Openers Tax

[TheJediBrah]

Cook was a pretty good player of spin IIRC. He would have been a very good middle order batsman

 

[Daemon]

Generally speaking

Ball moves more
Fresher bowlers
Usually the better bowlers bowling instead of the all rounder, rubbish spinner etc

It’s a no brainer

 

[shortpitched713]

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

Your implication seems to be that in flatter environments, opener tax is less applicable.

I don't think there's any evidence for this, and I belive the trend is simply that the new ball is getting harder and harder to face (relative to batting in a middle order position) over time. Regardless of whether the period in question is flat or spicy. This will require a deeper dive. But given that each decade has continued this steady march towards a lower and lower average ratio, I think it will hold up nicely.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Your implication seems to be that in flatter environments, opener tax is less applicable.

Yeah I guess it is. In general it's not as relatively difficult to open in Australia or the subcontinent as it is in England IMO. You won't convince that Hayden, Warner and Sehwag would have averaged 10 runs more batting in the middle order. Hayden wasn't better than Tendulkar and Lara

 

[shortpitched713]

In fact, it is the opposite

My counterpoint to that is that ball condition is independent of pitch. We see it often enough that a high quality bowler with a new ball can snag an early wicket, but then the batsmen that remain past that can truly cash in, and only at that point we "determine" that the wicket is truly flat. If anything the openers would be unique in that relative vulnerability on a flat pitch.

 

[centurymaker]

I was thinking the same especially in light of Gill's runs in the middle order.

Generally speaking, I'd add at least +5 to openers across the board. Even more so to those who faced tougher opening conditions.

 

[centurymaker]

Generally speaking

Ball moves more
Fresher bowlers
Usually the better bowlers bowling instead of the all rounder, rubbish spinner etc

It’s a no brainer

Exactly

It's like having to face Bumrah's initial couple of spells with the new ball, vs coming in or facing more of the 3rd seamer or 4th seamer Reddy or holding spinner. and an older ball. It's why Head had so much success in BGT. He took advantage of a lopsided bowling attack.

 

[Coronis]

I was thinking the same especially in light of Gill's runs in the middle order.

Generally speaking, I'd add at least +5 to openers across the board. Even more so to those who faced tougher opening conditions.

Sutcliffe’s 65.73 looking pretty good.

 

[centurymaker]

Sutcliffe’s 65.73 looking pretty good.

I was more referring to modern era (1970 onwards).

 

[Johan]

It won't really be any different in any era tbh, at least since the war.

 

[Coronis]

I was more referring to modern era (1970 onwards).

How convenient

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was thinking the same especially in light of Gill's runs in the middle order.

Generally speaking, I'd add at least +5 to openers across the board. Even more so to those who faced tougher opening conditions.

You can't add anything "across the board" though. There will be players, even if a minority, that are better off opening. Just because some (or most) players would do better down the order doesn't mean that every single player will, and certainly not all by the exact same margin. Cricket is a lot more nuanced than that.

 

[honestbharani]

In case you guys have not worked it out yet, the +10 to the batting avg was just me exaggerating to make a point. I just think we, here at CW, as a community have done the test openers dirty and we should revisit our overall batting rankings considering the openers tax. That is all. Its no longer mere speculation even though its just a sample size of a few.

 

[Thala_0710]

In case you guys have not worked it out yet, the +10 to the batting avg was just me exaggerating to make a point. I just think we, here at CW, as a community have done the test openers dirty and we should revisit our overall batting rankings considering the openers tax. That is all. Its no longer mere speculation even though its just a sample size of a few.

Can you give examples as to which openers you find underrated on CW the most?

 

[honestbharani]

Can you give examples as to which openers you find underrated on CW the most?

Its not specific openers though. If we are doing a batting ranking, for example, openers are usually showing up around where you would expect them based on sheer numbers. I know Hobbs is considered top notch but even in my time of watching cricket, I think the likes of Gooch and even Gavaskar and Gary Kirsten, for example, are rather underrated in that I feel they all should probably go up a tier than where they are ranked today. I never had Gavaskar in the Sachin-Lara tier, for example but after recent events, and after his own success whenever he did bat in the middle order, I think he probably does belong in that tier of batsmen below Bradman-level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

Wouldn't this apply more to the likes of Sehwag, Hayden and Warner than Gavaskar

 

[honestbharani]

Wouldn't this apply more to the likes of Sehwag, Hayden and Warner than Gavaskar

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.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sutcliffe’s 65.73 looking pretty good.

It's changed over time. In Sutcliffe's era the opener tax was very small, Hobbs and earlier it was basically nonexistent.

 

[shortpitched713]

It won't really be any different in any era tbh, at least since the war.

Yeah, pre 1914 there wasn't an opener tax at all.

 

[shortpitched713]

Its not specific openers though. If we are doing a batting ranking, for example, openers are usually showing up around where you would expect them based on sheer numbers. I know Hobbs is considered top notch but even in my time of watching cricket, I think the likes of Gooch and even Gavaskar and Gary Kirsten, for example, are rather underrated in that I feel they all should probably go up a tier than where they are ranked today. I never had Gavaskar in the Sachin-Lara tier, for example but after recent events, and after his own success whenever he did bat in the middle order, I think he probably does belong in that tier of batsmen below Bradman-level.

As much as it pains me to say, Gavaskar is definitely in the Lara/Sachin tier (he works hard enough he might even make it into the Hayden tier).