Hashim Amla vs Virat Kohli in ODIs

[tempus123]

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.

Let's take India's example.. will Raina's average improve if he starts opening ?

 

[Mamoon]

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.

Maybe, but its just a rule of thumb from my point of view. In Amla bhai's case, I don't see him averaging more than 45-47 in the middle order and his strike rate will drop too, when he'll have to start his innings by consolidating and not being able to pick a flurry of boundaries in the PP overs first up to get a feel of the pace of the pitch and carry on with the momentum. He does that better than anyone else in the world though.

 

[tempus123]

Actually a lot of Indian middle order players in the late 90's and early 2000s preferred remaining in middle order (like Dravid and Laxman) because they simply didn't have the ability to get that many runs at that rate which a Sehwag or Ganguly could do. It didn't work for the team to have non-attacking players open the innings..

 

[IndianWillow]

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.

IMHO, openers just need to be like Amla. He will need the 4th and 5th gear only occasionally. As an opening batsman, he will not last beyond the 25th over on average, so why would he need a finisher's gear? If Amla gets a hundred off 120 and the chase is 300, others need to get 200 off 180 - very much acceptable for the middle/lower order that comprises players like ABD. If SA need to chase 350, Amla could be a liability, but those days are going to be very rare. Anyway, most teams are going to fail 350 chase even if the openers fire,

IMO, Amla fits his role perfectly. I won't equate him to Kohli or ABD, but he is doing his job almost perfectly. If he could raise his game in big matches, he will join ranks with the best players of his times.

 

[tempus123]

Openers set the tempo of the innings and not everyone can do it.. that's why the top batsmen in the team is expected to play at 1, 2 or 3.

 

[Mamoon]

Let's take India's example.. will Raina's average improve if he starts opening ?

Raina, Umar Akmal, Dhoni (in his peak, he's past his prime now), Maqsood, Sarfraz, Buttler, Mathews etc. are a few names who I definitely think will do better opening the innings.

Now put someone like Finch in the middle order, and he will be out of the team within a matter of few games.

 

[tempus123]

Are you aware of the accusatory term "Hiding in the middle order" used against a top batsman who plays 5 or lower in ODIs ?

 

[Mamoon]

Actually a lot of Indian middle order players in the late 90's and early 2000s preferred remaining in middle order (like Dravid and Laxman) because they simply didn't have the ability to get that many runs at that rate which a Sehwag or Ganguly could do. It didn't work for the team to have non-attacking players open the innings..

Opening in the 90's was a lot tougher and really tested the techniques of the batsmen.

 

[IndianWillow]

Actually a lot of Indian middle order players in the late 90's and early 2000s preferred remaining in middle order (like Dravid and Laxman) because they simply didn't have the ability to get that many runs at that rate which a Sehwag or Ganguly could do. It didn't work for the team to have non-attacking players open the innings..

Sachin too could not make runs in the middle order. When moved to the top his game changed. The same thing could have happened to Dravid/Laxman but we will never know.

 

[tempus123]

Raina, Umar Akmal, Dhoni (in his peak, he's past his prime now), Maqsood, Sarfraz, Buttler, Mathews etc. are a few names who I definitely think will do better opening the innings.

Now put someone like Finch in the middle order, and he will be out of the team within a matter of few games.

Raina, who has short ball problems would do better facing a top quality fresh fast bowler (even on flat wickets of today) than he would do facing the same bowler 30 overs down the line ?

 

[Itachi]

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.

another myth.

opening is much tougher with PP rules. PP is a double edged sword. on one hand, it gives you license to kill yet, it can backfire that easily too.

if the bowl is swinging, or the bowler is bowling in a good line length, it becomes harder to hit boundaries and on top of that, you can't clear the in field because it is covered to a greater extent. it is much harder to rotate the strike in PP overs than the middle overs. you have to play lofted shots which is always risky. but in middle overs, you can easily take 1s and 2s and make the scoreboard ticking.

 

[Mamoon]

Are you aware of the accusatory term "Hiding in the middle order" used against a top batsman who plays 5 or lower in ODIs ?

Yes, and I have my reservation with someone like de Villiers for not opening/batting at 3 in ODIs.

