• 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.

Openers Tax

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
I would add some runs to all of them, yes. I said Gavaskar coz he was one who actually showed he could bat better and even faster when batting in the middle order, the few times he did that.
🤔
Gavaskar scored a total of 380 runs from 5 innings batting in 3-5 positions. But that includes 236 against WI, where he was effectively an opener.

That said, Gavaskar always been in the league of Best after Bradman.
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
Yeah I think English openers more than any would be reasonably to apply an across the board tax to. Not in recent years though of course with the BazBall roads they've been dishing out
yeah using my patented Shafted Hero Anglo Doing Yourbest (SHADY) metric i can exclusively confirm that michael carberry’s real average in the johnson ashes was like fifty
 

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Very much this.
 

Ju7

School Boy/Girl Captain
It also really depends on the pitch, for example sometimes in Asia the thread is the old ball IE reverse swing and the spinners, a batsman is at the most vulnerable at the start of his innings so when a middle order batsman comes to bat at number 4 or 5, it's very likely the ball is old and perhaps reverse is going to come into play, but more importantly the spinners have already found their line and length, and therefore the MO batsman have a very big challenge. Comparatively, the opener had to face early swing but it's minimal generally, of course there are exceptions such as Eden Gardens and Kandy but generally the opener gets to get his eye in and read the pitch, understand the bounce and so forth. I think playing middle order in Asia should get more credit than it deserves, so guys like Younis Khan and VVS Laxman should get more credit, the pitches being more worn out and having to face the spinners from ball one, reverse too but not always.

in SENA, that dynamic reverses, as we saw here, even in 2025 on a flat road of a wicket, with extremely short boundaries, with the current batch of Duke balls, we see how a competent seamer like Akash Deep basically ripped England apart with the new ball but the old ball did literally nothing. It's pretty much the same with South Africa and New Zealand as well, even if the pitch is a road the new ball is an absolute weapon, due to more conventional swing movement and seam friendly wickets. So generally, I think the same way Asian middle order bats deserve a lot more credit for countering spin from ball one, people like Boycott or Lawry or maybe even Cook deserve a lot more credit because even on the flattest pitch, they had some work to do and obviously older dukes were much more durable than the modern bazball ones, opening on a green wicket with a duke or reinforced kookabura out against competent seamers might be the single hardest job in Cricket. +10 sounds a little absurd but countries that have consistently bowler friendly wickets I think you can give +4/5?
Interesting post.

Traditionally opening in England has probably been one of the most difficult things in cricket.Think greenish wickets & overcast conditions although there are fewer green tops these days.

I do agree that in certain countries it is harder than others in relative terms.We should also remember that at the start of a match the bowlers are fresh.In the second innings the openers could end up having to bat for say 45 minutes at the end of the day after spending the best part of 2 days in the field.

One of the issues for England is that Crawley is a middle order player rather than being an opener.That is not to excuse his decision making/poor execution/Test record.

Talking of England I don't think Pope is a top order bat.He's another middle order bat.In fact it could be argued that Crawley/Pope are no 5/6 batsmen.
 

Ju7

School Boy/Girl Captain
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.
Graham Gooch was an example of someone who moved successfully from the middle order to opening for England.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
One of the issues for England is that Crawley is a middle order player rather than being an opener.That is not to excuse his decision making/poor execution/Test record.
Eh the traditional difficulties opening the batting in England haven't been much of a factor in recent seasons with the conditions faced. Been very flat wickets. Can't use that excuse for Crawley
 

SteveNZ

International Coach
1. Steve Smith decides he can be an opener, struggles and goes back to his #4 slot and finds some success again.
This was always going to be the case, and as many poor predictions as I've made on here, one that was prophetic was that Smith wasn't going to average 30 as an opener. Maybe he could have adapted to becoming one as a youngster, but it was never going to work as a 35-year-old. He'd built his game for a decade around scoring runs as a 4, coming in at 2-for, tailoring his technique to what that encompassed. Good on him for putting his hand up to do it, he certainly didn't have to.

TJB's point about the great openers likely not being able to produce the same run output further down, I reckon is so true.

Are there any stats around opening batsmen in Tests year on year? I don't know if stats will bear it out, but the eye test says opening batsmen have never been less equipped to do that job. And it'll likely get worse.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
This was always going to be the case, and as many poor predictions as I've made on here, one that was prophetic was that Smith wasn't going to average 30 as an opener. Maybe he could have adapted to becoming one as a youngster, but it was never going to work as a 35-year-old. He'd built his game for a decade around scoring runs as a 4, coming in at 2-for, tailoring his technique to what that encompassed. Good on him for putting his hand up to do it, he certainly didn't have to.

