Hashim Amla vs Virat Kohli in ODIs

[Enforcer]

you have had a case if the person considered could do task A too. but he fails in it.

it is like a surgeon, who can do a complicated surgery yet, he can't give an injection, can't prescribe medicine and (hence) who is worthless on day to day routine..

But to find such a surgeon is rare, but the one who can give an injection is easier to find. That is what i am implying

 

[Enforcer]

When Kohli has his 1st innings sorted out (I am sure he will), his stature will increase, till then it's a weakness. Doesn't matter if you think it's ok to fail while batting first. I have given 4-5 examples of chasing conditions being easier than defending, if you need more, I will have to search more, certainly in Test matches I can give better examples as I followed Test cricket more.

Weakness is there i am not denying. But there are others in team who can compensate that and can setup a good score. But to chase a huge score, India mostly depends on Kohli. That is why he is so special.

 

[Itachi]

But to find such a surgeon is rare, but the one who can give an injection is easier to find. That is what i am implying

a rule of thumb, availability doesn't mean quality is bad. rare doesn't mean quality is good. just because potato is found everywhere and cheap, does it mean strawberry has higher quality?

 

[Enforcer]

a rule of thumb, availability doesn't mean quality is bad. rare doesn't mean quality is good. just because potato is found everywhere and cheap, does it mean strawberry has higher quality?

Again you are comparing apple with oranges. Amla - a top quality of something which we require, but is readily available. Kohli- a top quality of something which we require, but is rarely available.
Whom do you rate More?

 

[tempus123]

But to find such a surgeon is rare, but the one who can give an injection is easier to find. That is what i am implying

It finally depends on value addition in the team. If the team lacks in chasing, a good chaser is what it needs, if the team is bad at setting up the scores, it needs batsmen who can play freely without having a total in mind. Different players will be in demand in different types of teams and at different phases in the team's psyche.

 

[tempus123]

Again you are comparing apple with oranges. Amla - a top quality of something which we require, but is readily available. Kohli- a top quality of something which we require, but is rarely available.
Whom do you rate More?

I don't know for sure, but you seem to imply that good first innings batsmen are available everywhere.

 

[Enforcer]

It finally depends on value addition in the team. If the team lacks in chasing, a good chaser is what it needs, if the team is bad at setting up the scores, it needs batsmen who can play freely without having a total in mind. Different players will be in demand in different types of teams and at different phases in the team's psyche.

Don't you think every team now-a-days require a batsman which can be top class while chasing. How badly South Africa would have wanted a player like kohli when they were chasing against us. that is why I said Kohli is better than Amla.

 

[Itachi]

Again you are comparing apple with oranges. Amla - a top quality of something which we require, but is readily available. Kohli- a top quality of something which we require, but is rarely available.
Whom do you rate More?

Amla. because it is difficult to proceed when you don't know where your goals are. even if you score at 120 SR, you may feel that, it may not be enough.

in chasing, you have a target. you know where you stand. it makes it easier. why do you think dhoni prefers to chase?

 

[Itachi]

Don't you think every team now-a-days require a batsman which can be top class while chasing. How badly South Africa would have wanted a player like kohli when they were chasing against us. that is why I said Kohli is better than Amla.

and we don't have a batsman who can steer like amla while batting 1st. it is good that dhawan is clicking. otherwise, india would be doomed.

india needs amla, RSA needs kohli.

 

[Idreamofcricket]

and we don't have a batsman who can steer like amla while batting 1st. it is good that dhawan is clicking. otherwise, india would be doomed.

india needs amla, RSA needs kohli.

That doesn't make any sense. Kohli scored a century batting first against Pakistan..

It's more like.... India doesn't need an Amla and RSA can use a Kohli.

 

[Enforcer]

I don't know for sure, but you seem to imply that good first innings batsmen are available everywhere.

Not available every where but yes relatively easier to find than good chaser. Do you think Rohit sharma ,who has scored two Double centuries batting first ,can produce a 150+ Not out innings, at an outstanding strike rate and can single-handedly chase 330+ total. The answer is NO

 

[Enforcer]

That doesn't make any sense. Kohli scored a century batting first against Pakistan..

It's more like.... India doesn't need an Amla and RSA can use a Kohli.

Yeah you can see even hack like Dhawan are producing innings like amla,so.

 

[tempus123]

Not available every where but yes relatively easier to find than good chaser. Do you think Rohit sharma ,who has scored two Double centuries batting first ,can produce a 150+ Not out innings, at an outstanding strike rate and can single-handedly chase 330+ total. The answer is NO

Why has Kohli not been able to score 150+ while batting first like Rohit has done twice ?

 

[tempus123]

Yeah you can see even hack like Dhawan are producing innings like amla,so.

So the 130 innings was a fluke and hack .. good point. It was much more fluent and aggressive than Kohli's scratchy hundred against Pakistan.

 

[Enforcer]

Amla. because it is difficult to proceed when you don't know where your goals are. even if you score at 120 SR, you may feel that, it may not be enough.

in chasing, you have a target. you know where you stand. it makes it easier. why do you think dhoni prefers to chase?

Seriously for that we have Rohit sharma. Example- in Bangalore ODI where Rohit scored his 1st 200. It was not easy to know what would be a good score on that super flat track, against a rampaging aussie batsman. But Rohit made it almost unreachable, sadly Australia didn't have a kohli to chase that

 

[IndianWillow]

Let's say you have an ability to cross 300 - one out of ten times. Irrespective of batting first or second.

