Is being a test-opener toughest job in Cricket ?

[cricketlover172]

Only 4 players in the history of cricket average above 50 as opener in considerable period of time .
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
So is opening the toughest job considering many middle order- batsmen average above 50 and many great bowlers average around 20 ?

 

[shravi]

Maybe it's harder, I'm not sure, but I think it just has more of an acquired skill that perhaps isn't bred well enough at the grassroots level.

 

[Robelinda]

Historically yes, hardest job. All credit to those 4 guys, pretty elite club indeed.

----------

Hayden averaged well over 50 too opening, why does that stat say 48? He never batted anywhere else.

----------

Oh I see what you did, shame on you for altering his stats to suit your bias, thats disgusting. You should delete this thread. Hayden averaged 50 in test cricket, deal with it. You cant change history to suit you and your agenda.

 

[shravi]

Historically yes, hardest job. All credit to those 4 guys, pretty elite club indeed.

----------

Hayden averaged well over 50 too opening, why does that stat say 48? He never batted anywhere else.

----------

Oh I see what you did, shame on you for altering his stats to suit your bias, thats disgusting. You should delete this thread. Hayden averaged 50 in test cricket, deal with it. You cant change history to suit you and your agenda.

LOL, calm down, he just took out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. It's not like he did it for only Hayden.

 

[angryangy]

But also not many batsmen scored 5000 runs in a career before 1970

 

[cricketlover172]

Historically yes, hardest job. All credit to those 4 guys, pretty elite club indeed.

----------

Hayden averaged well over 50 too opening, why does that stat say 48? He never batted anywhere else.

----------

Oh I see what you did, shame on you for altering his stats to suit your bias, thats disgusting. You should delete this thread. Hayden averaged 50 in test cricket, deal with it. You cant change history to suit you and your agenda.

What is wrong with removing Zimbabwe and Bangladesh ? I don't have any agenda or something.

----------

But also not many batsmen scored 5000 runs in a career before 1970

Well they didn't face many sub-25 average bowlers too.

 

[Robelinda]

----------

So without your ridiculous stat-changing agenda, there are more than 4 batsmen who have averaged 50 opening the batting. This is fact, whether you like it or not. You cant take away runs or wickets against the weaker teams, there are always weak teams in test test cricket, you cant select only two teams to be not included when you could argue India and Zim and even WI have been much worse than Bang/Zim at times in the last 60 years.

 

[cricketlover172]

----------

So without your ridiculous stat-changing agenda, there are more than 4 batsmen who have averaged 50 opening the batting. This is fact, whether you like it or not. You cant take away runs or wickets against the weaker teams, there are always weak teams in test test cricket, you cant select only two teams to be not included when you could argue India and Zim and even WI have been much worse than Bang/Zim at times in the last 60 years.

When were India and WI as bad as ZIM/BANG in last 60 years ? Tell me the time period.

 

[Bevab]

You don't know history at all.

 

[Fenil]

No, I think the toughest is to bat at Number 3 position in test cricket. Whole innings revolves and gets constructed on how Number 3 batsman of your team plays.

 

[shravi]

I should think that #3 and #4 have the toughest jobs batting wise as they have to adapt their game to be able to face both the new ball (in case the openers get out quickly) and the old ball (if they put on a good partnership) equally adeptly. Also, I don't have statistics or anything to back this up but I assume that they face a wider variety of bowlers too (spinners and 1st change seamers that openers may or may not face).

Of course, I don't play cricket at the highest level myself so it's all just me guessing.

 

[Fenil]

I should think that #3 and #4 have the toughest jobs batting wise as they have to adapt their game to be able to face both the new ball (in case the openers get out quickly) and the old ball (if they put on a good partnership) equally adeptly. Also, I don't have statistics or anything to back this up but I assume that they face a wider variety of bowlers too (spinners and 1st change seamers that openers may or may not face).

Of course, I don't play cricket at the highest level myself so it's all just me guessing.

Yes, both Number 3 and 4 are very tough place to be in. I've batted at these numbers so I know how important batsmen at these position it could be. However, if you tell me to select only one position, I'd select Number 3 as the toughest one.

 

[Robelinda]

Could add NZ to the list too, of teams that were incredibly weak in the 40's, 50's and 60's, yet performances against them are included. India was pretty weak too back then, even in the 70's and 80's. WI werent always strong pre-1976, some dismal performances in test cricket as well as some good ones in the 40 years prior. Zimbabwe of the 1990's is easily as competitive as a WI side of the 30's and 40's, even 60's, and would probably beat a NZ side of any era up to 1977.

 

[cricketlover172]

Could add NZ to the list too, of teams that were incredibly weak in the 40's, 50's and 60's, yet performances against them are included. India was pretty weak too back then, even in the 70's and 80's. WI werent always strong pre-1976, some dismal performances in test cricket as well as some good ones in the 40 years prior. Zimbabwe of the 1990's is easily as competitive as a WI side of the 30's and 40's, even 60's, and would probably beat a NZ side of any era up to 1977.

What? India were ranked no.1 in 1971 and 1972 . And India had Kapil in 80s. Fact is Bang/ Zim are not capable of getting even a draw these days.As long as you are capable of getting a draw, you are not minnow. And Bang/Zim were minnow in 2000-2011.

 

[Robelinda]

Kapil couldnt help India when they toured Australia in 1980 and 1986, and even 1991. India were still a poor team even then with or without Kapil, forget about the 40's and 50's and 60's when they were very poor, but not as bad as NZ. I suggest you do some proper homework on cricket history instead of making it up yourself and altering stats to suit your agenda, I doubt anyone will take you seriously with such obvious bias. You would have to subtract all the easy runs made against NZ and India in the 40's 50's and 60's from those 4 batsman who average 50 opening the batting if you want to serious, cant just be biased against ONE batsman in Hayden.