TJB's point about the great openers likely not being able to produce the same run output further down, I reckon is so true.

Are there any stats around opening batsmen in Tests year on year? I don't know if stats will bear it out, but the eye test says opening batsmen have never been less equipped to do that job. And it'll likely get worse.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This was always going to be the case, and as many poor predictions as I've made on here, one that was prophetic was that Smith wasn't going to average 30 as an opener. Maybe he could have adapted to becoming one as a youngster, but it was never going to work as a 35-year-old. He'd built his game for a decade around scoring runs as a 4, coming in at 2-for, tailoring his technique to what that encompassed. Good on him for putting his hand up to do it, he certainly didn't have to.

TJB's point about the great openers likely not being able to produce the same run output further down, I reckon is so true.

Are there any stats around opening batsmen in Tests year on year? I don't know if stats will bear it out, but the eye test says opening batsmen have never been less equipped to do that job. And it'll likely get worse.
For Smith it was a form issue. How he went on the 4 games he opened doesn't tell us anything. He was having just as middling-poor numbers at 4 leading up to it. If he tried it from 2014 to 2019 he'd probably have the same results as he did at 3 and 4. 2019 ashes he was coming in within a few overs nearly every knock and had the best series he ever had.

In fact one of the things that ****ed his form at first around 2020 was when he started coming in later after the top 3 batted for 40+ overs. Coming in earlier suited him
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
For Smith it was a form issue. How he went on the 4 games he opened doesn't tell us anything. He was having just as middling-poor numbers at 4 leading up to it. If he tried it from 2014 to 2019 he'd probably have the same results as he did at 3 and 4. 2019 ashes he was coming in within a few overs nearly every knock and had the best series he ever had.

In fact one of the things that ****ed his form at first around 2020 was when he started coming in later after the top 3 batted for 40+ overs. Coming in earlier suited him
He also did play an awesome innings opening amongst the other failures. I definitely think he would have been a good opener if he gave it longer than four games which is a tiny sample size given his form was poor anyway, but still likely not as good as he is/was at four and it was always a pretty unnecessary risk.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
He also did play an awesome innings opening amongst the other failures. I definitely think he would have been a good opener if he gave it longer than four games which is a tiny sample size given his form was poor anyway, but still likely not as good as he is/was at four and it was always a pretty unnecessary risk.
I dont think the point was if Smith would have been a good opener or whatever. its more like he would have still averaged much lower than he did batting in the middle order.
 

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Cheers. Those numbers definitely look to be trending down, from the 2000s where runs were plentiful and openers were alphas, to late 2010s and through the 2020s.
I wouldn’t say openers have been alphas since pre WWII. Since then the mantle has been passed. Even in the 30’s it was trending that way with Bradman, Hammond and Headley.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
its more like he would have still averaged much lower than he did batting in the middle order.
He wouldn't have

By this rule Smith and Warner are equally as good batsmen and the only difference was one opened and one didn't, but they're not. If Smith opened he wouldn't have averaged under 50, and if Warner batted in the middle order he wouldn't have averaged 55+

Opening is harder in general, but it's not a blanket rule you can apply to everyone. Which I'm sure we can all agree on
 
Last edited:

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
He wouldn't have

By this rule Smith and Warner are equally as good batsmen and the only difference was one opened and one didn't, but they're not. If Smith opened he wouldn't have averaged under 50, and if Warner batted in the middle order he wouldn't have averaged 55+
If we were to apply a 5 point tax, Smith is still clear of Warner.

As opener:
Smith 51 vs Warner 44

As middle order bat:
Smith 56 vs Warner 49

.
So I don't know how you are making them equals if they swapped positions?
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If we were to apply a 5 point tax, Smith is still clear of Warner.

As opener:
Smith 51 vs Warner 44

As middle order bat:
Smith 56 vs Warner 49

.
So I don't know how you are making them equals if they swapped positions?
It was just an example. Applying any standardised "tax" is nonsensical

We can acknowledge that opening the batting is harder in general without forcing an adjustment across the board
 

Ju7

School Boy/Girl Captain
Eh the traditional difficulties opening the batting in England haven't been much of a factor in recent seasons with the conditions faced. Been very flat wickets. Can't use that excuse for Crawley
If you read my posts you will note that I've not made any excuses for him and think he should be dropped.Also I posted this:
Traditionally opening in England has probably been one of the most difficult things in cricket.Think greenish wickets & overcast conditions although there are fewer green tops these days.
 

Top