial risk that could have been taken, a bit like Andy Bichel batting @ 7 in WI 2003.If Katich had indeed failed it wouldn't have cost AUS the series of nothing, Hussey could probably then opened in the next tour to IND. But Katich hasn't & is now a very successful manufactured opener & life goes on..
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
AB isn't a natural opener, has always been a utility batsman. He opened on occasions as a schoolboy but similarly batted middle order with JP for RSA U19's. Toured England in 03 and opened in the limited overs games but was batting middle order in the four day games against England U19.
Word..
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Haa totally wrong uncle Rich. Firstly was NO reason to move Hussey from #4 at the time. Can't you accept that JUST POSSIBLYY that Katich had the versatily to open (past ODIs) & the selectors went on a bit of instinct?
Nope, I think nothing of the sort - Katich was just the reserve batsman in the squad and they'd made-up their minds that Hussey was not opening under any circumstances. Reckon it's more likely they'd open with Clarke or Ponting than Hussey.
After all they where toruing the Windies. It was a selectorial risk that could have been taken, a bit like Andy Bichel batting @ 7 in WI 2003.If Katich had indeed failed it wouldn't have cost AUS the series of nothing, Hussey could probably then opened in the next tour to IND. But Katich hasn't & is now a very successful manufactured opener & life goes on..
He's been a successful manufactured opener so far - for how long it goes on remains eminently to be seen. And as I've told you before, "it didn't matter because they were going to win anyway" isn't an excuse for making any old selection. Else it'd not be a mistake for Australia to pick you or me ahead of Mitchell Johnson, because they'd still beat Bangladesh with what was effectively a ten-man side including a sub fielder.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Nope, I think nothing of the sort - Katich was just the reserve batsman in the squad and they'd made-up their minds that Hussey was not opening under any circumstances.
Rightly so.

Look it was was possible that in the first test in Jamaica with Hayden & Clarke out. Hussey COULD have opened & Katich @ 4. But again given Hussey form @ 4, it would have been very silly to move up the order.

The only series i think Hussey had a legitimate call to open IMO, was the tour to SA earlier this year. Since i personally wasn't that fond of young Hughes being thrown into the deep so early ATT. But it worked out..

Reckon it's more likely they'd open with Clarke or Ponting than Hussey.
:laugh:. Now now dont get outrageous

He's been a successful manufactured opener so far - for how long it goes on remains eminently to be seen. And as I've told you before, "it didn't matter because they were going to win anyway" isn't an excuse for making any old selection. Else it'd not be a mistake for Australia to pick you or me ahead of Mitchell Johnson, because they'd still beat Bangladesh with what was effectively a ten-man side including a sub fielder.
Ha no rich, its just knowing the strenght of your opposition & the great team knowing that could risk such a selection without it affecting them.

Look at Windies in the 80s for example. In India 1983/84 they batted Roger Harper @ # 7. Very similar to Bichel in WI 03. Now Harper clearly wasn't a test match # 7, but the windies knew they could depend on their top 6 to score runs againts the Indian attack - along with those great fast bowlers restricting the Indian. Really you making too much of a big deal here uncle..
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
There were plenty. If you seriously worry about disrupting a three-to-six order you're worrying about such ridiculously trivial details that you need to be sacked (none of Ponting, Clarke nor Symonds would've had to move, only Hussey). When Hayden (not Jaques) got injured it'd have made far more sense to push Hussey than Katich up to open if both were to play. Hussey had been an opener, Katich a three\four; it had never, once, worked the other way around.

That Katich had underwhelmed in the middle-order in Tests previously is completely irrelevant. If you think he's going to underwhelm again, don't pick him; if you think he can do a good job, pick him and bat him at four.
The vacancy was at the top of the order, Katich had scored hundreds of runs for New South Wales batting at 3.

I'd be amazed if Hussey has played more than the odd innings opening in FC cricket since he made the Australia side. What he might have done in the 10 years of his career before that is less relevant that what he's been doing since breaking into the Australia side. And that is batting almost exclusively as a middle order batsman.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't consider it is. Hussey had opened for a decade or more; just because he batted in the middle-order for a couple of years he's not going to lose the required psyche and technique to open. Katich on the other hand had pretty much never opened at all - he's always been a three by preference.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Rightly so.