Its simply really - your best batsmen should be facing the maximum no of deliveries in an ODI, because they are going to cash in better than other players.

de Villiers didn't do well when he opened from 2005-2008, but he was not half the player he is today. If you put him in the top order today, that average is going to soar to 60 in no time.

Its criminal to limit your best batsman to 20-25 overs, because he's going to make use of the ease of opening/batting in the top order better than other players.

 

[tempus123]

Sachin too could not make runs in the middle order. When moved to the top his game changed. The same thing could have happened to Dravid/Laxman but we will never know.

Ha ha ha.. India tried with Laxman, but it didn't work.. and trying with Dravid (on a consistent basis) would have hurt India.. are you serious, India should have tried the opening pair of Dravid Laxman and see how it goes ?

 

[Itachi]

Are you aware of the accusatory term "Hiding in the middle order" used against a top batsman who plays 5 or lower in ODIs ?

no answer to this as of yet?

 

[tempus123]

Yes, and I have my reservation with someone like de Villiers for not opening/batting at 3 in ODIs.

Its simply really - your best batsmen should be facing the maximum no of deliveries in an ODI, because they are going to cash in better than other players.

de Villiers didn't do well when he opened from 2005-2008, but he was not half the player he is today. If you put him in the top order today, that average is going to soar to 60 in no time.

Its criminal to limit your best batsman to 20-25 overs, because he's going to make use of the ease of opening/batting in the top order better than other players.

And players and teams know it all, but still not play some of their top batsmen in top-3 ?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

another myth.

opening is much tougher with PP rules. PP is a double edged sword. on one hand, it gives you license to kill yet, it can backfire that easily too.

if the bowl is swinging, or the bowler is bowling in a good line length, it becomes harder to hit boundaries and on top of that, you can't clear the in field because it is covered to a greater extent. it is much harder to rotate the strike in PP overs than the middle overs. you have to play lofted shots which is always risky. but in middle overs, you can easily take 1s and 2s and make the scoreboard ticking.

There is theory and there is reality.

Everyone from Jayasuriya, SRT, Mahela (avg 44 with 85+ SR), Dilshan, Rohit, etc do way better in opening?

How many openers do WAY better in middle order like that?

Let's look at the names.

 

[Laal]

While Hashim Amla is an ATG, I'd go with Kohli if I had to choose someone to bat for my life.

 

[Mamoon]

Raina, who has short ball problems would do better facing a top quality fresh fast bowler (even on flat wickets of today) than he would do facing the same bowler 30 overs down the line ?

How many opening bowlers do you see banging in short in this era? He might struggle against Morkel, or perhaps Irfan for the 2-3 good overs that he bowls up front, but against all other teams, he's going to cash in beautifully. For that matter, you will always have a few bogey teams.

Raina will be a better opener than Dhawan and will average in excess of 50 like Rohit does, and could get you a double hundred in India as well.

 

[Itachi]

Sachin too could not make runs in the middle order. When moved to the top his game changed. The same thing could have happened to Dravid/Laxman but we will never know.

this doesn't prove anything actually. just because one batsmen prefers to bat in one position more than the other, it doesn't mean that position is easy. it is about "comfort zone" with respect to him.

 

[tempus123]

Opening in the 90's was a lot tougher and really tested the techniques of the batsmen.

Dravid and Lax had better technique than Sehwag or Ganguly (I am using the well understood meaning of technique in the sense of surviving good quality bowling), but lacked the attacking power..

 

[Mamoon]

And players and teams know it all, but still not play some of their top batsmen in top-3 ?

That's because teams look to compensate for a weaker lower order.

South Africa play de Villiers at number 4 or 5 because they have a weak lower order, and they need him down there.

If they have someone like Mathews, Dhoni or Raina, you'd see de Villiers either replace de Kock or du Plessis in the top order.

Another factor:

Grinders who lack fluency in their batting are not likely to succeed as openers. I didn't mention Misbah, because although a good batsman, he doesn't have the game to succeed as an opener because he won't take advantage of the PP overs.

That doesn't mean that he's doing better in the middle order - his average and strike rate are likely to remain the same at the top of the order, but might be good for a hundred or two.

If you are a fluent middle order batsman like the names I mentioned, your average is going to bloat if you open.

 

[IndianWillow]

Ha ha ha.. India tried with Laxman, but it didn't work.. and trying with Dravid (on a consistent basis) would have hurt India.. are you serious, India should have tried the opening pair of Dravid Laxman and see how it goes ?

