Manufactured openers' success

[kuranui]

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.

Mate, i would have to say a number 3 would have to have an openers technique to bat number 3. Cause they could be coming in at the second ball of the match, effectivly making them an opener....

 

[Flem274*]

I see merits on both sides here. On one hand pushing a guy up from five to open could fail horribly because they're strong at playing spin but okay at pace, or perhaps their footwork is poor early in their innings so they're vulnerable early. Some could fail because they're just not used to it. Another objection i would have is the ken Rutherford style selection: picking a younger player to open when they've spent their life in the middle order.

But if someone has the tools to do it, and there is a vacancy, then give it a go. There's a lot of players around that are quite capable and many have been recognised and pushed up (Sehwag, Langer etc).

There's also the issue that some middle order players like Ross Taylor get to do half the openers job anyway because the teams specialists are so vulnerable. I wouldn't have Taylor open ftr, but he practically bats at number three anyway.

 

[Richard]

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..

They've been doing total crap for ages before then too... but no, no-one can possibly know for sure what they'd have done or not. So I see no way that it can be termed outrageous to suggest thus.

All true. But where i disagree is where you term it as a "selectorial error".

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..

As I say - if you say that good selection = victory then I think you've a very poor definition of what good selection is. As I say, if Australia's selectors picked some random third-grade cricketer alongside their best ten other players that'd be an error in my book, regardless of whether the side was strong enough with ten players plus someone who'd basically be a specialist fielder to beat Bangladesh.

I don't judge selection by what the results are; I judge selection by what merits are behind each piece of selection. To judge selection by results is both very easy on those who have strong squads and extremely harsh on those who have weak ones. Selectors can get everything right but still lose constantly if their talent pool is weak.

 

[Richard]

Read post again kthnx.

Which one exactly, yours or mine? I don't need to read mine again, and I've already read yours as, well, you know, I replied to it.

 

[Goughy]

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.

Of the 1988 games you list: Harper did not bowl at Leeds and bowled only 2 overs at Manchester picking up 0 wickets accross 4 innings. He averaged 3 balls an innings. He took no part in the games with the ball. There was no balance.

He was a filler player at this time when the WI had injuries on this tour. Look at the Leeds Test you link to. Dujon only opened because Greenidge was injured and England selected a 3 man bowling attack

WI were always at there best with a 4 man attack.

 

[asty80]

A lot of credit for part timers succeding as openers should be given to Sachin and Sanath. When Sachin opened for India in ODI's, it was the first time we saw that a class player can actually utilize the field restrictions by playing normal cricketing shots and score quickly. The opening overs were not for defense and conserving wickets. Sanath and Kalu followed on it and took it to another level in the 96 WC which showed that 'openers' were not needed. Anybody with good talent and boundary hitting ability could do it and the new ball and field restrictions were the best time to score quickly, basically turn your disadvantag to an advantage!
Once the dam was broken, and teams that had plenty of good batsmen but not enough place for all of them, invariably took the route of sending them to open to fit them in the side (case in point - Sehwag and Yuvraj opening when Ganguly was captain and the fab 4 were still there) ..
This also causes a hint of apprehension in the bowler since he is not allowed to settle down, leading to more errors from him.

With T20 taking off now, I expect the top 6 slots to be a merry-go-round battle in the future with the 6 most talented batsmen fitting themselves where a spot is available.

There might be a few failures since everyone doesnt have the ability to play the swinging ball well and score quickly, but the concept in general will rule rather than having 2 traditional openers.

 

[Richard]

No-one is saying manufactured openers are even neccessarily a bad idea in ODIs. Some of the best ever (Mark Waugh, Ganguly, Jayasuriya, Gilchrist, Tendulkar, there are others) are manufactured and indeed many never or virtually never opened in the longer game. There is an unwritten rule on CW that something refers to Tests unless specified others. This thread is thus.

 

[Richard]

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.

Of the 1988 games you list: Harper did not bowl at Leeds and bowled only 2 overs at Manchester picking up 0 wickets accross 4 innings. He averaged 3 balls an innings. He took no part in the games with the ball. There was no balance.

