Opening batsman position

[The Hutt Rec]

Speaking from experience, I found it really difficult to flick the switch, I guess. Focus on the first few overs was just survival, which was fine and usually not much of a problem. But then the mindset switch of starting to look for runs - it did my head in, and I'd often end up batting ten overs for 2 or 3 runs.

3 for some reason I would just come in and play my natural game from the first ball, I much preferred coming in at 3. Even if I was out there in the first over, there's just a totally different mindset to it, for some reason.

 

[Coronis]

It seems that Sunny is playing into a stereotype and forgetting that some of the most glamorous attacking batsman are in fact openers…

Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Kris Srikkanth, Herschelle Gibbs, Michael Slater, Matthew Hayden, Sanath Jayasuriya, Marcus Trescothick, Virender Sehwag, David Warner, Chris Gayle…..etc

Maybee if they were less glamorous and attacking they woulda been better

 

[Flem274*]

When you open the batting you're facing the bowlers at the best they will be all game. They are fresh, they have a new ball, the pitch is raw dog if it's the first innings and your team has no runs on the board.

It's the hardest job in cricket, or at least equal to the change seamer expected to bowl long spells with the old ball.

There's a reason openers post 1970s fast bowling boom average less than their middle order mates. 45 average opening is broadly equivalent to averaging 50 lower down imo. I don't think it is a coincidence we saw the most high averaging openers between 1970 to today during that 10 year period where decks were flatter and more homogenous.

It's why I'm pretty forgiving of Sehwag, Hayden et al when someone goes "oh well they averaged 25 in country X while this player at 4 or 5 averaged 105838." Send that middle order boy up top and see how he goes.

To be fair, the lower middle order often get the fun 3 down for zilch situations, which is why I'm also more forgiving of their lower conversion rates. You run out of mates to bat with quickly down there sometimes.

Edit - I also think the common trend of bad teams having no good openers is a strong point in favour of their value. Bad teams often find a couple of good bowlers who can win them the odd game before they find reliable openers. Conversely it isn't unusual for bad teams to have a middle order player or two who are really good.

No openers, no good.

 

[Daemon]

It’s harder because generally the bowling’s better and the balls doing a bit.

It’s potentially more nerve wracking for the first few overs, but overall likely to be less of a pressure situation than if you come in to bat lower down because you haven’t lost any wickets yet.

Objectively hard to argue it’s not the hardest job in cricket though.

 

[honestbharani]

When you open the batting you're facing the bowlers at the best they will be all game. They are fresh, they have a new ball, the pitch is raw dog if it's the first innings and your team has no runs on the board.

It's the hardest job in cricket, or at least equal to the change seamer expected to bowl long spells with the old ball.

There's a reason openers post 1970s fast bowling boom average less than their middle order mates. 45 average opening is broadly equivalent to averaging 50 lower down imo. I don't think it is a coincidence we saw the most high averaging openers between 1970 to today during that 10 year period where decks were flatter and more homogenous.

It's why I'm pretty forgiving of Sehwag, Hayden et al when someone goes "oh well they averaged 25 in country X while this player at 4 or 5 averaged 105838." Send that middle order boy up top and see how he goes.

To be fair, the lower middle order often get the fun 3 down for zilch situations, which is why I'm also more forgiving of their lower conversion rates. You run out of mates to bat with quickly down there sometimes.

Edit - I also think the common trend of bad teams having no good openers is a strong point in favour of their value. Bad teams often find a couple of good bowlers who can win them the odd game before they find reliable openers. Conversely it isn't unusual for bad teams to have a middle order player or two who are really good.

No openers, no good.

So, tl;dr - Sunny G was 100% correct.

 

[BazBall21]

When I think of Flem 274* I always think of his love for openers

 

[Ali TT]

When you open the batting you're facing the bowlers at the best they will be all game. They are fresh, they have a new ball, the pitch is raw dog if it's the first innings and your team has no runs on the board.

It's the hardest job in cricket, or at least equal to the change seamer expected to bowl long spells with the old ball.

There's a reason openers post 1970s fast bowling boom average less than their middle order mates. 45 average opening is broadly equivalent to averaging 50 lower down imo. I don't think it is a coincidence we saw the most high averaging openers between 1970 to today during that 10 year period where decks were flatter and more homogenous.

It's why I'm pretty forgiving of Sehwag, Hayden et al when someone goes "oh well they averaged 25 in country X while this player at 4 or 5 averaged 105838." Send that middle order boy up top and see how he goes.

To be fair, the lower middle order often get the fun 3 down for zilch situations, which is why I'm also more forgiving of their lower conversion rates. You run out of mates to bat with quickly down there sometimes.

Edit - I also think the common trend of bad teams having no good openers is a strong point in favour of their value. Bad teams often find a couple of good bowlers who can win them the odd game before they find reliable openers. Conversely it isn't unusual for bad teams to have a middle order player or two who are really good.

No openers, no good.

All the test sides have had periods when one or both of their openers have been a rotating cast. Someone like Dean Elgar might have a modest record, but if he'd been English he'd have been a huge improvement over the rubbish we've seen in the past decade.

 

[Brook's side]

When you open the batting you're facing the bowlers at the best they will be all game. They are fresh, they have a new ball, the pitch is raw dog if it's the first innings and your team has no runs on the board.

It's the hardest job in cricket, or at least equal to the change seamer expected to bowl long spells with the old ball.

There's a reason openers post 1970s fast bowling boom average less than their middle order mates. 45 average opening is broadly equivalent to averaging 50 lower down imo. I don't think it is a coincidence we saw the most high averaging openers between 1970 to today during that 10 year period where decks were flatter and more homogenous.

It's why I'm pretty forgiving of Sehwag, Hayden et al when someone goes "oh well they averaged 25 in country X while this player at 4 or 5 averaged 105838." Send that middle order boy up top and see how he goes.

To be fair, the lower middle order often get the fun 3 down for zilch situations, which is why I'm also more forgiving of their lower conversion rates. You run out of mates to bat with quickly down there sometimes.

Edit - I also think the common trend of bad teams having no good openers is a strong point in favour of their value. Bad teams often find a couple of good bowlers who can win them the odd game before they find reliable openers. Conversely it isn't unusual for bad teams to have a middle order player or two who are really good.

No openers, no good.

So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time.

 

[Coronis]

So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time.

Go back to Morganville.