How many ODIs did Laxman or Dravid open, to claim that the experiment failed? Sachin had a S/R of only 74 before he became an opener. It is unlikely that either Laxman or Dravid would have been as successful as Sachin as opener, but Dravid was somewhat a success as a test opener (unlike Sachin who never batted above #4 in tests) so there is no reason India could not try him out as an opener but for Sachin already owning that spot.

 

[Mamoon]

Laxman was a fluent player who opened in 5 ODIs only. No sample size to concluded that it didn't work.

In my view, it would have worked if India would have persisted with him, but they did not need to.

 

[Mamoon]

another myth.

opening is much tougher with PP rules. PP is a double edged sword. on one hand, it gives you license to kill yet, it can backfire that easily too.

if the bowl is swinging, or the bowler is bowling in a good line length, it becomes harder to hit boundaries and on top of that, you can't clear the in field because it is covered to a greater extent. it is much harder to rotate the strike in PP overs than the middle overs. you have to play lofted shots which is always risky. but in middle overs, you can easily take 1s and 2s and make the scoreboard ticking.

Explain why most of the struggling middle order batsman did well when they were promoted up the order, and why most successful ODI openers in history were not specialist.

Clearing the infield is easier - with the fast outfields of today, if you beat the man in the inner circle, its a guaranteed 4.

 

[Mamoon]

To sum up the discussion:

In this era, if you cannot succeed as an opener in ODIs, you really don't belong in the ODI team because you are not dynamic enough, and will hamper the team no matter at what position you bat.

 

[IndianWillow]

In ODIs, opening (#1,2) and finishing (#5,6,7) are the easiest jobs. Because the roles are cut out. Finishers need to be better at handling pressure though. Middle order is the most challenging (#3,4 and sometimes 5 too) because you could be lucky to walk in at 1/120 or struggle at 2/20 or 3/40 and you need to adjust to the game's requirements, whether batting first or second. You also need to be an excellent strike rotator if you are a middle order batsman.

In tests, opening and early middle order (#1,2,3) are usually the most challenging slots, facing two best bowlers with a new ball. Middle order is the easiest batting slot in tests (#4,5) where you usually come into bat after the new ball has been negotiated already. With lower middle order (#6,7 etc), the issues of reverse swing and second new ball etc are more prominent, so these are not easy batting positions either. Of course, all these apply only to the first and second innings.

 

[Mamoon]

In ODIs, opening (#1,2) and finishing (#5,6,7) are the easiest jobs. Because the roles are cut out. Finishers need to be better at handling pressure though. Middle order is the most challenging (#3,4 and sometimes 5 too) because you could be lucky to walk in at 1/120 or struggle at 2/20 or 3/40 and you need to adjust to the game's requirements, whether batting first or second. You also need to be an excellent strike rotator if you are a middle order batsman.

In tests, opening and early middle order (#1,2,3) are usually the most challenging slots, facing two best bowlers with a new ball. Middle order is the easiest batting slot in tests (#4,5) where you usually come into bat after the new ball has been negotiated already. With lower middle order (#6,7 etc), the issues of reverse swing and second new ball etc are more prominent, so these are not easy batting positions either. Of course, all these apply only to the first and second innings.

This. Well summarized.

 

[IndianWillow]

To sum up the discussion:

In this era, if you cannot succeed as an opener in ODIs, you really don't belong in the ODI team because you are not dynamic enough, and will hamper the team no matter at what position you bat.

This was not the case in the 80s. Since the 90s from when the field restrictions have come into play, opening has become easier than ever before. From 00s when pitches too were taken out of the equation, opening became the easiest slot to play. If you can't play well as an opener now, it is unlikely that you will be able to play well anywhere in the order.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

To sum up the discussion:

In this era, if you cannot succeed as an opener in ODIs, you really don't belong in the ODI team because you are not dynamic enough, and will hamper the team no matter at what position you bat.

And if Umar Akmal fails at opening position.. you will say that he doesn't belong in ODI team?

 

[Mamoon]

And if Umar Akmal fails at opening position.. you will say that he doesn't belong in ODI team?

Yes, but that also depends on whether his replacement(s) are better than what he is today. We shouldn't forget that we are batting minnows.

