• 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

Sir Alex

Banned
Haha, well if you say something funny it's not unreasonable to expect people to laugh.
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.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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."
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I can see merit in Richard's ideals, but we don't live in an ideal world.

With a decline in fast bowling standards and more batsman friendly pitches, there's no reason why a prolific middle order batsman shouldn't be equally successful opening the innings.

Even in a return to a more ideal world of bowler friendly pitches and top quality pace attacks, there's still no reason why a successful middle order bat with the correct skill set (the most glaring example being Rahul Dravid) couldn't become a successful opener.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Dravid being, ironically, crap at opening.
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.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
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."
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I was not replying to Richard but to the opening post. :)
 

bunny

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
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.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
Yeah, that's it.

The main difference between opening and batting 3 or 4 is just the mental aspect. If conditions and bowling are difficult enough to require a specific technique to navigate the new ball then 9 times out of 10 you'll be facing new ball bowling in the middle order anyway.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
1500 runs @ 48 with 4 centuries.
 
Last edited:

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
IMO, it's better to pick the better batsman as long as you think he has a sound technique and temperament than to pick a lesser player who is a specialist opener. 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.

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. ;)
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha nah, I was laughing with you. It's just funny when someone makes a point about something which is immediately and unanswerably disproven in a few words.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
By Richard's logic/theory, Ashwell Prince is a 'natural' opener. He opened as a schoolboy and for RSA U19's alongside Mark Boucher.
If you take it to the nth degree then yeah.
But I think Richard's point is that if you come through the development system as a middle order player and then get asked to open at FC or test level, you're entitled to be considered a manufactured opener.

As for Prince, if he opened all through his junior career but batted middle order later because spots werent there, well maybe he is a "natural" opener (to the extent there is such a thing).

Good thread this btw. Hard to disagree with Social's reasoning in the OP really.
 
Last edited:

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
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 :).
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Yea 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?
 

Top