He was a filler player at this time when the WI had injuries on this tour. Look at the Leeds Test you link to. Dujon only opened because Greenidge was injured and England selected a 3 man bowling attack

WI were always at there best with a 4 man attack.

Just to go back and touch on this again - for the clarity of anyone involved, all three of Harper's Tests in England in 1988 were played as a fill-in when someone else was injured - there was absolutely no amount of being a first-choice selection involved. In the Third Test (where he bowled 2 overs) he was a replacement for Desmond Haynes (Richie Richardson moved to open); in the Fourth Test (where he did not bowl at all) he and Keith Arthurton were replacements for Gordon Greenidge and Richardson (Jeff Dujon moved to open as mentioned); in the Fifth Test he was a replacement for Richardson again.

Although some of the Tests Harper played earlier in his career (this amounts to 2 in 1983/84, 8 in a row in 1984, then another 5 in a row in 1986 and 1986/87; in 3 others he played as a fourth bowler injury replacement and just once did he feature as a genuine first-choice fourth bowler - he was immediately replaced by Clyde Butts) were as a genuine all-rounder\fifth-bowler option (not that that stopped him batting below Marshall sometimes) the ones he played in 1988 were merely as injury-replacements, and the one-off he appeared in in 1988/89 only came because the deck was an ultimate dustbowl (Allan Border took 11 wickets FFS).

This isn't strictly relevant to the original question raised but just to clarify with aussie or anyone else who read the post.

 

[aussie]

They've been doing total crap for ages before then too... but no, no-one can possibly know for sure what they'd have done or not. So I see no way that it can be termed outrageous to suggest thus.

Haa, AUS will never open in a test with Ponting or Clarke. We can both bet our houses on that

As I say - if you say that good selection = victory then I think you've a very poor definition of what good selection is. As I say, if Australia's selectors picked some random third-grade cricketer alongside their best ten other players that'd be an error in my book, regardless of whether the side was strong enough with ten players plus someone who'd basically be a specialist fielder to beat Bangladesh.

Ha again you can't compare an average 3rd grade cricketer to a average/poor test player. Since that test player at least would have had proper FC performances behind him before selection.

I don't judge selection by what the results are; I judge selection by what merits are behind each piece of selection. To judge selection by results is both very easy on those who have strong squads and extremely harsh on those who have weak ones. Selectors can get everything right but still lose constantly if their talent pool is weak.

Same here. Thats why i am saying Harper & Bichel where not test match quality #7 batsmen. Againts a weak Windies team in 2003 & various teams Harper played againts in such positions. They merited being selected in those roles.

A poor selection for AUS based on tour reasoning would be Hauritz playing in Mumbai test 04. Since of course he never should have toured & MacGill should have toured & played.

 

[aussie]

Just to go back and touch on this again - for the clarity of anyone involved, all three of Harper's Tests in England in 1988 were played as a fill-in when someone else was injured - there was absolutely no amount of being a first-choice selection involved. In the Third Test (where he bowled 2 overs) he was a replacement for Desmond Haynes (Richie Richardson moved to open); in the Fourth Test (where he did not bowl at all) he and Keith Arthurton were replacements for Gordon Greenidge and Richardson (Jeff Dujon moved to open as mentioned); in the Fifth Test he was a replacement for Richardson again.

Although some of the Tests Harper played earlier in his career (this amounts to 2 in 1983/84, 8 in a row in 1984, then another 5 in a row in 1986 and 1986/87; in 3 others he played as a fourth bowler injury replacement and just once did he feature as a genuine first-choice fourth bowler - he was immediately replaced by Clyde Butts) were as a genuine all-rounder\fifth-bowler option (not that that stopped him batting below Marshall sometimes) the ones he played in 1988 were merely as injury-replacements, and the one-off he appeared in in 1988/89 only came because the deck was an ultimate dustbowl (Allan Border took 11 wickets FFS).

This isn't strictly relevant to the original question raised but just to clarify with aussie or anyone else who read the post.

Yea uncle...

 

[Richard]

Haa, AUS will never open in a test with Ponting or Clarke. We can both bet our houses on that

It's of course unlikely because by-and-large they'll pick someone else instead. My point is merely that it's not OOTQ that either might be elevated rather than Hussey.