Imagine you play 100 matches:

Batting first - You bat 100 times then you will cross 300- ten times based on your ability.

Batting second - You bat 100 times and majority of times you don't even need to cross 300. Now let's say, you need to cross 300 to win games 10-15 times then going by ability of team you are going to chase it only 1-2 times. That's in 100 games while batting second with the same ability.

Getting less number of 300+ ,when batting second, is a simple case of probability.

If it is due to probabilistic considerations only, half the 300 scores should be chased successfully. Why is it easier to defend 300 compared to chasing 300? Scoreboard pressure, correct? Which is exactly why getting 300 is easier batting first.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Just because Kohli's chasing record is phenomenal, it doesn't make a 1st innings average of 39 and a SR of 85 bad!

 

[IndianWillow]

There is a massive difference between technique to play in ODIs and Tests . Just cos some one has done well in Tests dosent necessarily mean he has technique to score in ODIs . The difference is the pace at which you have to score . That hook or ondrive Amla was trying to play and got out , he wudnt have to do in Tests , he can be a lot more selective and leave those balls . Thats where its absurd to compare these two . you need to be a lot more versatile and have shots all around to be able to score quickly in ODIs & when you dont and try to do that , you simply get out .
when you chase the score board pressure makes it even more difficult , makes to play shots which you wud normally dont have to batting first . Thats where the likes of Amla get exposed , its not jinx bad luck or some black magic , simply lack of ability score at will

Exactly. YK is a good example.

 

[Enforcer]

So the 130 innings was a fluke and hack .. good point. It was much more fluent and aggressive than Kohli's scratchy hundred against Pakistan.

Yeah but then Rahane produced a more valuable innings, thus making a good total to an incredible one. That is what i am saying, we have many players who are good while setting the target, so if kohli doesn't contribute,it hardly matters. But if kohli failed in a 300+ chase, then there is no hope. And it is same for all the team. Hence Kohli has an edge over Amla.

 

[Buffet]

If it is due to probabilistic considerations only, half the 300 scores should be chased successfully. Why is it easier to defend 300 compared to chasing 300? Scoreboard pressure, correct? Which is exactly why getting 300 is easier batting first.

No, if you have an ability to score 300+ only 10% of times then you are not going to chase half of the time 300+.

I do get that chasing is more difficult than setting a big score but I was only explain why we don't see 300+ chased so often. We will always see a lot more cases of 300+ when batting first than second. It's combination of probability and also score board pressure.

 

[tempus123]

If it is due to probabilistic considerations only, half the 300 scores should be chased successfully. Why is it easier to defend 300 compared to chasing 300? Scoreboard pressure, correct? Which is exactly why getting 300 is easier batting first.

It would be interesting to find out if the relative batting strength of the two teams decide if they score 300.

 

[Itachi]

That doesn't make any sense. Kohli scored a century batting first against Pakistan..

It's more like.... India doesn't need an Amla and RSA can use a Kohli.

kohli stepping up in batting 1st is a rare occurence.

 

[Itachi]

Just because Kohli's chasing record is phenomenal, it doesn't make a 1st innings average of 39 and a SR of 85 bad!

good point. but we are comparing high standards here. not just tom,dick, harry.

 

[Itachi]

Seriously for that we have Rohit sharma. Example- in Bangalore ODI where Rohit scored his 1st 200. It was not easy to know what would be a good score on that super flat track, against a rampaging aussie batsman. But Rohit made it almost unreachable, sadly Australia didn't have a kohli to chase that

of all people, you are rating rohit?

 

[tempus123]

Yeah but then Rahane produced a more valuable innings, thus making a good total to an incredible one. That is what i am saying, we have many players who are good while setting the target, so if kohli doesn't contribute,it hardly matters. But if kohli failed in a 300+ chase, then there is no hope. And it is same for all the team. Hence Kohli has an edge over Amla.

If Dhawan didn't play that innings, Rahane's 70 odd wouldn't lead India anywhere.. and while chasing also, Kohli doesn't do it alone btw, there are always supporting hands.

 

[Itachi]

If Dhawan didn't play that innings, Rahane's 70 odd wouldn't lead India anywhere.. and while chasing also, Kohli doesn't do it alone btw, there are always supporting hands.

i recall many times, when kohli got out and it was dhoni that made sure that india get past the chequered flag.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

In general, chasing a big total in an ODI match is lot more difficult than setting up a big total;

Kohli is exceptional in this regard, and there are no two ways about it; In the history of the game, I don't know, if anyone has scored this many runs as Kohli while chasing in the top order; not counting Dhoni/Bevan as they mostly come in late;

Only thing Kohli needs to improve is living up to his high standards when setting up a total;

Anyone, who has played some level of cricket/seen enough matches, would know chasing a big total is far more difficult than setting up one.

 

[Enforcer]

If Dhawan didn't play that innings, Rahane's 70 odd wouldn't lead India anywhere.. and while chasing also, Kohli doesn't do it alone btw, there are always supporting hands.

When a guy like rahane can come and blast 70 odd in 50 balls, which is not easy since you require some time to set , given the bounce in australian pitches, why he can't produce an innings like Dhawan. When the last time Dhoni has produced such innings in Australia? just shows what an incredible innings was that.