Look it was was possible that in the first test in Jamaica with Hayden & Clarke out. Hussey COULD have opened & Katich @ 4. But again given Hussey form @ 4, it would have been very silly to move up the order.
Not really. It'd have been perfectly sensible, and there was no grounds for believing he could not transfer that form in the middle to the top. If Hussey had been pushed successfully to the top of the order no-one would've batted an eyelid.
:laugh:. Now now dont get outrageous
I honestly do think it's possible. Once people get into a rut they usually stay there.
Ha no rich, its just knowing the strenght of your opposition & the great team knowing that could risk such a selection without it affecting them.

Look at Windies in the 80s for example. In India 1983/84 they batted Roger Harper @ # 7. Very similar to Bichel in WI 03. Now Harper clearly wasn't a test match # 7, but the windies knew they could depend on their top 6 to score runs againts the Indian attack - along with those great fast bowlers restricting the Indian. Really you making too much of a big deal here uncle..
Nah, you're making too little a deal here nephew. Harper - who played a couple of times in India in 1983/84 BTW, after Logie and Richardson had been passed-over and with the side already two-nil up when he came in - had essentially no case to play. Regardless of the fact that the error was pretty irrelevant, it was still an error. Would've made far, far more sense to give Richardson more of a go. Sure enough, they did that immediately after those couple of Tests, though Harper was brought back in before long at all when Gomes was briefly dropped (he soon came back in place of Richardson and Richardson then came back in place of Harper AGAIN).
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I don't consider it is. Hussey had opened for a decade or more; just because he batted in the middle-order for a couple of years he's not going to lose the required psyche and technique to open. Katich on the other hand had pretty much never opened at all - he's always been a three by preference.
Yes, because opening and coming in at 3 are massively different.

Hussey had been a good opener at First Class level, however after 3 years as a middle order batsman there's absolutely no guarantee that he'd be mentally equipped to open at a higher level.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
Manufactured openers.8-) What a load of tripe. I guess it's true what they say that if you read this forum for long enough you'll eventually know everything.:)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, because opening and coming in at 3 are massively different.

Hussey had been a good opener at First Class level, however after 3 years as a middle order batsman there's absolutely no guarantee that he'd be mentally equipped to open at a higher level.
3 years of batting at four is a much lesser difference than that between opening and three. I really do think you're barking up at least a couple of wrong trees here.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Not really. It'd have been perfectly sensible, and there was no grounds for believing he could not transfer that form in the middle to the top. If Hussey had been pushed successfully to the top of the order no-one would've batted an eyelid.
All true. But where i disagree is where you term it as a "selectorial error".

Richard said:
I honestly do think it's possible. Once people get into a rut they usually stay there.
Nah under no circumstances even though the AUS selectors have been doing total crap since 2006/07, would they ever consider Ponting or Clarke opening in tests. So yes uncle you are being outrageous..

Richard said:
Nah, you're making too little a deal here nephew. Harper - who played a couple of times in India in 1983/84 BTW, after Logie and Richardson had been passed-over and with the side already two-nil up when he came in - had essentially no case to play. Regardless of the fact that the error was pretty irrelevant, it was still an error. Would've made far, far more sense to give Richardson more of a go. Sure enough, they did that immediately after those couple of Tests, though Harper was brought back in before long at all when Gomes was briefly dropped (he soon came back in place of Richardson and Richardson then came back in place of Harper AGAIN).
In the test matches where the Windies in the 80s took the risk of playing 5 batsman - Dujon @ 6 & 5 bowlers (with which pretty much almost ALL the test Harper played). These where some of the results:

- Antigua 1986. Won by 240 runs

- Manchester 1988

- Leeds 1988. Won by 10 wickets

Along with those wins in IND 83/84 along with pretty. How could it be error when the team won?. Its was just a tactical decision, they knew they could pick that team balance & it wouldn't affect them. Simple.

Same thing with AUS in WI 2003 when Bichel batted @ 7, no way would West Indies have beaten AUS then. Bichel being successful there shows how inept WI where. That is all, calling these thing selectorial errors is madness..
 

Top