Ha again you can't compare an average 3rd grade cricketer to a average/poor test player. Since that test player at least would have had proper FC performances behind him before selection.

I can compare whatever I want. The point is that an error of selection involves ignoring a candidate with a better case in favour of one with a lesser case. Whether doing that will impact upon the result is irrelevant.

Same here. Thats why i am saying Harper & Bichel where not test match quality #7 batsmen. Againts a weak Windies team in 2003 & various teams Harper played againts in such positions. They merited being selected in those roles.

But others merited selection in a different role more. The roles they were given were unneccessary, and a stronger side would've resulted from a different role being given to a better player.

 

[aussie]

But others merited selection in a different role more. The roles they were given were unneccessary, and a stronger side would've resulted from a different role being given to a better player.

This is where you lose the plot by saying others merited selection in different role & that WI & AUS picking Bichel & Harper to bat @ 7 was unncessary.

Saying others merited selection is your opinion - that doesn't make the selection bad. IMO i think Chris Rogers merites being selected as an opener for AUS over Hughes, but him not being selected doesn't make the decision bad or wrong.

Again it was a smart selection given the strenght of the opposition. It was NEVER going to affected the Windies & AUS chances of winning the test. AUS for example in circa 2002-2003 would never had picked Bichel to bat @ 7 againts ENG & IND for example during that period, since that then would have been a dumb selection.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yea uncle...

Aussie how old are you mate?

 

[Richard]

This is where you lose the plot by saying others merited selection in different role & that WI & AUS picking Bichel & Harper to bat @ 7 was unncessary.

Saying others merited selection is your opinion - that doesn't make the selection bad. IMO i think Chris Rogers merites being selected as an opener for AUS over Hughes, but him not being selected doesn't make the decision bad or wrong.

Hughes and Rogers both merit selection though - Rogers just merits it more. It probably is a bad decision to prefer Hughes to Rogers right now, but nowhere near as bad as the aforementioned decisions.

Again it was a smart selection given the strenght of the opposition. It was NEVER going to affected the Windies & AUS chances of winning the test. AUS for example in circa 2002-2003 would never had picked Bichel to bat @ 7 againts ENG & IND for example during that period, since that then would have been a dumb selection.

They wouldn't? No way of knowing that. And as I've said hundreds of times, anything can be a smart selection given the strength of the opposition if the opposition is so weak that you could win the Test with ten players and a sub fielder.

 

[aussie]

Hughes and Rogers both merit selection though - Rogers just merits it more. It probably is a bad decision to prefer Hughes to Rogers right now, but nowhere near as bad as the aforementioned decisions.

Ha you have too much a loose defintion of a "bad selection". The selectors prefering Hughes to Rogers given how AUS team has evolved in this post McWarne era is fairly understandable.

They wouldn't? No way of knowing that.

Oh yes we do. AUS definately had the option & could have batted Bichel @ 7 vs ENG 02/03 & IND 03/04.

As i keep tellin you it was just a tactical choice againts the WI team ATT. So not picking an extra batsman in Love to bat @ 6 was very understandable. By no means a "bad decision"..

And as I've said hundreds of times, anything can be a smart selection given the strength of the opposition if the opposition is so weak that you could win the Test with ten players and a sub fielder.

Haa madness again uncle..but i'll have to leave you here on this one since you we wont agree..bullet!!

 

[Richard]

Ha you have too much a loose defintion of a "bad selection". The selectors prefering Hughes to Rogers given how AUS team has evolved in this post McWarne era is fairly understandable.

It's not complete idiocy, but they might well do better to pick Rogers right now and leave Hughes for a bit. Either that or just pick Hughes and back him FFS.

Oh yes we do. AUS definately had the option & could have batted Bichel @ 7 vs ENG 02/03 & IND 03/04.

They could've, and had they done so there's no way to be certain they'd have paid for it. England of 2002/03 were precious little stronger if any than West Indies of 2003.

As i keep tellin you it was just a tactical choice againts the WI team ATT. So not picking an extra batsman in Love to bat @ 6 was very understandable. By no means a "bad decision"..

It was a decision that could've been bettered - would you be happier that way? Certainly not a shocker, but there were better options.