 

[Enforcer]

In general, chasing a big total in an ODI match is lot more difficult than setting up a big total;

Kohli is exceptional in this regard, and there are no two ways about it; In the history of the game, I don't know, if anyone has scored this many runs as Kohli while chasing in the top order; not counting Dhoni/Bevan as they mostly come in late;

Only thing Kohli needs to improve is living up to his high standards when setting up a total;

Anyone, who has played some level of cricket/seen enough matches, would know chasing a big total is far more difficult than setting up one.

top post.

 

[IndianWillow]

It would be interesting to find out if the relative batting strength of the two teams decide if they score 300.

This factor should even out if we take into account the thousands of ODIs that have been played to date. Even strong teams are not chasing 300 consistently when the weaker team posts 300 batting first. On the other hand, if the stronger team posts 300 batting first they usually crush the weaker team. This can be easily verified from the stats.

 

[Enforcer]

i recall many times, when kohli got out and it was dhoni that made sure that india get past the chequered flag.

But never while chasing a big score, never ever.

 

[Idreamofcricket]

Dhawan is a serious player with a very good command over both on and off side.. To call him a hack is just reflective of prejudice and poor knowledge of the game.

 

[Enforcer]

Dhawan is a serious player with a very good command over both on and off side.. To call him a hack is just reflective of prejudice and poor knowledge of the game.

Many ppers called him hack when he failed in test series and tri-series against australia. I was just insinuating to that.

 

[Idreamofcricket]

Many ppers called him hack when he failed in test series and tri-series against australia. I was just insinuating to that.

Dhawan's problem was not with technique.. but with attitude.. similar to that of Sehwag's. The difference here being, Dhawan is slightly smarter (cricketing smartness) than Sehawag.. so is able to alter his temperament and focus more on staying on the crease for a longer time.

Dhawan has an extremely bright future ahead of him.

 

[jusarrived]

and we don't have a batsman who can steer like amla while batting 1st. it is good that dhawan is clicking. otherwise, india would be doomed.

india needs amla, RSA needs kohli.

Oh come on , all our batsmen can drop anchor thats the reason we are more sucesful OD team & current world champs . There is no place for onde dimensional players like Amla in the team
As much I disklike Rohit these days once hes set , he can get those massive scores Amla can only dream off .

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Oh come on , all our batsmen can drop anchor thats the reason we are more sucesful OD team & current world champs . There is no place for onde dimensional players like Amla in the team
As much I disklike Rohit these days once hes set , he can get those massive scores Amla can only dream off .

Looks like you seem to under rate Amla way too much IMHO.

 

[Mamoon]

As much as I agree that opening is the easiest position to bat in ODIs in this era, Rohit is nowhere near the same class as Amla bhai.

 

[jusarrived]

Looks like you seem to under rate Amla way too much IMHO.

I think hes a very good player , nothinng beyond that . Accumulators are liablity to ODI teams these days imo , especially one dimensional ones who have no more than 2 gears to their game & add to the fact that he dosent even anchor where he is required to , ie while chasing .
The best openers in the game right now are Brendon mccullum & David warner . if you leave out stats , most people will blindly pick these tow as their openers .

 

[jusarrived]

As much as I agree that opening is the easiest position to bat in ODIs in this era, Rohit is nowhere near the same class as Amla bhai.

Am not a big fan of Rohit either , infact I think hes more Amla like for 80% of his innings & like Amla when he gets out sucks all the momentum out of the innings , but some extra marks only for his late hitting . its marginal really , ideally I wudnt want both .

 

[IndianWillow]

I think hes a very good player , nothinng beyond that . Accumulators are liablity to ODI teams these days imo , especially one dimensional ones who have no more than 2 gears to their game & add to the fact that he dosent even anchor where he is required to , ie while chasing .
The best openers in the game right now are Brendon mccullum & David warner . if you leave out stats , most people will blindly pick these tow as their openers .

Disagree there. If Amla hits 100(120), rest of the players can take the team past 300. Amla would walk into any top team now with eyes closed. Amla can play the kind of knock Dhawan played against SA, and the knock Kohli played against Pakistan - both knocks are winners for any team.

 

[ikram17]

I think hes a very good player , nothinng beyond that . Accumulators are liablity to ODI teams these days imo , especially one dimensional ones who have no more than 2 gears to their game & add to the fact that he dosent even anchor where he is required to , ie while chasing .
The best openers in the game right now are Brendon mccullum & David warner . if you leave out stats , most people will blindly pick these tow as their openers .

You keep harping about this like it is the most obvious thing in the world. Completely one sided and poor analysis which is pretty much devoid of any objectivity.

Your entire argument relies on ignoring stats (convenient) and using terms like "accumulator", "liability", "anchor" without any context or providing even basic statistics to back up your claim.

Let us take a look at your claims:

1. Opening is the easiest slot to bat in ODIs:

Even if we take this as a fact, it does not mean much. As an example opening might be easy in India and tough in England. But for the sake of argument I will agree with you. The question is so what if opening is easiest? It does not mean an opener cannot be a match winner or the best batsman in the team/series/tournament/world etc. Also doesn't mean openers do not influence the outcome of a match more often than not.

Now specifically in Amla's case, if we take his numbers into account he is comfortably the best opening in the "modern" era (last ten years). Has easily the highest average and his SR is among the top as well. I mean, David Warners SR is lower than Amla's.

