• 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.

*Official* 2nd Test at Lord's

FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Nasser talking about leaving on length but that'd be a scary prospect on this pitch with anything in line with the stumps. A few keeping low now.
 
Last edited:
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hales is at least young enough to be worth sticking with if he's **** at the start of his test career.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pothas said:
None of these have been opening.

Hales is the only one that ever has.
Click to expand...
Yet they'd probably do a better job than Lyth has been

No point sticking with a below standard batsman just because "he's an opener" when you've got better upper/middle-order batsman who can do a better job. It's definitely a specialised position but far from impossible to adapt to. The difference between opening and no. 3/4 is often over-estimated IMO. Makeshift openers have often gone on to have successful careers. Remember Simon Katich and Shane Watson for Aus a couple years back. Even David Warner was a middle-order player when he first came in (on domestic cricket) iirc.

edit: I'm not saying they should be selected, just that there are potential options worth thinking about
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top