Also, I have to say, I do think that having good openers has the advantage of protecting your 3/4 from the new ball.
If my 3 and 4 are average, I'd rather they come in once the shine has been taken off the ball and once we have a few runs on the board. If your best players are 3 and 4 and your openers get skittled, then you might as well have opened with them anyway.
But surely you'd just want someone to take the shine off the new ball so your best batsmen (3 and 4) can play with an older one? It'd probably be more likely that your best batsman would get out with the newer ball, and you want them in, obviously.
Again, all you're saying is that good openers > poor openers. That's a given. The argument being presented was that it'd be better to have players averaging: 1. 45 2. 45 3. 30 4. 30 in your side than.. 1. 30 2. 30 3. 45 4. 45 It's true that if your three and four are crap, they'll probably perform worse if they have to face the new pill. If they're good though then it shouldn't really matter much.
So, you're saying that your two better batsmen are good enough to be more or less unaffected by the state of the ball, whereas your two worse batsmen will perform worse with the new pill. Therefore it follows to let the better players deal with the new ball.
Nah, openers like the new ball. Those ****s averaging 30 opening in Team B would do even worse if they batted 3/4.
AWTA. The reason he survives is because he is a fighter in difficult situations and whenever he has been close to being dumped he gets a big score. A guy that has made a hell of a lot out of not much.
Haha, and the 3 and 4 like a ball that's a little more scuffed, so they'd do worse if they opened. You're just saying that openers like opening and 3/4s like batting 3/4
Indeed. I'm not saying Team B > Team A.. I'm saying they're the same. In the end, runs are runs. Scoring them with your openers or scoring them with your middle order - same shit, different smell.
The thing is, while going from 10/2 to 150/3 is the same as going from 140/0 to 150/3, you're more likely to successfully make it to 150/3 in the second scenario. I don't just mean that in an obvious way, I mean that losing early wickets, and thereby going behind in the game means that the vast majority of players are going to play worse rather than better. I'd say that you're still better to have reached 150/3 while never being in a terrible position, compared to having had to claw yourselves back into contention.
Being 10/2 would also mean that the bowlers and fielding side will be pumped and more confident and more likely to keep attacking the batsmen and taking wickets, whereas once they reached 80/0, they are likely to start getting a bit deflated and easing off the aggression, making it easier to bat.
