Does Warner have to open?

[Baby_Jenks]

There's no denying that he's got talent. He sees the ball and then hits the ball, HARD. I have absolutely no problem with him being an opener in the shorter versions of the game.
His foot work is minimal, if at all and the best way to exploit that is to get the ball to swing. The ball swings the most at the start of an innings. Logically it would be best to have someone else have that responsibility
We saw Gilchrist and M.Waugh open for ODIs yet both batted down the order when it came to the 5 day game. Is there any reason why Warner can't or shouldn't do so?

I'm not saying that there's a huge array of opening batsmen knocking down the door for a test spot but I'm of the opinion that the Test team would best be served by having a batting line up of
Watson
Cowan
Marsh
Warner

Thoughts, ideas, opinions?



P.S. please try and keep this about Warner and his batting position rather than a 'who the opener should be' or 'Watson would be better at #' unless it's in reference to Warner. Plenty of other threads for those discussions.

 

[Lemma]

Um...you do know Watson is injured?

 

[Baby_Jenks]

Fair point. I was more asking about the Windies and beyond.

 

[Rumblah#16]

If that means Khawaja opens then sure.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I think Warner could bat anywhere but I'd like for him to be a success as opener. A few more test matches and we should know how he is traveling.

 

[realsniper09]

If Warner opens, then I think there MUST be a Cowan, Marsh, or Khawaja that opens with him. I think it's very unlikely to work if he opens with Watson or Hughes... we don't need two attacking minded players right at the top as it makes us prone to wickets and collapses.

If he doesn't open, where does he play then?? I really don't see him playing elsewhere in the order, not with the team/squads we have at the moment, especially if Ponting, Clarke, and Hussey are cemented for the short term at 4, 5, 6.

If the plan is for Watson to move down the order for the longer term, then I see Warner's position as opening with one of the more defensive guys I mentioned earlier.

 

[Belnakor]

I don't understand why we have this plan to have an attacking opener, in the sehwag mold. That only works when you have a rock solid no.3 who is effectively a 3rd opener.

Hayden/Langer weren't attacking until they were well set, and they went alright.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

To much of a loose cannon as an opener at test level.

 

[Blue and Gold Blood]

Still not convinced he is a test player.

 

[The Passenger]

i think he's best as a five or six, but he seems to have been made into an opener...

if he could make it as an opener that would give us a massive weapon. i was really happy with how our top three looked coming into the indian series but unfortunatley they've yet to fire...

you couldn't have warner and hughes opening. numbers 3, 4 and 5 would have their hearts in mouths the entire time.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I don't understand why we have this plan to have an attacking opener, in the sehwag mold. That only works when you have a rock solid no.3 who is effectively a 3rd opener.

Shaun Marsh says hello. At least the Shaun Marsh who played in his first few tests a couple of months ago says hello. He looked "rock solid" then, at 3 and looked as technically good and safe as anyone in our line-up at the time, including Hussey, who was peeling off hundreds.
Unfortunately, since his return, Marsh has looked like he was still in T20 mode, after his 97 off 50 odd balls in the Big Bash just prior to his return. Warner has also looked more like he was in T20 mode a bit since his century in the Big Bash game prior to Melbourne, so hopefully they'll be back in "test" mode by now and ready to show us what they've got at test level again.
As for your question, I don't believe he has to open at all, but they reckon he's not so good against spin (most teams open up with spin in T20's against him for that reason), so having him bat at 5 or 6 in tests may not be that good an idea, as they usually have to play a lot of spin, as well as reverse swing and new balls. His best spots may be 1-4, at the moment.

 

[Jimthegreat]

He could be interesting smashing the old ball at no.6 about not unlike Gilly. He has a similarly good eye so I always wonder if we have to waste that in the Test arena against a swinging new ball.

It's like he's opened in the short forms of the game that it automatically follows in the long form. Not so.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

To much of a loose cannon as an opener at test level.

Virender Sehwag, Chris Gayle and Sanath Jayasuriya board.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I don't understand why we have this plan to have an attacking opener, in the sehwag mold.

I don't think it was a pre-set plan, but really just that he was chosen as the best in-form option at that stage.

 

[legend166]

Too early to make the call. Give him the rest of the series and then re-evaluate.

 

[Belnakor]

Shaun Marsh says hello. At least the Shaun Marsh who played in his first few tests a couple of months ago says hello. He looked "rock solid" then, at 3 and looked as technically good and safe as anyone in our line-up at the time, including Hussey, who was peeling off hundreds.

Shaun always looks good on slower pitches like the subcontinent. I suspect it is due to him reading off the pitch and his overreliance on bowling machines when he was young.

Lets see how he goes on the weekend.

 

[deledio7]

Not convinced. I'm happy to give him the rest of this series though.

