We have a guy at the club I play for who is an opener, but occasionally is happy to bat down the order. Only problem is that through superstition or whatever, he won't ever bat at number three. That's fine - we're not in a league, it's Sunday afternoon semi-serious social cricket, so we can afford to pander to the odd, inexplicable whim.
So what's KP's excuse?
Lets leave aside Alistair 'I've just scored a ton against a Minor County attack so I'm safe for another year' Cook for now - the big hole in the England batting at the moment is at first down. Imagine the opposition bowlers reaction. They've busted a gut to get one of the openers out and then see Bell or Shah walking out. They're going to think 'hey, we're in with a chance here'. You wouldn't have that level of confidence if it were KP walking out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
My feeling is that for test cricket you should pick an opener for No.3
At least half ther time he'll be doing an openers job, and on those occasions when he isn't, you've got less of a problem anyway.
My other feeling is that batters aren't half ponces. Can you imagine a bowler getting away with saying "I can only bowl if I come on second change"??
Bowlers need to perform when called-upon according to the match situation. The same logic would say that, at the fall of a wicket, the captain should choose who goes in next based on the requirements at the time (quick runs, defence, left/right combo), not based on superstition and lucky numbers. Clearly this need not be a spur-of-the-moment whim, but I really have never understood why it simply isn't possible for a couple of batters to be padded & ready as a partnership in the middle develops, with one then able to "stand down" (ie re-join the card school) when it becomes evident that his skills aren't the ones which will be needed next.
Post a Comment