Is being a test-opener toughest job in Cricket ?

[shravi]

Okay, Hayden or no Hayden, the question still remains though. It's not like he magically transforms into 25 players to overtake the number of middle order batsmen who have averaged 50+. He's just one player. It's still very low.

Also, opening on uncovered pitches/sticky wickets in the olden days would have made it near impossible to average 50+ unless you were a truly great batsman.

 

[angryangy]

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

Yes they did, about twice as many. You've got statsguru right there to tell you this, so the only reason you would struggle to find this out is if you tortured the numbers to meet your preconceptions.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Yes they did, about twice as many. You've got statsguru right there to tell you this, so the only reason you would struggle to find this out is if you tortured the numbers to meet your preconceptions.

You know why 5000 is the cut-off point? Because if it's 4000, then Langer creeps into the list. Mwahahaha.

 

[riz7khan12]

could also argue sri lanka, who were about as good as bangladesh are now when they first joined the scene.

 

[cricketlover172]

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.

This is like saying OZ were not ATG side in 1995-2007 because they won just 1 test series in India. Nobody includes Bang/Zim in analysis these days.

----------

Yes they did, about twice as many. You've got statsguru right there to tell you this, so the only reason you would struggle to find this out is if you tortured the numbers to meet your preconceptions.

Show me the number of sub-25 average bowlers Hobbs faced .

----------

You know why 5000 is the cut-off point? Because if it's 4000, then Langer creeps into the list. Mwahahaha.

Oh really. And when it is 2000, many more players creep up.Haha.

 

[Bevab]

In 1971-72 India were 1st ranked?

Brilliant post.

 

[sifter132]

Haha this is a great discussion

Here's my thoughts:
Excluding Ban & Zim in analysis: I don't mind them being left off - as you say cricketlover, many people take them out. But I'm warming up to including them again. I used to leave them off all my analyses, but like Rob has said, there have been plenty of weak teams in Test history: New Zealand and Sri Lanka probably the prime examples. NZ were poor for MANY years - it took them 30 years to win a Test. And SL weren't much threat for 10-20 years.

Microanalysis in general: Fraught with danger. I was looking at the very underrated Dennis Amiss' record today (he would make this list incidently if the cutoff was 3000 runs ) He opened for England in the '70s and late 60s for those who've never come across his name. Anyway, Amiss has a poor record versus Australia, averaging 15, which makes you assume that he sucked against genuine pace (Lillee and Thomson), but then he's got a great record vs WI (averages 70), and they had just as much pace as Australia had in Roberts and Holding. Look at one set of figures without the other and you get a false impression. Another example: we were talking about the 2003/04 India tour the other day around here. Look at the figures and it looks great for Indian batsmen, plenty of runs vs Australia in Australia, but it doesn't mention that the legendary McWarne duo weren't playing. There's always a story behind stats I've found, so I like to keep as many of them in the analysis as possible.

Jack Hobbs vs good bowlers: Here's a list of non-English pre-WW2 bowlers who took more than 20 wickets:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Not a heap of them average under 25 and many of those missed Hobbs Test window of 1907-1930. Can't work out how to sort it like that, so doing it manually, here are the "average under 25" guys that played in his window:
Bert Ironmonger
George Bissett
Tip Snooke
Bill Whitty
Alf Hall
Jack Saunders
Bert Vogler
Ranji Hordern
Clarrie Grimmett
Claude Carter

Dunno if he faced all of them, but there's a few names I recognise there (Saunders, Ironmonger, Whitty, Grimmett of course), but I think it was generally a good time to bat in the 20s - lots of runs were scored then. In fact, the 20s have the 4th highest batting average of all the decades:
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Before WW1 was a bit more difficult. That or Sid Barnes was an insanely good bowler to average 16 in that time.

 

[cricketlover172]

In 1971-72 India were 1st ranked?

Brilliant post.

Go and check historical rankings.Do you think i am lying ?

----------

Haha this is a great discussion

Here's my thoughts:
Excluding Ban & Zim in analysis: I don't mind them being left off - as you say cricketlover, many people take them out. But I'm warming up to including them again. I used to leave them off all my analyses, but like Rob has said, there have been plenty of weak teams in Test history: New Zealand and Sri Lanka probably the prime examples. NZ were poor for MANY years - it took them 30 years to win a Test. And SL weren't much threat for 10-20 years.

Microanalysis in general: Fraught with danger. I was looking at the very underrated Dennis Amiss' record today (he would make this list incidently if the cutoff was 3000 runs ) He opened for England in the '70s and late 60s for those who've never come across his name. Anyway, Amiss has a poor record versus Australia, averaging 15, which makes you assume that he sucked against genuine pace (Lillee and Thomson), but then he's got a great record vs WI (averages 70), and they had just as much pace as Australia had in Roberts and Holding. Look at one set of figures without the other and you get a false impression. Another example: we were talking about the 2003/04 India tour the other day around here. Look at the figures and it looks great for Indian batsmen, plenty of runs vs Australia in Australia, but it doesn't mention that the legendary McWarne duo weren't playing. There's always a story behind stats I've found, so I like to keep as many of them in the analysis as possible.