2. Chasing is a lot more difficult than setting a target and Amla's numbers are worse chasing therefore Amla isn't a great or effective ODI batsman:

This is simple. Chasing might be more difficult but yet again it isn't more important than batting first. Over the course of any batsman's career he will win as many tosses as he will lose, therefore he will have to set a target as much as he has to chase one. Now keeping all this in mind Amla still has excellent numbers for any batsman when he is chasing.

Sure, theres room for improvement and he could do better but calling him one dimensional based on this is just throwing words out there. Kohli is a better chaser but Amla is a much better batsman when he bats first. Kohli averages only 38 when he bats first, Amla averages 44 when he chases. Amla averages 63 when batting first and Kohli 61 when chasing. Pretty close if you ask me. Completely sidelining one for the other is just being biased and devoid of objectivity.

Both great players if you ask me. I'm an Amla fan so naturally I hope he does a lot better than Kohli.

*All my stats are vs top 8 in the last 1 years.

 

[jusarrived]

Disagree there. If Amla hits 100(120), rest of the players can take the team past 300. Amla would walk into any top team now with eyes closed. Amla can play the kind of knock Dhawan played against SA, and the knock Kohli played against Pakistan - both knocks are winners for any team.

Arnt you actually proving my point , any of our batsmen can drop anchor and play such innings . why do we need a specialist for that ?

well if you check his stats Amla actually hasnt played such knocks against top teams . He has 15 hundreds batting first , 3 against WI , 2 against Zim , 1 each against Ned and Ban . Only 8 against the top teams & if you dont count Ind and SL bowling as top notch . That leaves us with 2 hundreds between Aus , NZ and Eng .

Virat has excatly 2 hundreds against Eng , Aus & Eng batting first . On what basis are we saying that Amla can play such innings ?

 

[Buffet]

I think hes a very good player , nothinng beyond that . Accumulators are liablity to ODI teams these days imo , especially one dimensional ones who have no more than 2 gears to their game & add to the fact that he dosent even anchor where he is required to , ie while chasing .
The best openers in the game right now are Brendon mccullum & David warner . if you leave out stats , most people will blindly pick these tow as their openers .

As much as Amla has an issue with not able to switch into 4th/5th gear, he is comfortably the best opener playing cricket right now. You are picking on his negative and running with it but cricket is about scoring runs and do it fast. Amla does it more frequently than any other opener.

 

[jusarrived]

You keep harping about this like it is the most obvious thing in the world. Completely one sided and poor analysis which is pretty much devoid of any objectivity.

Your entire argument relies on ignoring stats (convenient) and using terms like "accumulator", "liability", "anchor" without any context or providing even basic statistics to back up your claim.

Let us take a look at your claims:

1. Opening is the easiest slot to bat in ODIs:

Even if we take this as a fact, it does not mean much. As an example opening might be easy in India and tough in England. But for the sake of argument I will agree with you. The question is so what if opening is easiest? It does not mean an opener cannot be a match winner or the best batsman in the team/series/tournament/world etc. Also doesn't mean openers do not influence the outcome of a match more often than not.

Now specifically in Amla's case, if we take his numbers into account he is comfortably the best opening in the "modern" era (last ten years). Has easily the highest average and his SR is among the top as well. I mean, David Warners SR is lower than Amla's.

2. Chasing is a lot more difficult than setting a target and Amla's numbers are worse chasing therefore Amla isn't a great or effective ODI batsman:

This is simple. Chasing might be more difficult but yet again it isn't more important than batting first. Over the course of any batsman's career he will win as many tosses as he will lose, therefore he will have to set a target as much as he has to chase one. Now keeping all this in mind Amla still has excellent numbers for any batsman when he is chasing.

Sure, theres room for improvement and he could do better but calling him one dimensional based on this is just throwing words out there. Kohli is a better chaser but Amla is a much better batsman when he bats first. Kohli averages only 38 when he bats first, Amla averages 44 when he chases. Amla averages 63 when batting first and Kohli 61 when chasing. Pretty close if you ask me. Completely sidelining one for the other is just being biased and devoid of objectivity.

Both great players if you ask me. I'm an Amla fan so naturally I hope he does a lot better than Kohli.

*All my stats are vs top 8 in the last 1 years.

I dont ignore stats , I like to judge based on what I have seen of him bettere . A lot of reasons for that , prominent being most openers have inflated stats . Amla not just is bad when the pressure is on , he also gets to bat in the easiest batting slot in a linup . Add to the fact that bulk of his "good" innings come aganst the likes of WI , ZIM its difficult to rate him higher than I already do .

 

[ikram17]

I dont ignore stats , I like to judge based on what I have seen of him bettere . A lot of reasons for that , prominent being most openers have inflated stats . Amla not just is bad when the pressure is on , he also gets to bat in the easiest batting slot in a linup . Add to the fact that bulk of his "good" innings come aganst the likes of WI , ZIM its difficult to rate him higher than I already do .

But what you're saying is just...wrong. Openers having "inflated" stats does not mean anything when Amla's are comfortably better than any other opener playing in his era. Only Sri Lanka basher Rohit averages 50 as an opener and lets be frank, that won't last for long.

Vs Aus, NZ, Pak (took out Ind, SA, SriLanka) Amla still has a better average than Kohli. So what's your point?

 

[ikram17]

jusarrived, are you also one of those fans who claim Bradman had it easy because he only played 2 or 3 countries and everyone was an amateur yada yada?

