Flem274*
123/5
I think less talented players are more likely to volunteer for the least popular job in cricket rather than try to push into crowded middle orders, but there's also a reason it is the least popular job, and we've still had many incredibly talented openers. Sehwag springs to mind as more gifted than any Indian of his era bar Tendulkar, and Jayasuriya, Anwar, Trescothick and Hayden were also right up there in natural talent relative to their peers.I do sometimes wonder how much of it is the most talented batsmen just not being used as openers and how much of it is opening being harder. It's no doubt a bit of both IMO, but how much weight to give to each reason is something I wonder about sometimes. I don't think opening usually is harder in India for example but the best middle order players there still tend to have better records than the best openers.
I also think the requirements of opening outside the batting boom of the 00s make it harder to look naturally talented when compared to your mates in the middle order. We also have examples like Sehwag, Langer and present day Conway and Young who were exciting talented in FC who were put into opening because selectors didn't want to waste them in the reserves.
On the India example, that was true when we were growing up (somewhat clouded by global pitch homegenization imo) but I'm not sure the modern spin trio are dulled by a hard new rock for extra kick and Bumrah at the other end. A true kill yourself situation that.
I tend to lean towards opening just being harder, and think that a very talented player like Tom Latham who converted from wicketkeeper #5 for Canterbury to test opener would turn his 70s and 80s against the best attacks into 100+ scores if he batted at #4 but can understand the counter argument since we have Mark Richardson, Dean Elgar and the like. There are definitely many lesser lights who battle their way into opening, and it is rife at FC level with fringe test players.
This gets to the heart of these Fab 4 debates.If anything it makes part of me rate him a little higher than his overall average - he plays a disproportionate amount of games against a gun attack in conditions he seems unsuited to. On the other hand Australian pitches have been mostly roads during his career so it could have been something for him to actually cash in on.
"He hasn't done anything in situation X"
"What about this?"
"Nah, it was a road/not real opposition/Warne was injured that day"