How do you feel about Shane Warne?

[SJS]

I have batted at both the opening slot as well as at numbers three to five. It depends a lot upon your style of play. I liked the ball to come on to the bat and being a strong backfoot player I enjoyed the ball coming off the bat with force when bowled by a fast bowler. That said, the chances of being badly beaten by late swing (and it really was commonplace in the 70's in league cricket) were very high. You had to survive those early overs but if you did, there was really great joy in opening.

The basic advantage in opening is that there is no 'history' to that innings when you come in so the pressure is only of playing the ball dealt to you. At other positions there could be additional pressure of the match/innings situation.

By the way, on the turning tracks of Delhi, they all took turn even if slowly at times, I always found it a bit more difficult to settle in coming in at number five with a good spinner bowling than at the top with a good pacer.

I am not sure if number three has more pressure but it is clearly a pivotal position requiring probably the best batsman in the side who probably will be a good player of both the new ball and of spin.

Otherwise opening or middle order depends on a batsman's technique and personal preference.

That said, a great opener has greater chance to succeed if batting in the middle than vice versa purely because of the special skills it requires at the top.

 

[honestbharani]

I have batted at both the opening slot as well as at numbers three to five. It depends a lot upon your style of play. I liked the ball to come on to the bat and being a strong backfoot player I enjoyed the ball coming off the bat with force when bowled by a fast bowler. That said, the chances of being badly beaten by late swing (and it really was commonplace in the 70's in league cricket) were very high. You had to survive those early overs but if you did, there was really great joy in opening.

The basic advantage in opening is that there is no 'history' to that innings when you come in so the pressure is only of playing the ball dealt to you. At other positions there could be additional pressure of the match/innings situation.

By the way, on the turning tracks of Delhi, they all took turn even if slowly at times, I always found it a bit more difficult to settle in coming in at number five with a good spinner bowling than at the top with a good pacer.

I am not sure if number three has more pressure but it is clearly a pivotal position requiring probably the best batsman in the side who probably will be a good player of both the new ball and of spin.

Otherwise opening or middle order depends on a batsman's technique and personal preference.

That said, a great opener has greater chance to succeed if batting in the middle than vice versa purely because of the special skills it requires at the top.

What are your thoughts reg. the seamers >>>> spinners argument of Richard, SJS?

 

[SJS]

What are your thoughts reg. the seamers >>>> spinners argument of Richard, SJS?

I (almost) NEVER get into an argument with Richards. It keeps us both happy and we remain good friends

 

[honestbharani]

I (almost) NEVER get into an argument with Richards. It keeps us both happy and we remain good friends

something I should follow too, I think....

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I (almost) NEVER get into an argument with Richards. It keeps us both happy and we remain good friends

But it's the lack of such arguments that mistakenly leads him to believe that anyone agrees with him.

 

[SJS]

But it's the lack of such arguments that mistakenly leads him to believe that anyone agrees with him.

No. Its people continuing to go on and on in a futile discussion that feeds his long debates.

Having said that, he is not always wrong.

 

[GIMH]

SJS your posts are a joy to read. What an excellent summary of where it is diffuclt to bat!

having said that, 11 is clearly the hardest, knowing that if you lose your wicket, the innings is over! Chris Martin would average 45 higher up

 

[SJS]

SJS your posts are a joy to read. What an excellent summary of where it is diffuclt to bat!

having said that, 11 is clearly the hardest, knowing that if you lose your wicket, the innings is over! Chris Martin would average 45 higher up

Thanks.

In my first ever match at the Feroze Shah Kotla I went in at number 11. We had to play out the last over to draw the game. The ninth wicket had fallen off the last ball off the previous over. So inspite of my yearning to get to face a ball at the test wicket of Delhi and go back to school the nextday to boast to my class mates, our fast bowler who was in told me not to budge an inch out of the non-strikers crease and he played out the six deliveries.

I dont think I was ever more delighted as well as more disappointed in any match I ever played.