 

[Buffet]

bulk of his "good" innings come aganst the likes of WI , ZIM its difficult to rate him higher than I already do .

Taking out WI, Zim & BD -- Only against top 6 ODI units - He averages 49 with SR of 85 -- Has 100 against all 6 oppositions. He has done well in pretty much all venues.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

Take a look at other openers and compare to see how many comes even close to this performance.

 

[Buffet]

he also gets to bat in the easiest batting slot in a linup .

It may be relatively a bit easier but to keep some context - here is 750+ runs for openers in the last 5 years. Only 3 guys have averaged 50+ ( not counting WI, ZIm etc ). One was SRT, who has retired. So you have grand total of 2 batsmen with 50+ in the last 5 years.

It's not as easy as you are making it out to be. Yes, few Indian batsmen have done well that's not surprising given that India is one of the strongest batting line up in the last 5 years. Except Amla, not even a single non-Indian is averaging 45+ as an opener. Amla doing well can't be simply explained by him batting as an opener.

 

[jusarrived]

But what you're saying is just...wrong. Openers having "inflated" stats does not mean anything when Amla's are comfortably better than any other opener playing in his era. Only Sri Lanka basher Rohit averages 50 as an opener and lets be frank, that won't last for long.

Vs Aus, NZ, Pak (took out Ind, SA, SriLanka) Amla still has a better average than Kohli. So what's your point?

Very recent examples

Sarfraz opening & sarfraz down the order
Rohit opening & Rohit down the order
Bell opening & down the order

None of these guys are openers , infact failures when they bat in the middle order , you think its a coincidence that all these players look a much better batsmen when they open ? Why is that from Tendulkar to Kamran Akmal every one wants or wanted to open in a ODI linup ? more overs to settle , no pressure , power plays and big hundreds .
And mark my words , Rohit will avg 50+ when he hangs his boots & most likely will go down as a great ODI batsmen . People already compare him to Virat , which is just unfortunate ,

 

[jusarrived]

jusarrived, are you also one of those fans who claim Bradman had it easy because he only played 2 or 3 countries and everyone was an amateur yada yada?

Havent seen him play so would not comment

 

[Mamoon]

What makes opening the easiest position beyond the field restrictions and pace on the ball is the fact that you are always in the same situation, speaking of batting first mainly.

In the middle order, sometimes it will be 50-2, 100-4 or 150-1. You will have to constantly adjust.

I'd take 10 runs of the averages' of all the openers to get a true valuation of their abilities. An opener who averages 50 is more like a 40 averaging ODI batsmen in truth, and those averaging below 40 will be very mediocre, sub-30 averaging batsmen.

Openers struggling to maintain their average around 35 are trash.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

[MENTION=1697]jusarrived[/MENTION] -- Kohli comes in the top order, so it is not that he doesn't have enough overs to settle, he usually stays during second batting power play (not sure exactly how many times though), so can cash-in during that time;

Do you remember Slater? He was one of the most aggressive opening batsman in Test match cricket with full of strokes both on and off side but failed miserably in ODIs; So, we cannot simply say that opening in ODIs is like an easy job only certain players may succeed;

Amla has scored everywhere and against all opposition, only thing that seems to be missing is him scoring in big tournaments;

As of now looking at their careers, I would say, Amla is better at setting up a total and Kohli better at chasing;

 

[ikram17]

Openers vs Batsman that bat in the 3-6 positions in the last 10 years ie. the modern era.


Make of it what you will.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

What makes opening the easiest position beyond the field restrictions and pace on the ball is the fact that you are always in the same situation, speaking of batting first mainly.

In the middle order, sometimes it will be 50-2, 100-4 or 150-1. You will have to constantly adjust.

I'd take 10 runs of the averages' of all the openers to get a true valuation of their abilities. An opener who averages 50 is more like a 40 averaging ODI batsmen in truth, and those averaging below 40 will be very mediocre, sub-30 averaging batsmen.

Openers struggling to maintain their average around 35 are trash.

Yes opening is easier than middle order but I don't think you can attach an objective value.

Sometimes Kohli at No 3 comes in very early and pretty much acts as an opener.

Take this WC for example.

So why should those centuries and good knocks be counted as if he was a middle order batsman and but for openers, 10% of their averages must be subtracted?

Maybe we just have to go for an subjective way on top of stats (which in today's era is becoming too much favoring batsmen).

Maybe we just need to let these openers play out a few years and see where they stand.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes opening is easier than middle order but I don't think you can attach an objective value.

Sometimes Kohli at No 3 comes in very early and pretty much acts as an opener.

Take this WC for example.

So why should those centuries and good knocks be counted as if he was a middle order batsman and but for openers, 10% of their averages must be subtracted?

Maybe we just have to go for an subjective way on top of stats (which in today's era is becoming too much favoring batsmen).

Maybe we just need to let these openers play out a few years and see where they stand.

In my view, even if you come in in the very first over, your mindset is still not the same as that of an opener. You are still playing as a number 3 whose job got a little tougher because the opener failed to do his job.

If you compare the number of batsmen who struggled in the middle order and succeeded as openers to the number of batsmen who went from struggling openers to excellent middle order batsmen, it is probably going to be a landslide in favour of the former.

