Openers Tax

[TheJediBrah]

Gavaskar is definitely in the Lara/Sachin tier

Sunny would prefer to be segregated from West Indians I'm afraid

 

[subshakerz]

While this has always been a fascinating topic for me ever since I joined CW some 21 years ago, a couple of recent events have made me jump to one side of the fence after sitting on it for so so long.

1. Steve Smith decides he can be an opener, struggles and goes back to his #4 slot and finds some success again.
2. Shubman Gill struggles and looks like a tailender in most SENA tests, drops himself to #4 and suddenly finds amazing success.

I think it just proves that openers' tax is real and most openers, especially the strokemaking ones, would have done far better batting in the middle order. Of course, there will always be exceptions but in my mind, I am just going to do a +10 to most openers who have played reasonable amount of test cricket. It really is such a thankless tough job and those who do it well deserve to be deified.

Good point agreed.

 

[TheJediBrah]

As an aside, Steve Smith wasn't a great example. It's not like he was dominating at 4, moved to opener and failed, then moved back to 4 and dominated immediately. He was in a patch of bad form either side of the 4 games he opened in as well.

 

[CricAddict]

Agreed on openers tax. It's a bloody tough job. It is also why I find it annoying when people draft atg teams forcefitting middle order players in opening position due to better stats.

 

[CricAddict]

This is also why I rate current Duckett equal to Root and Brook as he has been ridiculously successful as a bazballer even as an opener.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Duckett's had success opening on bazball-tailored roads. Not the same as classic openers like Atherton going up against McGrath on a seeming track. He's not half the player Root is (also literally)

 

[Daemon]

Just thinking - it therefore also follows that we should discount players who benefit from batting behind a good opening pair.

I think we all somewhat do it anyways (and similarly credit batsmen who keep walking in at 10-2 or whatever), but it’s more of an afterthought.

 

[peterhrt]

Difference in Test averages between batsmen numbers 3-5 and openers:

By Era

1877-93: -3.20
1894-1914: +0.73
1920-39: +2.50
1946-69: +3.61
1970-99: +2.80
2000-25: +5.41
Overall: +3.87

By Host Country

New Zealand: +7.39
Sri Lanka: +6.42
West Indies: +4.29
Pakistan: +3.81
Australia: +3.65
India: +3.29
South Africa: +2.51
England: +1.67

 

[Thala_0710]

Difference in Test averages between batsmen numbers 3-5 and openers:

By Era

1877-93: -3.20
1894-1914: +0.73
1920-39: +2.50
1946-69: +3.61
1970-99: +2.80
2000-25: +5.41
Overall: +3.87

By Host Country

New Zealand: +7.39
Sri Lanka: +6.42
West Indies: +4.29
Pakistan: +3.81
Australia: +3.65
India: +3.29
South Africa: +2.51
England: +1.67

It would be tough to estimate but if possible we would need to check just how much of this higher middle order average is due to the better batsmen generally batting in the middle order, especially in the modern times.
The rest would primarily then be due to the higher difficulty in opening.
For example, Sri Lanka shouldn't have that big a gap. But they have had their highest avging and best bats in Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Samaraweera etc. mostly batting 3-5 which pushes up the difference.

 

[peterhrt]

It would be tough to estimate but if possible we would need to check just how much of this higher middle order average is due to the better batsmen generally batting in the middle order, especially in the modern times.
The rest would primarily then be due to the higher difficulty in opening.
For example, Sri Lanka shouldn't have that big a gap. But they have had their highest avging and best bats in Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Samaraweera etc. mostly batting 3-5 which pushes up the difference.

The Sri Lanka figure will also include opposing batsmen visiting the country. For example, Tendulkar, Root and Steve Smith all average over sixty there, while Lara and Fleming average over a hundred.

 

[peterhrt]

The NZ commentators sometimes claim that opening the batting there is hardest compared with coming in later. The figures back them up.

 

[Johan]

The NZ commentators sometimes claim that opening the batting there is hardest compared with coming in later. The figures back them up.

It's probably the one place in the world where pitches actually keep flattening

 

[Thala_0710]

The NZ commentators sometimes claim that opening the batting there is hardest compared with coming in later. The figures back them up.

I thought Australia might be near to the NZ mark but apparently not

 

[Prince EWS]

Taxation is theft.

 

[shortpitched713]

It would be tough to estimate but if possible we would need to check just how much of this higher middle order average is due to the better batsmen generally batting in the middle order, especially in the modern times.
The rest would primarily then be due to the higher difficulty in opening.
For example, Sri Lanka shouldn't have that big a gap. But they have had their highest avging and best bats in Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Samaraweera etc. mostly batting 3-5 which pushes up the difference.

That's a chicken and egg question, you can't really prize out if the better batsmen are scoring more runs in the middle order because they are better, or if it is because it is easier. It could be either factor, or both to a varying extent.

That's why it is helpful to see openers/middle order bats who switch between the positions, as you're presumably somewhat controlling for player skill level. Generally they struggle more with opening, but there isn't exactly a huge sample I think of such players.

Generally, I tend to think the sets of players are equally good, but with specialized batting skills. There hasn't been an influx of all-rounder/wicketkeeper types opening the batting to indicate otherwise that the quality of openers is going down, it's almost entirely still specialists at Test level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It would be tough to estimate but if possible we would need to check just how much of this higher middle order average is due to the better batsmen generally batting in the middle order, especially in the modern times.

Absolutely. The difference in numbers can't be solely due to difficulty of the positions

 

[shortpitched713]

Absolutely. The difference in numbers can't be solely due to difficulty of the positions

There must be some way that math could help us. Eh...

 

[CricAddict]

Absolutely. The difference in numbers can't be solely due to difficulty of the positions

The corollary is, the difficulty of positions is causing the best batsmen to bat in the middle order. But the numbers clearly back up the original question.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The respect I have got Elgar and Karunaratne is immense.

Whereas Kraigg…nah

 

[ataraxia]

Just thinking - it therefore also follows that we should discount players who benefit from batting behind a good opening pair.

I think we all somewhat do it anyways (and similarly credit batsmen who keep walking in at 10-2 or whatever), but it’s more of an afterthought.

The NZ commentators sometimes claim that opening the batting there is hardest compared with coming in later. The figures back them up.

Hail honorary opener Williamson.