That was my first and last experience of playing at number 11. I played my second game almost a year later and by then was playing in the middle order

 

[honestbharani]

Thanks.

In my first ever match at the Feroze Shah Kotla I went in at number 11. We had to play out the last over to draw the game. The ninth wicket had fallen off the last ball off the previous over. So inspite of my yearning to get to face a ball at the test wicket of Delhi and go back to school the nextday to boast to my class mates, our fast bowler who was in told me not to budge an inch out of the non-strikers crease and he played out the six deliveries.

I dont think I was ever more delighted as well as more disappointed in any match I ever played.

That was my first and last experience of playing at number 11. I played my second game almost a year later and by then was playing in the middle order

My first game for my school, I batted at 11. I was only 13 and the other guys were 15... So it figured that I batted that low. I kept wickets but I missed a couple, mainly out of nervousness, and ended up having to hand over the gloves during the last 10 overs. Batting at 11, I walked in when we needed about 50 with our #6 at the other end. Managed to hang around (we had more than 12 overs to get the runs) and he was getting runs very quickly, basically because he was hitting out given that I was at the other end... But I managed to hang around and score 12 n.o, including a very nice straight drive for 4... We won... and I became a bit of a hero at school.....

I was only supposed to be a sub there that day. One of the guys suddenly got a bit of headache and I was the only one around. A real debut by accident if ever there was one. But playing at that level (the U15s) when everyone was around 15 or even more (the false age certifications is quite rampant in Indian schools tourneys) was so thrilling.

 

[SJS]

My first game for my school, I batted at 11. I was only 13 and the other guys were 15... So it figured that I batted that low. I kept wickets but I missed a couple, mainly out of nervousness, and ended up having to hand over the gloves during the last 10 overs. Batting at 11, I walked in when we needed about 50 with our #6 at the other end. Managed to hang around (we had more than 12 overs to get the runs) and he was getting runs very quickly, basically because he was hitting out given that I was at the other end... But I managed to hang around and score 12 n.o, including a very nice straight drive for 4... We won... and I became a bit of a hero at school.....

I was only supposed to be a sub there that day. One of the guys suddenly got a bit of headache and I was the only one around. A real debut by accident if ever there was one. But playing at that level (the U15s) when everyone was around 15 or even more (the false age certifications is quite rampant in Indian schools tourneys) was so thrilling.

Sounds like the story of one helluva a happy 13 year old on his debut. You must have been thrilled with your performance.

I too played in that first match in 1965 because someone did not turn up. I was permanent 12th man (because I was by far the best fielder in the side but not good enough in either batting or bowling to have any chance in the playing XI) and then one day i worked for me. Who says fielding alone doesn't get you a place in the side

My coach who was actively playing himself those days would always come out on sme pretext when our side was fielding and it gave me great thrill to go and field on the ground we used to see our heroes play on. It was enough for me to put my everything into fielding.

 

[Engle]

Have always opened. The challenge of opening is to test the skills of a batsman who has trained and specialized in taking on quicks against the quicks who have similarly specialized in trying to dismiss openers. It’s a specialist vs specialist contest.

This initial contest goes a long way in determining the rest of the innings. The openers must attempt to achieve the psychological advantage.

There may be a point that the opener knows what he’s up against vis-à-vis other positions, however, there is the surprise element of how the wicket will behave and how well the quickies bowl.

I had no greater joy in the game than being the first one out to face the fastest. It was just not the same at the other positions.

 

[honestbharani]

Sounds like the story of one helluva a happy 13 year old on his debut. You must have been thrilled with your performance.

yep... I really was.


Started to be a regular in our side from the next season and those were easily the best 2 years of my life. We couldn't play U19s through schools, feel so bad they couldn't have a U17s tourney. And when I got to college, I realized the only way teams were selected was based on how well one knew the skipper who was a senior (doing his 3rd or 4th year of engineering) and me going in as a freshman had no chance. And it seems for some reason, there is always so much competition for the wicket-keeper's spot. I don't mean to blow my own horn here but I am positive I was better than every other wicket keeper in our college, but that was that for me. Any hopes of playing serious cricket went out of the window that day.....