 

[jusarrived]

To sum up the discussion:

In this era, if you cannot succeed as an opener in ODIs, you really don't belong in the ODI team because you are not dynamic enough, and will hamper the team no matter at what position you bat.

Thank you , this is exactly what I have been saying .
Rohit & Shezad are prefect examples , would have been out of the team had they played in middle order .

 

[jusarrived]

Raina, who has short ball problems would do better facing a top quality fresh fast bowler (even on flat wickets of today) than he would do facing the same bowler 30 overs down the line ?

Have you seen Dhawans technique against short ball ? hes worse that Raina
Amla does not have a problem against short ball ? it is still much easier , Raina even in the last match got out pulling the ball close to the rope , same shot would have got him a boundry in pps .
its not defensive technique , but who can score on bouncier pitches which matters .

 

[jusarrived]

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

would you take Amla over Raina in your team ?

 

[tempus123]

Laxman was a fluent player who opened in 5 ODIs only. No sample size to concluded that it didn't work.

In my view, it would have worked if India would have persisted with him, but they did not need to.

Worked ? Despite having a better player in Sehwag available ? Are we trying to prove a player success or failure or looking for the best available player for that position ?

 

[tempus123]

How many ODIs did Laxman or Dravid open, to claim that the experiment failed? Sachin had a S/R of only 74 before he became an opener. It is unlikely that either Laxman or Dravid would have been as successful as Sachin as opener, but Dravid was somewhat a success as a test opener (unlike Sachin who never batted above #4 in tests) so there is no reason India could not try him out as an opener but for Sachin already owning that spot.

Come on!!! India could not have persisted with these players as openers once better players in Sehwag emerged.

Are you trying to say Dravid-Laxman pair would have been as successful had Sachin and Sehwag not held on and stuck to those places ?.. I really can't argue after such a masterstroke.

 

[tempus123]

would you take Amla over Raina in your team ?

As an opener, yes. As a middle order player, probably not.

 

[tempus123]

People who claim Dravid was somewhat successful as a Test opener need to answer why the somewhat successful player had to then demote down the order and not continued as an opener.

Naive are those who claim opening in ODIs is a cakewalk.

 

[Mamoon]

Worked ? Despite having a better player in Sehwag available ? Are we trying to prove a player success or failure or looking for the best available player for that position ?

Read my post again.

'it would have worked if India would have persisted with him, but they did not need him'

They did not need him because they had Sehwag - one of the greatest impact batsman in history, but Laxman would have fared better as an opener than he did otherwise. That's the crux of my argument.

He'd have been no all-time great, but a much better opener than he proved to be in the middle order.

 

[IndianWillow]

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

would you take Amla over Raina in your team ?

Apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Mamoon]

People who claim Dravid was somewhat successful as a Test opener need to answer why the somewhat successful player had to then demote down the order and not continued as an opener.

Naive are those who claim opening in ODIs is a cakewalk.

What has Tests got to do with it? Opening in Tests is the hardest.

 

[tempus123]

That's because teams look to compensate for a weaker lower order.

South Africa play de Villiers at number 4 or 5 because they have a weak lower order, and they need him down there.

If they have someone like Mathews, Dhoni or Raina, you'd see de Villiers either replace de Kock or du Plessis in the top order.

Another factor:

Grinders who lack fluency in their batting are not likely to succeed as openers. I didn't mention Misbah, because although a good batsman, he doesn't have the game to succeed as an opener because he won't take advantage of the PP overs.

That doesn't mean that he's doing better in the middle order - his average and strike rate are likely to remain the same at the top of the order, but might be good for a hundred or two.

If you are a fluent middle order batsman like the names I mentioned, your average is going to bloat if you open.

1. Openers need to be fluent stroke makers and should be aggressive in going over the top. Not everyone has this skill.
2. Middle order players can get away by not doing the above and still carry on picking the singles. Players like Dravid did it well in 2000s once he improved his strike rotation.
3. A player who relies mostly on strike rotation and unable to hit big boundaries will struggle as an opener and vice versa.

 

[tempus123]

What has Tests got to do with it? Opening in Tests is the hardest.

Read earlier post.