From memory, I don't happen to recall many openers who successfully made this transition from opener to middle order by getting demoted, but there are numerous examples of struggling middle order batsmen getting promoted and turning their careers around. If you look at the last 15-20 of ODI cricket, most of the successful openers were makeshift - in the sense that they weren't specialist openers, and batted in the middle order in Tests.

Specialist openers open in Test cricket.

I don't see Amla bhai batting as well as he does up the order if he has to come in at 20-1 in 5 overs, or 30/2 in 10 overs. I think he will struggle and his average will drop. On the contrary, I can definitely see Kohli do what bhai does if he gets to open. Especially, while batting first, which seems to be his weak zone.

 

[tempus123]

When a guy like rahane can come and blast 70 odd in 50 balls, which is not easy since you require some time to set , given the bounce in australian pitches, why he can't produce an innings like Dhawan. When the last time Dhoni has produced such innings in Australia? just shows what an incredible innings was that.

Playing through the innings as an opener is much more difficult than playing at number 4 coming in at a good score already.

 

[tempus123]

This factor should even out if we take into account the thousands of ODIs that have been played to date. Even strong teams are not chasing 300 consistently when the weaker team posts 300 batting first. On the other hand, if the stronger team posts 300 batting first they usually crush the weaker team. This can be easily verified from the stats.

Let us verify it, it will be an interesting stat to objectively discuss things. But in general if 300 score is tough to chase, it is tougher to chase against a good bowling line up.

The blind stats of number of times 300 is chased wouldn't give a correct picture (I am sure you are not saying that either, so am not opposing your point), but would like your opinion on the following scenario.

A 6-match ODI series is played b/w India and Australia, where both batted first 3 times each. Australia scored 300+ 3 times and India scored once. All the chases failed. The current stat will look like :

The number of times 300 was scored batting first : 4
The number of times 300 was chased : 0

It will look like 4-0 but in fact one team was 100% failure in chasing that, and other team only failed once coz it didn't allow 300 runs in the first place.

Again, what you are saying is not wrong, I am just asking for more subjective opinion on quality of teams in this stat.

 

[tempus123]

But never while chasing a big score, never ever.

Never say never.

1. WC final 2011. Was that not a big score to chase ?
2. The match where Dhoni hit McKay for 13 runs in the last 4 balls. What was Kohli's score in that ?

We can find more examples, but that's not the point, to prove a theory wrong, one exception is enough.

 

[tempus123]

What makes opening the easiest position beyond the field restrictions and pace on the ball is the fact that you are always in the same situation, speaking of batting first mainly.

In the middle order, sometimes it will be 50-2, 100-4 or 150-1. You will have to constantly adjust.

I'd take 10 runs of the averages' of all the openers to get a true valuation of their abilities. An opener who averages 50 is more like a 40 averaging ODI batsmen in truth, and those averaging below 40 will be very mediocre, sub-30 averaging batsmen.

Openers struggling to maintain their average around 35 are trash.

Of course we would ignore the pitches where the new ball moves around and openers are expected to provide the team a flying start every time, whereas middle order batsmen can be excused of playing slowly once the early wickets fell in the name of consolidation.

 

[Mamoon]

Of course we would ignore the pitches where the new ball moves around and openers are expected to provide the team a flying start every time, whereas middle order batsmen can be excused of playing slowly once the early wickets fell in the name of consolidation.

Another myth.

90% ODIS are played on placid pitches these days and its not really a challenge unless there are black clouds above or a lot of bounce in the wicket, where the likes of Amla bhai hardly have a good record.

Providing a flying start is not very hard in opening. New white ball that hardly does much, with field restrictions and no pressure to consolidate because your top order got wiped out.

In the middle order, you always come in to bat subject to different situations, with the bowler who is already in good rhythm.

Can't take anyone seriously who considers opening in ODIs in this era a more difficult job than batting in the middle order.

 

[tempus123]

In general, chasing a big total in an ODI match is lot more difficult than setting up a big total;

Kohli is exceptional in this regard, and there are no two ways about it; In the history of the game, I don't know, if anyone has scored this many runs as Kohli while chasing in the top order; not counting Dhoni/Bevan as they mostly come in late;

Only thing Kohli needs to improve is living up to his high standards when setting up a total;

Anyone, who has played some level of cricket/seen enough matches, would know chasing a big total is far more difficult than setting up one.

In general, yes, but not every time or with every team/player.

My point is: Just because in general people find it more difficult, it's not right to assume that everyone finds it the same way. It's mental setup issue, and if you are more comfortable knowing the score to chase, you would relish chasing.

It's like the question: Who is a more difficult bowler to face, a good quality spinner or a good quality fast bowler ? There is no absolute answer to it. Some batsmen find it easier to face spinners, some find it easier to face fast bowlers. Let us not put an absolute value on a batsman just because he played Warne better but struggled against Akram.. (Laxman for example).

 

[tempus123]

Another myth.

90% ODIS are played on placid pitches these days and its not really a challenge unless there are black clouds above or a lot of bounce in the wicket, where the likes of Amla bhai hardly have a good record.

Providing a flying start is not very hard in opening. New white ball that hardly does much, with field restrictions and no pressure to consolidate because your top order got wiped out.

In the middle order, you always come in to bat subject to different situations, with the bowler who is already in good rhythm.

Can't take anyone seriously who considers opening in ODIs in this era a more difficult job than batting in the middle order.