But SJS, you must have played at a fair level for a number of years... How good/bad is it to be playing league cricket in say, cities like Mumbai or Delhi? I know in Chennai we have a great league system (goes down to 5 divisions with promotions/relegations in each) and I know Ranji players from all over the country come in to play in the TNCA league. People generally refer to it as the best league in the country. So I am just curious to learn how things are over in Mumbai, Delhi etc.

 

[SJS]

But SJS, you must have played at a fair level for a number of years... How good/bad is it to be playing league cricket in say, cities like Mumbai or Delhi? I know in Chennai we have a great league system (goes down to 5 divisions with promotions/relegations in each) and I know Ranji players from all over the country come in to play in the TNCA league. People generally refer to it as the best league in the country. So I am just curious to learn how things are over in Mumbai, Delhi etc.

Delhi and Mumbai. along with Chennai are great leagues and if you are playing in the A division as I was (for 20 years), you play with the best players not just from the city but probably from the zone.

Almost all the top players from Punjab, Haryana and UP would be playing in the Delhi league. Its the same with Mumbai with players from Maharashtra and Vidharba playing there and some from Gujarat too.

Chennai may not have many big centres of excellence other than Tamilnadu's own because of geographical location (Delhi is surrounded by three states) ot the way some state teams are structured (Maharshtra is broken into three teams with Mumbai being just one) but still I have heard from old timers that the standards in Chennai were fabulous. At one time almost all the top players of Sri Lanka used to play in Chennai.

 

[honestbharani]

Delhi and Mumbai. along with Chennai are great leagues and if you are playing in the A division as I was (for 20 years), you play with the best players not just from the city but probably from the zone.

Almost all the top players from Punjab, Haryana and UP would be playing in the Delhi league. Its the same with Mumbai with players from Maharashtra and Vidharba playing there and some from Gujarat too.

Chennai may not have many big centres of excellence other than Tamilnadu's own because of geographical location (Delhi is surrounded by three states) ot the way some state teams are structured (Maharshtra is broken into three teams with Mumbai being just one) but still I have heard from old timers that the standards in Chennai were fabulous. At one time almost all the top players of Sri Lanka used to play in Chennai.

That's great.. I guess that is one of the things about living in the metros... We get such great league systems to come through so that if we do have talent, it gets harnessed in a proper way. Obviously, lot depends on coaches etc. but still it is wonderful to be a part of that kind of structure.


And yeah, the thing about the TNCA league is, it is almost like a mini county cricket system here. We get so many Ranji players from other states playing for the clubs here, it is amazing. That is probably why they always call it the best league in the country. The real problem though, is that too much depends on Chennai here, as far as cricket in Tamil Nadu is concerned. People from other cities or towns or villages get very little chance... Most of the guys who do make it to the TNCA league or even the Ranji team have to move to chennai and find some day job to make ends meet. It is the sad thing about TN cricket. I hope they can start an academy and try and harness talent from other parts of the state through that.....

 

[Richard]

But it's the lack of such arguments that mistakenly leads him to believe that anyone agrees with him.

Nah, it doesn't. No-one agrees with everyone, and no-one has everyone agree with them.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, it doesn't. No-one agrees with everyone, and no-one has everyone agree with them.

Its the first completely sensible thing you have said in this thread.......










IMO, of course...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nah, it doesn't. No-one agrees with everyone, and no-one has everyone agree with them.

I said "anyone", not "everyone".

 

[Richard]

Well it's obvious that more than 0 people have ever agreed with me, otherwise you wouldn't get people replying to my posts with "agree".

And silence is generally assent, of course.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And silence is generally assent, of course.

That's the second joke you've cracked this week, maybe there is hope yet.

 

[Richard]

The-e-e-e-ere's always been hope.