 

[Mamoon]

1. Openers need to be fluent stroke makers and should be aggressive in going over the top. Not everyone has this skill.
2. Middle order players can get away by not doing the above and still carry on picking the singles. Players like Dravid did it well in 2000s once he improved his strike rotation.
3. A player who relies mostly on strike rotation and unable to hit big boundaries will struggle as an opener and vice versa.

1. Most quality ODI batsmen have that skill, and they'd do better if they open. Which is the whole point.

2. Dravid the middle order batsman won't cut it in this era. At 3/4/5, you have to adjust to different situations every game which makes it a challenge. You'd come in at 100/5, 150/1 and 200/3. On each instance, you'll have to adjust accordingly.

When you open, nothing changes. The equation is always the same.

3. Such a player will not be a top ODI batsman in any position.

 

[IndianWillow]

People who claim Dravid was somewhat successful as a Test opener need to answer why the somewhat successful player had to then demote down the order and not continued as an opener.

Naive are those who claim opening in ODIs is a cakewalk.

Best batsmen in tests usually bat at 3. Not at the opening slot. But Dravid could adapt to the opening slot when called for, his 146* at the Oval (carried his bat) is a career highlight of Dravid.

 

[tempus123]

Best batsmen in tests usually bat at 3. Not at the opening slot. But Dravid could adapt to the opening slot when called for, his 146* at the Oval (carried his bat) is a career highlight of Dravid.

Yes and his struggles in Australia and SA when he had to open are well known too.. anyway this isn't Test discussion, so stopping it here.

 

[IndianWillow]

Come on!!! India could not have persisted with these players as openers once better players in Sehwag emerged.

Are you trying to say Dravid-Laxman pair would have been as successful had Sachin and Sehwag not held on and stuck to those places ?.. I really can't argue after such a masterstroke.

I don't think so. Sehwag was too good a stroke maker for either Dravid or Laxman. But if India play away from home, I would chose Dravid over anybody in the Indian ODI team (even as an opener), because his records standout in that category.

 

[SULTAN]

56 AVg. @ 90 S/R would be enough to shut up any hater out there

 

[Mamoon]

56 AVg. @ 90 S/R would be enough to shut up any hater out there

What about the average in ICC tournaments?

 

[tempus123]

I don't think so. Sehwag was too good a stroke maker for either Dravid or Laxman. But if India play away from home, I would chose Dravid over anybody in the Indian ODI team (even as an opener), because his records standout in that category.

Too bad you weren't the coach of Indian team, India missed a trick not having Dravid/Lax as openers in ODIs playing abroad.

 

[IndianWillow]

Yes and his struggles in Australia and SA when he had to open are well known too.. anyway this isn't Test discussion, so stopping it here.

Sachin would have struggled too, but he never opened in tests. He did not even bat at #3 ever. Always batted down the order in his comfort zone.

 

[tempus123]

Sachin would have struggled too, but he never opened in tests. He did not even bat at #3 ever. Always batted down the order in his comfort zone.

Yes, and the player who got out of his comfort zone and batted at 1, set the stage on fire, didn't he ?

Such bravery is useless if you can't actually make it count.. failing miserably at something you can't do is no great thing only because you moved out of your comfort zone.

 

[tempus123]

2. Dravid the middle order batsman won't cut it in this era. At 3/4/5, you have to adjust to different situations every game which makes it a challenge. You'd come in at 100/5, 150/1 and 200/3. On each instance, you'll have to adjust accordingly.

When you open, nothing changes. The equation is always the same.

.

A big big adjustment is needed when you come at 200/2 in 35th over.

 

[Mamoon]

A big big adjustment is needed when you come at 200/2 in 35th over.

Yes, you will have to score some quick runs.

The next day, you might be coming at 10/2 and will have to consolidate.

Compare that to always coming out to bat at 0-0.

 

[IndianWillow]

Too bad you weren't the coach of Indian team, India missed a trick not having Dravid/Lax as openers in ODIs playing abroad.

Sehwag averages a tailender like 19 against Aus/SA/Eng in these countries. How exactly do you think he would be better than Dravid who averaged nearly 40 against these teams in these countries? Yeah, Sehwag was a poor ODI opener outside the SC and our selectors missed quite a few tricks.

 

[tempus123]

A good opener is expected to score at 90+ SR. A good middle order player is expected to score at 80 SR. The pressure to score runs at a quicker rate is different. 6, and 7 it's again different, they need to score at 100+ SR.