Not talking about current shift on pitches where we play book cricket. In the last 20 years, we have had pitches where initial assistance to bowlers was pronounced.. people would ACTUALLY put the opposition in after winning the toss due to that factor.

Such pitches are getting rare nowadays though, I agree.

 

[Mamoon]

Not talking about current shift on pitches where we play book cricket. In the last 20 years, we have had pitches where initial assistance to bowlers was pronounced.. people would ACTUALLY put the opposition in after winning the toss due to that factor.

Such pitches are getting rare nowadays though, I agree.

Well I'm talking about this era. Most struggling middle order batsmen succeed when asked to open today.

 

[tempus123]

Another myth.

90% ODIS are played on placid pitches these days and its not really a challenge unless there are black clouds above or a lot of bounce in the wicket, where the likes of Amla bhai hardly have a good record.

Providing a flying start is not very hard in opening. New white ball that hardly does much, with field restrictions and no pressure to consolidate because your top order got wiped out.

In the middle order, you always come in to bat subject to different situations, with the bowler who is already in good rhythm.

Can't take anyone seriously who considers opening in ODIs in this era a more difficult job than batting in the middle order.

Middle order players also get it easy to score runs after the opening batsmen have plundered the bowlers into submission.. so it works both ways, you are counting only the difficulty but taking the easy days for granted.

 

[tempus123]

Well I'm talking about this era. Most struggling middle order batsmen succeed when asked to open today.

Those are mostly attacking batsmen who lack the skill to graft and bat through.

 

[Mamoon]

Middle order players also get it easy to score runs after the opening batsmen have plundered the bowlers into submission.. so it works both ways, you are counting only the difficulty but taking the easy days for granted.

Yes, but if they get it easy 6/10 times, openers have it easy 9/10 times.

 

[Mamoon]

Those are mostly attacking batsmen who lack the skill to graft and bat through.

Our struggle to adopt to different situations.

The way Amla bhai choked against Pakistan when 30 were required of 30 balls with 5 wickets in hand, including catching thin air against Ajmal when 12 were required in 12, suggests that he cannot deal with scoreboard pressure.

Hardly many innings in his career that helped South Africa chase a huge total. He is at his best opening the innings batting first and because he does the easiest job in the ODI game better than anyone else in the world (comparison with Rohit is laughable), it is safe to acknowledge that he is the best ODI opener around today.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Yes, but if they get it easy 6/10 times, openers have it easy 9/10 times.

Ask this to Shehzad.

 

[tempus123]

Yes, but if they get it easy 6/10 times, openers have it easy 9/10 times.

Openers have to score at a much faster rate and provide a foundation.. since opening in ODIs is so easy, why would they leave the batting in disarray 4 times out of 10.. they will make it count 9 times out of 10. The argument works both ways.

 

[Mamoon]

Openers have to score at a much faster rate and provide a foundation.. since opening in ODIs is so easy, why would they leave the batting in disarray 4 times out of 10.. they will make it count 9 times out of 10. The argument works both ways.

That is because most of them are average players, who look better than they really are thanks to the ease of opening. If any opener averages around 35 or less, you can be assured that he's not good enough for international cricket and will fail 8/10 times.

Only openers averaging between 45-50 can be considered world class.

Now if you filter those out (not career averages, but their averages while opening) you can see who is a quality player and who is making the most of opening the innings.

 

[IndianWillow]

Arnt you actually proving my point , any of our batsmen can drop anchor and play such innings . why do we need a specialist for that ?

well if you check his stats Amla actually hasnt played such knocks against top teams . He has 15 hundreds batting first , 3 against WI , 2 against Zim , 1 each against Ned and Ban . Only 8 against the top teams & if you dont count Ind and SL bowling as top notch . That leaves us with 2 hundreds between Aus , NZ and Eng .

Virat has excatly 2 hundreds against Eng , Aus & Eng batting first . On what basis are we saying that Amla can play such innings ?

Amla is not an an anchor. Is a batsman scoring at a S/R of 90, an anchor? LOL. How many batsmen in our side can average 55 @ 90? You are seriously underrating Amla here. The only Indian batsmen who are arguably ahead of Amla currently is Kohli (this is the focus of most Amla debates here) and Dhoni - not sure how you got the idea that virtually every Indian batsman can play like Amla.

 

[Mamoon]

Ask this to Shehzad.

It goes to show what a mediocre player he is. Averages 34 with a SR of 71 in this era, in spite of opening on the placid UAE wickets. Same goes for Hafeez.

Our opening woes wont be solved unless we find someone who can average 40 @80 at least in these conditions, and pace his innings well which is as important as your ending strike rate.

Shehzad on his good days ends up with an 80 strike rate, but not after consuming 71% dots in the first 10 overs and having a strike rate of 65 for the first 50 runs.

 

[Mamoon]

Amla is not an an anchor. Is a batsman scoring at a S/R of 90, an anchor? LOL. How many batsmen in our side can average 55 @ 90? You are seriously underrating Amla here. The only Indian batsmen who are arguably ahead of Amla currently is Kohli (this is the focus of most Amla debates here) and Dhoni - not sure how you got the idea that virtually every Indian batsman can play like Amla.

I agree that he is severely underrating Amla bhai.

You cannot argue with an average of 55 @89 with 19 hundreds in 106 innings. That is sensational and an outstanding record, however, the reason why I'd classify him as an anchor as well is because he is one paced.

