• 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.

On the judgement of openers

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
I was pondering cricket (as is often the case) and my thoughts drifted to opening batsmen, specifically their quality and the way in which they have been judged over cricket history. Thinking back to the early generations of Test cricket – from the first Test match until the Second World War, for example – were I to compile a list of the ten greatest batsmen of that period, I reckon half would be openers including arguably four of the top six or seven (Grace, Trumper, Hobbs, Sutcliffe).

Then compile that equivalent top ten for the first few post-war generations – say, from 1945 to 1989. I reckon only two of the top ten batsmen in that period – Hutton and Gavaskar – would be openers, though both men are absolute all-timers and would probably rate not just in the top ten but the top five. There could also be a mention for Barry Richards who – notwithstanding all the caveats attached to him – is almost universally rated by everyone who watched him play as one of the best they ever saw.

Finally, coming to rank the top ten batsmen of the past 30 years post-1990 and you could make a fair case that there wouldn’t be an opening batsman in that list at all, and if there was one he’d be at the bottom end of it. We’ve seen some fantastic openers over the past three decades – Hayden, Sehwag, Smith, Cook (plus late-career Gooch) the best of them IMO – but I think it’s fair to say that none of them are rated at the same level of those uber-greats who came before. In fact, for the most part they are rated at best alongside and often slightly below even the openers from the past on the next level down – the likes of Hanif, Simpson, Boycott and Greenidge.

So are the very best opening batsmen simply not as good as they used to be and have declined in quality over cricket history? Linked to that, is it more to do with the evolution of team structure, whereby in the early days teams were more likely to send their best batsmen in first whereas over time this ceased to be the case? Are openers in fact every bit as good as they ever were but we now judge them more harshly and underrate them? Is it a combination of some or all of the above? Is my posting just another example of self-indulgent musing where I ask questions that no-one else gives a **** about? (Yeah ok, I think we have found our answer)

Anyway, thoughts and discussion welcomed for those with any to contribute.
 

Line and Length

International Coach
What about evolution in bowling with the new ball?
This is a very valid point. New ball bowlers today, and in more recent times, are more adept at swing and variation of pace than those of earlier eras. This would definitely make opening the batting more difficult than in the past. I'm not saying there weren't swing bowlers in the past, but I feel they may have been more predictable.
On the other side of the coin, the modern opening bats have better protective gear, more sophisticated bats and arguably
play on better prepared wickets.
 

cnerd123

likes this
is it more to do with the evolution of team structure, whereby in the early days teams were more likely to send their best batsmen in first whereas over time this ceased to be the case?
I think this is the main reason. It's almost a rule now that the team's best batter won't open the batting*, whereas in the past there were often exceptions.

I wonder how the construction and quality of the ball used at the highest levels of cricket have changed over the years. Do modern balls swing less or more? What happened when they lost their shine? How quickly did they go out of shape, or how frequently were they replaced during an innings? Might be a factor as well.

*in professional 2-day cricket, still plenty of examples in limited overs or youth/amateur level.
 

kyear2

International Coach
I do believe it's the hardest job in cricket. When we look at the amount of top tier ATG middle order batsmen, there's almost a glut. For the openers there's almost a scarcity.
With regards to undisputed ATGs there's
Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar and then the caveats begin. And no not a fan of Sutcliffe and not going through that again, but to me, there are caveats.

But Sutcliffe aside, who's the best if the rest, the next in line.

For me the best example of how unforgiving the position can be, is to look at Atherton. For his entire career, he faced the new ball against some ridiculously great bowlers and attacks. And when they ball is at its hardest, the bowlers are fresh and if you're batting first, not even sure what the pitch is doing. You can't get lucky with facing the 1st or 2nd change bowler when you come in, like you can in the middle order.

So should their stats be almost adjusted in comparison to their middle order counterparts?

But also look at their importance, the great teams always seemed to have the most stable partnerships at the top. Greenidge and Haynes, Hayden and Langer, Morris and Barnes.. There wasn't many great ones, but if you had one there were worth their weight in gold.
 

Nikhil99.94

School Boy/Girl Captain
I do believe it's the hardest job in cricket. When we look at the amount of top tier ATG middle order batsmen, there's almost a glut. For the openers there's almost a scarcity.
With regards to undisputed ATGs there's
Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar and then the caveats begin. And no not a fan of Sutcliffe and not going through that again, but to me, there are caveats.

But Sutcliffe aside, who's the best if the rest, the next in line.

For me the best example of how unforgiving the position can be, is to look at Atherton. For his entire career, he faced the new ball against some ridiculously great bowlers and attacks. And when they ball is at its hardest, the bowlers are fresh and if you're batting first, not even sure what the pitch is doing. You can't get lucky with facing the 1st or 2nd change bowler when you come in, like you can in the middle order.

So should their stats be almost adjusted in comparison to their middle order counterparts?

But also look at their importance, the great teams always seemed to have the most stable partnerships at the top. Greenidge and Haynes, Hayden and Langer, Morris and Barnes.. There wasn't many great ones, but if you had one there were worth their weight in gold.
I think it’s hobbs,Hutton 1 and 2 .Hutton is so underrated in this web Hutton has to be better than any opener ever except hobbs.Cook was a good player too if he was Indian/Australian and had he played in India/Australia in flat decks he would have averaged over 50,he was the man due to which England won series in India ,australia,cook also faced the best bowling lineup of the opposition every time unlike gavasker.
For me it’s-
1.Hobbs
2.Hutton
gavasker,cook are almost equal.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I can't really comment on pre-1970 but as of now opening is much harder than batting in the middle order and we probably don't quite account for that as much as we should.

I'm sure I've said this before but it's interesting how far the best modern openers are from the ideal of an opener. They're supposed to be technically impeccable, but you'd struggle to find four successful test batsmen with more obvious technical flaws than Sehwag, Hayden, Smith, and Cook.

Maybe opening is what makes the technical flaws a story? Seems conceivable to me that if you could transplant Smith or Cook in at 4 or 5, they wouldn't face the moving ball as much, wouldn't develop a pattern of repeatedly getting out in the same way, and would pile on so many runs that they'd just go down as ATGs.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Maybe opening is what makes the technical flaws a story? Seems conceivable to me that if you could transplant Smith or Cook in at 4 or 5, they wouldn't face the moving ball as much, wouldn't develop a pattern of repeatedly getting out in the same way, and would pile on so many runs that they'd just go down as ATGs.
I reckon this is particularly true of Smith.
 

Nikhil99.94

School Boy/Girl Captain
I mean there is a difference in opening the batting in flat decks in India and opening the batting in England, Cook was a great player if he was Indian/Australian and had he played in India/Australia in flat decks 50 percentage of time he would have averaged over 50,he was the man due to which England won series in India ,australia.cook also faced the best bowling lineup of the opposition every time unlike gavasker.

gavasker averaged 41 in 28 innings in England.there is a difference between opening in England and opening in flat decks in India and averaging 45.5 as a opener in England is equal to averaging 51 as a opener in India and the difference in runs per innings is cooks 40.6 compared to gavaskers 44.00 ,its 3 .4 runs per innings more which is almost each due to opening in England compared to opening in India .

It’s-
1.hobbs
2.Hutton
cook/gavasker are almost equal..
 
Last edited:

Top