 

[tempus123]

Yes, you will have to score some quick runs.

The next day, you might be coming at 10/2 and will have to consolidate.

Compare that to always coming out to bat at 0-0.

Why would I have to come at 10/2 on phatta wickets ? Do I have rubbish openers ?

 

[tempus123]

Sehwag averages a tailender like 19 against Aus/SA/Eng in these countries. How exactly do you think he would be better than Dravid who averaged nearly 40 against these teams in these countries? Yeah, Sehwag was a poor ODI opener outside the SC and our selectors missed quite a few tricks.

Did Dravid average 40 opening ?

If Dravid is asked to provide a flying start in the first 15 overs in 2003 WC final, would he have been able to do it ?

 

[Mamoon]

Why would I have to come at 10/2 on phatta wickets ? Do I have rubbish openers ?

Perhaps, who don't deserve to play international cricket if they cannot do well on phatta wickets while opening in this era.

 

[tempus123]

Perhaps, who don't deserve to play international cricket if they cannot do well on phatta wickets while opening in this era.

We are talking of players who actually belong to this level.. why not have poor middle order yardstick for the good openers.. they know the team relies on them and there is no one following up.

 

[IndianWillow]

Yes, and the player who got out of his comfort zone and batted at 1, set the stage on fire, didn't he ?

Such bravery is useless if you can't actually make it count.. failing miserably at something you can't do is no great thing only because you moved out of your comfort zone.

Average of 43 as a make shift opener is a bad effort? That is quite a prejudiced view. He hit four hundreds as an opener, all against good teams, and all outside India. Tendulkar did not even bother to take that effort because he probably thought it would bring down his averages!

 

[tempus123]

People rate Ponting's 150 in the 2003 WC final very highly, but not many talk about the situation he came in, Gilly had Indian bowlers and their psyche on the mat with 15 runs off the 1st over of Zaheer and probably 80+ in first 10. He set the match up.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

Sachin would have struggled too, but he never opened in tests. He did not even bat at #3 ever. Always batted down the order in his comfort zone.

Test matches need specialists, its unlike an ODI where a make shift opener can succeed. Openers have a different mindset and this needs to be inculcated from the early stages of their cricket career, we have seen how players like Dravid/Laxman struggle while opening.

Even though, Dravid used to play regularly at one down but was very reluctant to open, because that is a specialist job and requires different skills and mental aspects; Even Laxman was so unhappy with opening slot; So, everyone has a comfort zone when it comes to Test match cricket; In ODIs, you can tinker the batting order and get away with it, but such chances are slim in test matches;

GR Vishwanath one of the greatest Indian batsmen who had superb technique and strokes, but he never opened at all, and if I'm not wrong never came at one down as well. So, everyone has a comfort zone in test matches.

Test matches are a different kettle compared to ODIs.

 

[tempus123]

Average of 43 as a make shift opener is a bad effort? That is quite a prejudiced view. He hit four hundreds as an opener, all against good teams, and all outside India. Tendulkar did not even bother to take that effort because he probably thought it would bring down his averages!

yes.. that includes 400 opening partnership on Pakistan's phatta wicket where teams scoring less than 600 was a crime .. see just look at the average where technical competence was needed and he had to open.. don't throw me overall averages. What is his average opening in Australia and SA.. what is his average in Australia 1999, when there was no opening partnership ? in 2003, he was invariably saved and protected by Sehwag and Chopra. I would like to see some number of innings of his in SA / Aus where he opened and made it count.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

Average of 43 as a make shift opener is a bad effort? That is quite a prejudiced view. He hit four hundreds as an opener, all against good teams, and all outside India. Tendulkar did not even bother to take that effort because he probably thought it would bring down his averages!

You have a such a pronounced view.

 

[IndianWillow]

Did Dravid average 40 opening ?

If Dravid is asked to provide a flying start in the first 15 overs in 2003 WC final, would he have been able to do it ?

Outside SC, I would definitely choose Dravid over Sehwag, whether it be ODIs or tests. Sehwag was just a tailender in swinging/bouncing conditions in ODIs, though Sehwag did much better in tests.