Regardless of the match situation, he's going to bat at the same tempo. Yes a wonderful tempo, but not of much use when the RRR creeps up to around 7-8, where he becomes practically useless due to his inability to hit the big shots. That explains why he doesn't have many innings of note while chasing big totals.

For this reason, I'd consider his strike rate to be somewhat misleading. He doesn't have the gears and can't turn the tables on the opposition in a matter of few overs like other 90 strike rate batsmen can.

But this also goes to show that he's the best in the world when it comes to rotating the strike and milking the bowlers. You have to be remarkable at that to maintain a strike rate of 90 after 100 innings in spite of not possessing power game.

I don't have the numbers, but from observation, he'd probably have the lowest dot ball percentage of all ODI batsmen in the last 4-5 years.

 

[tempus123]

That is because most of them are average players, who look better than they really are thanks to the ease of opening. If any opener averages around 35 or less, you can be assured that he's not good enough for international cricket and will fail 8/10 times.

Only openers averaging between 45-50 can be considered world class.

Now if you filter those out (not career averages, but their averages while opening) you can see who is a quality player and who is making the most of opening the innings.

You are first forming the premise (which is still not proven beyond doubt) that opening is easy and using the same as a foundation stone to prove your original point.

Opening is difficult that's why average players can't do it that well, does it not look convincing ?

 

[IndianWillow]

What makes opening the easiest position beyond the field restrictions and pace on the ball is the fact that you are always in the same situation, speaking of batting first mainly.

In the middle order, sometimes it will be 50-2, 100-4 or 150-1. You will have to constantly adjust.

I'd take 10 runs of the averages' of all the openers to get a true valuation of their abilities. An opener who averages 50 is more like a 40 averaging ODI batsmen in truth, and those averaging below 40 will be very mediocre, sub-30 averaging batsmen.

Openers struggling to maintain their average around 35 are trash.

10 runs off the opener's averages is too much. Opening is the most pressure free slot in ODIs, but technically speaking it is not easy to be there because you get to face two of the best bowlers bowling their first spells. Due to modern pitches being predominantly flat, advantages are more for openers compared to disadvantages. I would take 10% off opener's runs while comparing then to #3,4,5 batsmen. But 10 runs or 20% is just too much.

 

[tempus123]

I agree that he is severely underrating Amla bhai.

You cannot argue with an average of 55 @89 with 19 hundreds in 106 innings. That is sensational and an outstanding record, however, the reason why I'd classify him as an anchor as well is because he is one paced.

Regardless of the match situation, he's going to bat at the same tempo. Yes a wonderful tempo, but not of much use when the RRR creeps up to around 7-8, where he becomes practically useless due to his inability to hit the big shots. That explains why he doesn't have many innings of note while chasing big totals.

For this reason, I'd consider his strike rate to be somewhat misleading. He doesn't have the gears and can't turn the tables on the opposition in a matter of few overs like other 90 strike rate batsmen can.

But this also goes to show that he's the best in the world when it comes to rotating the strike and milking the bowlers. You have to be remarkable at that to maintain a strike rate of 90 after 100 innings in spite of not possessing power game.

I don't have the numbers, but from observation, he'd probably have the lowest dot ball percentage of all ODI batsmen in the last 4-5 years.

Good points, Amla probably doesn't score at 130-140 SR when needed ?

 

[tempus123]

10 runs off the opener's averages is too much. Opening is the most pressure free slot in ODIs, but technically speaking it is not easy to be there because you get to face two of the best bowlers bowling their first spells. Due to modern pitches being predominantly flat, advantages are more for openers compared to disadvantages. I would take 10% off opener's runs while comparing then to #3,4,5 batsmen. But 10 runs or 20% is just too much.

Flat pitch reason is same for the middle order batsmen also.. in fact they usually get double advantage :

Flat pitch, lesser quality bowlers, and good scores already.

 

[Mamoon]

You are first forming the premise (which is still not proven beyond doubt) that opening is easy and using the same as a foundation stone to prove your original point.

Opening is difficult that's why average players can't do it that well, does it not look convincing ?

No, that's the exact opposite of my argument.

Opening is easier which is why pretty much every opener has a bloated average.

Batsmen who struggle at opening are in truth very poor players who would struggle even more in the middle order. I can't see someone like Shehzad average more than 27-28 at a strike rate of 65 if he bats in the middle order.

Of course there'll always be exceptions and outliers, but it holds true for the majority. In this day and age, if you can't succeed as an ODI opener, you are clearly not good enough in international cricket.

Most of the successful middle order batsmen in ODIs today would do even better if they open. The difficult of facing the new white ball and the supposed swing/seam is overstated.

 

[tempus123]

Amla is not an an anchor. Is a batsman scoring at a S/R of 90, an anchor? LOL. How many batsmen in our side can average 55 @ 90? You are seriously underrating Amla here. The only Indian batsmen who are arguably ahead of Amla currently is Kohli (this is the focus of most Amla debates here) and Dhoni - not sure how you got the idea that virtually every Indian batsman can play like Amla.

Yes, Raina, Dhawan, Rohit and even Jadeja is better than Amla, coz it's easy batting at the top..

 

[Mamoon]

Good points, Amla probably doesn't score at 130-140 SR when needed ?

Nope he struggles more often than not, especially while chasing totals. If you want to chase a huge total with him in the team, make sure he is back in the hut around the 35th over after which he is going to be a liability.