Jack Hobbs vs good bowlers: Here's a list of non-English pre-WW2 bowlers who took more than 20 wickets:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Not a heap of them average under 25 and many of those missed Hobbs Test window of 1907-1930. Can't work out how to sort it like that, so doing it manually, here are the "average under 25" guys that played in his window:
Bert Ironmonger
George Bissett
Tip Snooke
Bill Whitty
Alf Hall
Jack Saunders
Bert Vogler
Ranji Hordern
Clarrie Grimmett
Claude Carter

Dunno if he faced all of them, but there's a few names I recognise there (Saunders, Ironmonger, Whitty, Grimmett of course), but I think it was generally a good time to bat in the 20s - lots of runs were scored then. In fact, the 20s have the 4th highest batting average of all the decades:
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Before WW1 was a bit more difficult. That or Sid Barnes was an insanely good bowler to average 16 in that time.

I agree with whatever you have written. But i find it difficult to include ZIM and BANG in my analysis.And i hope you understand that there was no agenda in setting 5000 as cutoff. I didn't manipulate any stats.

And regarding sub-25 average bowlers 20 wickets is ridiculously low cutoff in 20 years period. To put things in perspective Sehwag faced 7 sub-25 average bowlers who took at least 100 wickets last decade . And he averaged 61 in matches involving those players.So there was certainly a lack of quality bowlers in 1910-1930 .



I think this thread has been derailed . Is opening the toughest job or not ?

 

[Papa_Smurf]

I don't know it about being the toughest, but it's definitley the bravest. To go around every morning, and face the best fast bowlers in the world with a hard new shiny ball, you definitley need to have a pair.

 

[War]

I don't know it about being the toughest, but it's definitley the bravest. To go around every morning, and face the best fast bowlers in the world with a hard new shiny ball, you definitley need to have a pair.

Ye would definitely call it the bravest, especially in the 60s - 90s when great bowlers were everywhere.

----------

Haha this is a great discussion

Here's my thoughts:
Excluding Ban & Zim in analysis: I don't mind them being left off - as you say cricketlover, many people take them out. But I'm warming up to including them again. I used to leave them off all my analyses, but like Rob has said, there have been plenty of weak teams in Test history: New Zealand and Sri Lanka probably the prime examples. NZ were poor for MANY years - it took them 30 years to win a Test. And SL weren't much threat for 10-20 years.

They should always be left out. Plus if you want judge older players performances you can certainly leave out records New Zealand before 1961/62, South Africa before 1952/53 & Sri Lanka before 1998 when the Vaas/Murali combo began to take shape.

 

[Fenil]

In 1971-72 India were 1st ranked? I don't say you are lying but I wonder what were the line-ups of then formidable teams like Australia, England, New Zealand and especially the fearsome West Indies.

 

[Robelinda]

WI were far from fearsome in 71. 1976 they began to become great.

 

[mohit_dude10]

These days the conditions and pitches have become far easier for batsmen so I don't think its the toughest job for opener. They hardly have to deal with the swing for first few overs, but they get advantage of field restrictions in ODI's which helps them scoring faster and more runs and also in tests to face new ball and when pitch is not quite worn out, so yeah they have their advantages too. And you'll notice the openers and top order batsmen these days average a lot more than middle order - lower order batsmen. Also the quality of bowling these days isn't the best, apart from South African and English bowling attack rest are subpar.

 

[Aoun13]

These days the conditions and pitches have become far easier for batsmen so I don't think its the toughest job for opener. They hardly have to deal with the swing for first few overs, but they get advantage of field restrictions in ODI's which helps them scoring faster and more runs and also in tests to face new ball and when pitch is not quite worn out, so yeah they have their advantages too. And you'll notice the openers and top order batsmen these days average a lot more than middle order - lower order batsmen. Also the quality of bowling these days isn't the best, apart from South African and English bowling attack rest are subpar.

I am amazed how people over rate English bowling attack these days. English bowlers can only bowl in English conditions apart from that they are below par and the prime example is WC 2011.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

I am amazed how people over rate English bowling attack these days. English bowlers can only bowl in English conditions apart from that they are below par and the prime example is WC 2011.

Err - we're talking about tests mainly. And they've proven their bowling worth during the Ashes - especially Anderson and Tremlett.

Anderson, Tremlett, Swann and backed up by either one of Broad/Bresnan/Shahzad/Finn is a formidable attack. Second only to SA's atm.

WI are forming a potent attack with likes of Bishoo/Rampaul/Edwards, but the inclsuion of Sammy is hampering them in the bowling department. They've got potential, but aren't their yet.

SL hardly have an attack without Vaas, Murali and Malinga.

NZ are struggling to find a replacement for Bond, although they do have some promising bolwers coming through.

India's bowling strength atm is Zaheer. Harbhajan is woefully out of form with the ball, Ishant failed in bowling condition against a good lune-up in SA, Sreesanth is too irratic and Parveen's just had the one test.

Australia's problems were well documented during the Ashes.

And Pak aren't the same bowling threat with the loss of both Asif and Aamir.