The Simon Katich Appreciation Society - Kat Is King

[GIMH]

This thread is the Best

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Kanhai get you to use the proper names here, Richard. You're completely Butchering my understanding of what's going on. You've got me Nurse-ing a pretty bad headache now, trying to work out just who "Whelan" is.

 

[Richard]

FTR, he's LongHopCassidy, but I think you knew that really you crafty old hack, and were just rocking and Roweing the boat, same as old Burge and his Murray Mints thingy. I've got your number y'ol' Rae.

 

[readie]

Sign me up. I'm now a Katich fan, never quite rated him on the International stage, despite appreciating him as an awesome domestic bat however his immense achievements on the domestic stage which have flowed on into the Tests have made me love the guys.

I had personally thought he would end up as a Sinclair esque player, awesome in Domestic cricket but never quite able to live up to his promise in the tests, be that his fault or not but he's being doing great.

 

[Nate]

FTR, he's LongHopCassidy, but I think you knew that really you crafty old hack, and were just rocking and Roweing the boat, same as old Burge and his Murray Mints thingy. I've got your number y'ol' Rae.

You have the posts, but we have the Poweller

 

[NUFAN]

Sar wan please put a holt to these awful puns.

 

[Bobisback]

Dicko - STFU.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, of course not. Sobers clearly always had skill with the bat, even if it's unlikely at 17 anyone thought he was going to go on to become one of the best batsmen in history - entirely different to someone like Mark Richardson.

It's simply a personal thing. Once the age of 16 or 17 is reached (nothing to do with what level of cricket you were selected first for and when), mostly an opener is an opener and a middle-order batsman is a middle-order batsman. Of course, such as in the cases of Jimmy Maher, Alec Stewart and Sanath Jayasuriya, players convert - in either direction - in their mid-20s. But I don't like to see it.

In many cases players aren't pure openers though. The obvious case I can think of is Phil Jaques. He was a middle order batsmen for his grade club, but a position opened up for NSW as an opener and that is where he was selected.

Most players would be able to adapt to the different roles. The most obvious example of one that couldn't was Matthew Elliot when selected to bat at 3. When he was waiting to bat he was like a cat on a hot tin roof.

 

[Langeveldt]

****

 

[Top_Cat]

No, of course not. Sobers clearly always had skill with the bat, even if it's unlikely at 17 anyone thought he was going to go on to become one of the best batsmen in history - entirely different to someone like Mark Richardson.

It's simply a personal thing. Once the age of 16 or 17 is reached (nothing to do with what level of cricket you were selected first for and when), mostly an opener is an opener and a middle-order batsman is a middle-order batsman. Of course, such as in the cases of Jimmy Maher, Alec Stewart and Sanath Jayasuriya, players convert - in either direction - in their mid-20s. But I don't like to see it.

Just to pick a few random Aussie examples;

Mark Waugh opened with Mark Taylor when they played together before playing for NSW.
Rick Ponting was picked at 6 for the early part of his career before becoming a dominating number 3.
Greg Blewett was picked at 6 despite being a state-level opener and had almost all of his Test success there.
JL, nuff' said.
Ditto Mike Hussey, Phil Jaques, David Boon and the Kat

And on it goes. Fair enough it's a personal preference but good players are are good players and throwing them around positions is nothing new and I reckon it's pretty rare to see player bat in the same position all through school, under-age, state and Tests. The best adapt pretty well. Similarly, those who fail and claim it's because they were batting out of position, I think, are often hiding behind that as an excuse.

 

[Perm]

Dicko - STFU.

AWTA.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Dicko - STFU.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not too surprised by that, and was always a bit dubious of him as far down as six, though his failures down there were disappointing nonetheless.

Ideally he'd have batted three (or four at worst) for Australia, but sadly the presence of Ricky Ponting has debarred that.

I think it shows, however, that the rigid definitions of "opener" and "middle order player" are a little overplayed at times, particularly when it comes to batsmen who have spent a lot of time batting three. In many ways batting three is more similar to opening than it is to batting five despite the latter two both being "middle order" positions. The vast majority of middle-order-player-to-opener converts have been number three batsmen as well, so I think you need to look at that position in particular with a bit more of an open mind.

I know that personally, if I had to choose between two batsmen of similar quality to bat three in my team - one who was an opener and one who batted almost exclusively at six - I'd take the opener every time.

Katich considers himself a top three batsman and feels most comfortable batting there, and as long as you don't have technical problems specific to a batting position, batting where you feel comfortable and confident is only really relevant part of batting order preference.

 

[_Ed_]

And it's not altogether unheard of for a number 3 to face the second ball of an innings.

 

[Top_Cat]

And it's not altogether unheard of for a number 3 to face the second ball of an innings.

Nor for a number 6 to face the second new-ball.

 

[_Ed_]

True.

 

[vic_orthdox]

One distinction is the ability to play spin early on in your innings; ref. GS Blewett.

 

[Richard]

Just to pick a few random Aussie examples;

Mark Waugh opened with Mark Taylor when they played together before playing for NSW.
Rick Ponting was picked at 6 for the early part of his career before becoming a dominating number 3.
Greg Blewett was picked at 6 despite being a state-level opener and had almost all of his Test success there.
JL, nuff' said.
Ditto Mike Hussey, Phil Jaques, David Boon and the Kat

And on it goes.

Three to six is rather different to opening to three, even.

Anyway, interesting to know that Mark Waugh actually started as an opener in the shorter game, had always presumed it'd worked the other way around.

Fair enough it's a personal preference but good players are are good players and throwing them around positions is nothing new and I reckon it's pretty rare to see player bat in the same position all through school, under-age, state and Tests. The best adapt pretty well. Similarly, those who fail and claim it's because they were batting out of position, I think, are often hiding behind that as an excuse.

Of course the best can adapt to most positions, but I'd be really surprised if it was that rare to bat in the same position from the time you started playing the game seriously to the end of that time.

As I say, I just prefer to see it that way.

And Kyle - yeah, I know about Jaques, I first saw him as a middle-order batsman for Northants and thought "how odd that NSW are making him open" in 2003/04 or 2004/05 or whenever it was.

 

[Richard]

I think it shows, however, that the rigid definitions of "opener" and "middle order player" are a little overplayed at times, particularly when it comes to batsmen who have spent a lot of time batting three. In many ways batting three is more similar to opening than it is to batting five despite the latter two both being "middle order" positions. The vast majority of middle-order-player-to-opener converts have been number three batsmen as well, so I think you need to look at that position in particular with a bit more of an open mind.

I know that personally, if I had to choose between two batsmen of similar quality to bat three in my team - one who was an opener and one who batted almost exclusively at six - I'd take the opener every time.

See, I'm not 100% sure about this. I'm not, for a second, suggesting that there aren't cases where it applies, but (well, as I say above) opening isn't all about technical proficiency against the new ball - obviously, a three is very likely to require this to have any sustained success as well.

Three is certainly a "flexible" position, but I'd say a particularly good three would be equally adept at five or even six as they would opening. Though clearly some would be better at one or the other.

 

[The Ken Legends]

What a remarkable 12 months he has had in 1st class cricket.

LONG LIVE THE KAT

​