 

[tempus123]

Outside SC, I would definitely choose Dravid over Sehwag, whether it be ODIs or tests. Sehwag was just a tailender in swinging/bouncing conditions in ODIs, though Sehwag did much better in tests.

I am asking you, chasing 300+ in SA, would you open with Dravid or Sehwag ?

 

[Hitman]

Any non biased fan would not even dream of picking Dravid over Sehwag in ODI cricket.

 

[tempus123]

Inzamam, MoYo also didn't open much I think.. and we can see YK struggling now (I am not sure how he would fare lower down the order) but Inzy I can say he probably feared not opening, despite being a fluent stroke player.

 

[tempus123]

Read "feared opening"

 

[Hitman]

Neither did Brian Lara open. Like another poster mentioned, even Gundappa Vishwanath did not open. So?

 

[Hitman]

Nor did Garry Sobers (who batted at #6) or Viv Richards.

 

[tempus123]

Neither did Brian Lara open. Like another poster mentioned, even Gundappa Vishwanath did not open. So?

Lara came at 3.. Inzy was batting at 4-5 and was accused of hiding in the middle order in ODIs, when Tendulkar was taking the responsibility of coming at 1 and shaping the match.

 

[tempus123]

Nor did Garry Sobers (who batted at #6) or Viv Richards.

Richards didn't ever need to come, because openers were pretty good. Inzy's case was different.

 

[tempus123]

I am not saying Inzy was weak or anything like that, all I am saying is, everyone has his comfort zone and to assume he would have done wonders opening the batting is a false assumption.

 

[nish_mate]

In bilaterals I would take hashim bhai

in tourneys Kohli

in tests Amla bhai

In T20s Shehzad

 

[tempus123]

I think Klusener was also less successful at the top of the order than what he was lower down the order.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The Official Amla Brigade Vs Kohli Brigade WAR

Mods, please don't bin this thread. Its not a troll thread.

There is a war brewing between 2 sets of supporters and its taking place in several threads right now. I think it would be better to have an official platform for these discussions.

Makes it more fun.

Plus a lot of other threads may be spared from these discussions.

A summary for those who are not fully aware of the Amla brigade vs Kohli brigade war:

1. Those who consider Kohli as a superior ODI batsman compared to Amla are part of the Kohli brigade while those who consider Amla to be the superior ODI batsman are part of the Amla brigade.

2. Kohli brigade feels that Amla is a one dimensional player who doesn't do well in pressure situations while Amla brigade feels that Kohli is a bunny against genuine swing and doesn't have well rounded ODI records like Amla.

3. Kohli brigade feels that intense support for Amla among certain countrymen is heavily influenced by religion while Amla brigade feels that Kohli brigade unnecessarily bring up these topics to have a go at them.

4. Kohli brigade feels that Amla is inferior due to his inability to play in pressure situations and his inability to be his sublime self when chasing in pressure situations. Amla brigade on the other hand feels that Kohli's ability simply gets overrated because some people rate chasing better than setting (note: Kohli is outrageously good in chasing targets like Amla is in setting targets).

So that's the situation as of now.

Let the discussions (and war) begin.

 

[IndianWillow]

I am asking you, chasing 300+ in SA, would you open with Dravid or Sehwag ?

Sehwag averages 27@90 in SA. Dravid averages 44@65 in SA. Sehwag has four fifties in 22 games in SA, two against Kenya. Dravid has ten fifties in SA, seven against SA!

So it has to be Dravid. Sehwag will probably get a quick 25 or something on average (Sehwag may get a quickfire 50 once in a bluemoon though) and that will not of much use chasing 300. With Dravid I may expect a 50 on average, a much better prospect chasing 300.

 

[nish_mate]

Kohli ke Paas WC hai, CT hai....Amla ke paas kya hai?


Amla ke paas bhai hai!

Therfore Amla wins hands down!

 

[IndianWillow]

Neither did Brian Lara open. Like another poster mentioned, even Gundappa Vishwanath did not open. So?

Viswanath played at a time when we had specialist openers in Gavaskar, Chauhan, Srikkanth, Sidhu, Gaekwad etc. In the 90s India played with makeshift openers very often - like Ramesh, Das, Raman, Rathour, even Prabhakar and Mongia. Tendulkar had plenty of opportunity to make a statement on occasions at #3 during the 90s, but he never did.