Our top order is a bit of a mess at the moment so I'm still unsure why Usman was dropped. He wasn't scoring big runs but he didn't throw away his wicket and was taking on the new ball more often than not.

 

[CAS79]

Ideally I think Warner is a number 3, a clever shot maker with a great eye. Has the ability to get on the front foot to the new ball if required early but perhaps bet protected by the openers for his shot range and for the edge to be taken off the bounce if best be helped.

Warner could make a very good number 3.

 

[deledio7]

A number three has to have a very good defense. You have to be confident in the first drop and Warner although a gifted hitter, doesn't fit the mould.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Yeah I don't think Warner is suited to 3. He either opens or bats 5 or 6. That said he still needs to perform consistently to cement his spot in the side.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Really don't see what the major difference between batting at 1 or 2 and 3 is (unless there's a pretty big opening stand). I can see the difference the other way around (if you're used to coming in at 3 there's more chance of the ball not being as new and doing as much, so you might not be as suited to opening, although if a wicket falls immediately you're virtually opening anyway), but if you're good enough to open I don't see how batting at 3 would be much different. If you can open, you'll probably bat well at 3, unless waiting around before you bat is a huge issue, or you absolutely love the really hard ball.
It all depends on what happens in a particular innings, though, of course. You could be batting at 3 and come in in the first over of the match, or come in at the end of the first day when the 2nd new ball is due, or it could be somewhere in between.
Wherever you bat though, you have to be able to handle pretty much all conditions, if you plan on having long stints at the wicket. If you're going to be making hundreds, you're likely to be batting for 60+ overs, so by then you'll be playing spin and reverse swing and either the new ball (if you come in early), or second new ball (if you come in down the order a bit), most likely.
If you're opening, it probably means you like facing pace (especially early in your innings) so the more pace you get the better, but if you're batting at 3 you're probably still going to be coming in against pace most of the time and facing a lot of it during your innings.
I really think you'd have to have a better technique opening than coming in at 3, though, because if you're opening you're up against the new ball each time and the new ball usually does more than the older one, especially if it's the first day of a test (which it could be 25% of the time, statistically).
I opened the batting when I played Saturday cricket and didn't particularly like pace (not sure why they had me opening, as I was much better suited against medium pace and spin) and I know I would have found it slightly easier coming in at 3 (more so, the later the first wicket fell). The other difference between Warner opening in T20's/ODI's and tests is that in tests the ball usually does more, because there's more juice in the wickets. In ODI's and T20's, the wickets are usually "roads", with the ball doing little, so his technique doesn't need to be as good as it does to open in tests, when it can be doing a lot. So again, if his technique is not quite good enough to be opening and playing the moving ball in tests, he could find it a bit easier coming in at 3, most of the time.
That's all I have to say about that.

 

[Marlin01]

I know it won't happen, but Australia could do worse than elevate Hussey to open with Cowan. He's an experienced opening batsman and his technique is perfect for the WACA.

 

[Slax]

Really don't see what the major difference between batting at 1 or 2 and 3 is (unless there's a pretty big opening stand). I can see the difference the other way around (if you're used to coming in at 3 there's more chance of the ball not being as new and doing as much, so you might not be as suited to opening, although if a wicket falls immediately you're virtually opening anyway), but if you're good enough to open I don't see how batting at 3 would be much different. If you can open, you'll probably bat well at 3, unless waiting around before you bat is a huge issue, or you absolutely love the really hard ball.

There is a massive difference in batting at 3 compared to opening especially for someone who plays like Warner does. The last thing you want is an ultra aggressive #3 who will often expose the middle order to a new ball early in a test match, and we've seen what the result is recently of that.

You need a #3 who can grind it out or play his shots depending on circumstances. This is why Dravid has been a really good #3 for India. You are much better off dropping Watson to 3 and leave Warner and Cowan to establish themselves.

 

[maelcoluim]

I think he could bat anywhere though I think he's aggressive style of batting is better suited at 5 or 6 rather than an opener at test level. I also think the likes of Ponting, Clarke and Hussey batting at 4, 5 and 6 is too low. Long-term I'd like to see Khawaja and Watson opening, though for the time being I think we should wait and see how this combination goes.

Also agree that Hussey would make the perfect opener, whatever you think of him he's definitely one never to give his wicket away...not going to happen though as their looking for a long-term option.

 

[JimDocker]

I think it is unfair to suggest that Warner just walks in and starts slogging. He has a sound defensive technique and uses that well and also leaves the ball well outside the off stump.

It just happens that when he sees a ball that he considers loose, he hits it and hits it very hard. That should not prevent him from being an opener. If his shot selection is an issue, it will be an issue anywhere in the batting line up but at this stage it does not seem to be.