oneday games in the 70's 80's and 90's

[vic_orthdox]

After players like DiVenuto were brought in to play a similar role.

 

[Richard]

Michael di Venuto... Stuart Law... James Maher...

What a shame such fabulous domestic openers were soured by being picked for ODIs.

 

[wpdavid]

Haha, he actually started opening in 1995\96. Gilchrist was certainly tried for the first time (on nothing more than a Stephen Waugh hunch) in 1997\98, though.

Admirably honest of you - I can assure you I wouldn't have checked!
Still, links into my occasional moan about lazy journalism regarding SL's 1996 win, which once again surfaced in the latest TWC. You know, the usual fiction about Kalu & Jaya's huge role in their side's towards win whilst simulateously reinventing how the game is played in the first 15 overs.

 

[Richard]

Well Jayasuriya did IMO - Kalu mostly wasted his talent. Averaged, what, 26 as an opener? Jayasuriya has averaged 36.

And you mightn't have checked, but someone else certainly would!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Although I think a major reason why Mark Waugh was moved up to open was because Slater was such an ordinary ODI player.

 

[Richard]

Well... were there no other good batsmen who were opening in domestic cricket, though?

And was Slater the only one tried in ODIs who was ordinary?

 

[archie mac]

Well... were there no other good batsmen who were opening in domestic cricket, though?

And was Slater the only one tried in ODIs who was ordinary?

I think Mark was given the chance, did well, said he enjoyed the job, and got the job

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think Mark was given the chance, did well, said he enjoyed the job, and got the job

As above.

 

[wpdavid]

Well Jayasuriya did IMO - Kalu mostly wasted his talent. Averaged, what, 26 as an opener? Jayasuriya has averaged 36.

Sure, but I was talking specifically about the 1996 WC, which I've always argued that SL won despite their openers, not because of them. I think Kalu managed a top score of 26 in that tournament, and only reached double figures twice. Something like that, anyway, especially if you ignore games against the nohopers. Jaya was better, but did nothing at all in the semi & final. I think he only had good games in the group match against India and in the quarter final against England, although SL would probably have won the latter anyway. Fact is that SL's WC win owed far more to their middle order than their openers, whatever some lazy journos may write to the contrary.

 

[thierry henry]

IMO bowlers of this generation are if not the worst then one of the worst ever (late 60s and first couple of years of the 70s was hardly flash, either, though it did have the greatest spin-attack ever as a redeeming feature).

moot point, I guess

Since the early 90s, when I started watching cricket, my sense is that the batting has improved rather than the bowling falling away. It's just been a complete seachange in the way ODI cricket is played and the feel of the game, and the feeling I get is that batsman these days are just smashing 6s and middling the ball left right and centre, and they just couldn't do that to the same extent in the past. Batsman just seem to be trying more, and finding that they can do it successfully. Most people seem to see things differently and reckon poor bowling is the problem.

 

[Richard]

I've just seen too much "innovation" result in punishment (be it Loye being hit in the grille by McGrath or Campbell being caught-and-bowled off the toe of the bat) against good bowlers rather than reward.

And the condition of the cricket-ball being used hasn't helped, either, swing is currently far more elusive than it was in the 1990s.

 

[Richard]

Sure, but I was talking specifically about the 1996 WC, which I've always argued that SL won despite their openers, not because of them. I think Kalu managed a top score of 26 in that tournament, and only reached double figures twice. Something like that, anyway, especially if you ignore games against the nohopers. Jaya was better, but did nothing at all in the semi & final. I think he only had good games in the group match against India and in the quarter final against England, although SL would probably have won the latter anyway. Fact is that SL's WC win owed far more to their middle order than their openers, whatever some lazy journos may write to the contrary.

Oh, right, I see.

I always thought a fair bit of it was because of their powerful slow-bowling armoury, too.