Open with Rohit Sharma in tests and see how it goes

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Vijy said:

langer was another top-order batsman (but non-opener) who became a fine opener. there are quite a few openers who avg in the 40s (in tests), who started out in the top/middle order - jayasuria, gayle (in first few tests). but it's very rare to find such players. mostly, middle-order batsmen who moved into test opening have generally tended to be quite aggressive.

 

Totally forgot Jayasurya. 

Though langer and gayle were openers in domestic cricket - yes, they played #3 for a bit breaking in, but  they don't count. 

There was an Aussie from the 60s too IIRC who was a career middle order bat who suddenly got bumped into opening.Can't remember his name.

[putrevus]

Yuvi and Rohit could have succeeded in test cricket had they played their natural game. They might have become world beaters but if succeed early in your career it builts confidence.Constant stops and starts also did not help them. 

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Totally forgot Jayasurya. 

Though langer and gayle were openers in domestic cricket - yes, they played #3 for a bit breaking in, but  they don't count. 

There was an Aussie from the 60s too IIRC who was a career middle order bat who suddenly got bumped into opening.Can't remember his name.

maybe lawry or simpson. but yes, it's a pretty rare path with more failures than successes. shastri was another, btw - I think he was a surprisingly decent opener given his otherwise lack of skills. In fact, I see him as someone who made the best of limited ability in tests - pity he's such a bonehead as a coach.

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Vijy said:

maybe lawry or simpson. but yes, it's a pretty rare path with more failures than successes. shastri was another, btw - I think he was a surprisingly decent opener given his otherwise lack of skills. In fact, I see him as someone who made the best of limited ability in tests - pity he's such a bonehead as a coach.

Which is odd. In almost all sports, its the Shastri types - average talented people who've maximized their potential by hard work and thorough understanding, are the ones who make the greatest coaches. In almost all sports, the great coaches are people who used to be nobodies in the sport but played at the highest level to know how **** works. 

 

[Vijy]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Which is odd. In almost all sports, its the Shastri types - average talented people who've maximized their potential by hard work and thorough understanding, are the ones who make the greatest coaches. In almost all sports, the great coaches are people who used to be nobodies in the sport but played at the highest level to know how **** works. 

 

it is pretty odd. I have seen other coaches from similar backgrounds do very well in other sports (or even cricket in other countries)

[putrevus]

maybe lawry or simpson. but yes, it's a pretty rare path with more failures than successes. shastri was another, btw - I think he was a surprisingly decent opener given his otherwise lack of skills. In fact, I see him as someone who made the best of limited ability in tests - pity he's such a bonehead as a coach.

What are Shastri’s faults as a coach. He has persisted with 5 bowlers even though they have lost series.

Nobody talks about Bumrah , it is Shastri who gave him nod ahead of seniors in SA.

The only statement I didn’t like was her his latest statement I “ever team is strong at home and so why point India if they lose overseas.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zen]

making a heavy weather of opening in LOIs .... Ind could be in trouble