Ayaz Memon
DURING the 1992 World Cup, India`s cricket manager Abbas Ali Baig and skipper Mohammed Azharuddin sought to alleviate the problem of the team`s slow scoring by looking for a `pinch-hitting` opener. After much debate and scrutiny, this mantle fell on the redoubtable Kapil Dev.
For the match against Sri Lanka at Mackay, the all-rounder opened the innings with Krishnamachari Srikkanth. As it happened, however, rain reduced the match to only a couple of deliveries, and poor Kapil Dev could not face even a single ball.
We will never know whether Kapil Dev would have made a great one-day opener; after just one more innings, India reverted to convention, and Dev was shunted down the order again. However, that is not the relevant issue here. What is important is the need to ask him to open the innings.
The concept of pinch-hitter is pinched from baseball. This particular species` job is to hit the ball hard, high, long and frequently. Fifty years earlier, the intrusion of baseball into cricket would have had a grim and cathartic effect on the aficionados of the game.
In modern cricket, it does not outrage sensibilities because it is clearly understood that one-day cricket and first class cricket are two different ball games played by the same set of players. In fact, the amazement during the 1992 World Cup was that Baig and Azhar had taken so long to reach the decision on Kapil Dev, and then revised it after only a couple of games.
One-day cricket places peculiar demands on openers. Since the game is of a limited tenure, every delivery is vital, and has a run potential which must be actualised. Unlike in Test cricket, the objective here is not to see the shine off the new ball, tire out the fast bowlers, create a platform first from which the match cannot be lost.
The logic of one-day cricket works differently. A match which cannot be lost must necessarily be won, since there are no draws possible. There are also distinctive rules in operation which make the opener`s job in a one-day match vastly different from that in a Test match.
The most important of these is the field placing regulation. This usually means that in the first 15 overs, there will be a minimum five fielders within a 25-yard circle drawn from the wickets, with at least two in catching positions.
The creation of these rules is not purposeless; it is to increase the scope for a batsman to score runs, to improvise to provide more excitement to the spectators. Obviously, therefore, this imposes a great onus on the opening batsmen to fulfil these expectations, both for the side and the audience.
There is also the fact that the opposing bowlers have only 10 overs each. This can facilitate a batting-plan for the innings which has to be set in operation by the openers. If they fail, this may have to be revised drastically. Hence, the scope of an opener can hardly be overstated.
The need to score runs quickly in limited overs cricket is undoubtedly paramount and was the provocation for Kapil Dev being promoted as opener, remember. Indeed, there have been various instances where batsmen who are not regular openers, were assigned this task simply because they were deemed to have the potential to score runs rapidly.
Both David Gower and Ian Botham have opened for England in limited overs cricket. Martin Crowe has performed this job for New Zealand, and in the last World Cup, Brian Lara was Desmond Haynes partner at the top of the order for the West Indies. David Boon opened the innings for Australia for almost five years, and India promoted Sachin Tendulkar into this role with great success in the World Cup now at its end.
Experimenting with the batting order could be because of an exigency, or as part of a long-term strategy. Kapil Dev`s promotion was clearly restricted to the 1992 World Cup tournament. But Tendulkar`s was in acknowledgment of his ability to carry this responsibility for at least five or six years.
Not all experiments have been successful. Boon and Tendulkar are notable high performers after becoming openers. The latter especially, has reveled in his new role, scoring four centuries in one season (1994-95), after a protracted period in the doldrums as a middle-order batsman.
But not everybody has Tendulkar`s genius, or the resolute ambition of Boon to succeed. Many surrogate openers have had a short life at the top because opening the innings remains a specialisation, even in limited overs cricket. It devolves on the incumbent to acquire this expertise quickly and effectively.
The basic requirements to make a good opener in limited-overs cricket could be circumscribed around three As: attitude, aptitude, adaptability. All three are vital, and the best players are those who have all three attributes in good measure.
Attitude and aptitude go hand-in-hand. One without the other is almost worthless. A batsman has to necessarily be positive in limited overs cricket, and must also have the ability to translate this positively in run-productivity.
Mike Brearley, for instance lacked nothing in attitude, but had severe limitations in aptitude. His opening partner in the 1979 World Cup, Geoff Boycott, on the other hand was supremely proficient on skill, but his attitude was hopelessly defensive. In the final of the tournament, therefore, England suffered as this pair took 35 overs to score 127 runs, with one batsman unable, and the other unwilling to score runs quickly.
Nevertheless, one has to presume that openers have both attitude and aptitude in some measure, else they would not be assigned this job. That assumption made, adaptability becomes the Key issue. Indeed, that is the crux of the matter in batting in one day-cricket; only in the case of openers it is perhaps more critical.
Many openers, and especially those who bat in this position in Test matches too, face a problem in switching from one mode to another. The rhythm of batting in a Test match is completely different from a one day game. Not everybody is able to fine tune their skills to suit both demands.
In the first match of the 1975 World Cup, it will be recalled, Sunil Gavaskar scored 36 runs from 60 overs. In the second last match of his career, during the 1987 Reliance Cup, he scored a rousing 83-ball hundred. The stark contrast between these two innings should highlight the significance of adaptability.
In his early days in limited-overs cricket, Gavaskar struggled to find the right rhythm because he was committedly orthodox, both in technique and temperament. But once he had appreciated that one-day cricket had come to stay, he made the necessary adjustments, both in mental approach, and technique to become a successful one-day opener.
With the growth of one-day cricket, such dilemmas have largely been resolved as a matter of course. Most young cricketers today know that they have to be adaptable and versatile, else they risk their place in the team. Ask any selector today which type of player he is looking for to take on a tour and the answer inevitably is, "somebody who can change gears from Test to one-day cricket without great trouble".
The importance of the three As established, it still needs explaining what is a good one-day opener. Fluency in stroke making and innovation are obviously necessary. But if this also includes the ability to hit over the top, clear the infield and maximise the opportunities presented by the 15 over field placing restriction, it can be of enormous advantage to the batting side. The requisite for this is not so much power (though this helps undoubtedly) as intrepidity.
Gordon Greenidge, Krish Srikkanth, Graham Gooch, Saeed Anwar, David Boon, Michael Slater and, of course, Sachin Tendulkar, are some of the players who have shown such ability in ample measure. Such batsmen are the most feared because they can seize an early psychological advantage, and perhaps even decide the issue before the match is half-way through.
Their capacity to play shots is not to be confused with simple slogging. Most of the batsmen mentioned were clean strikers of the ball, their batting based on sound technique. Most of them hit through the line, which reduces the element of risk, and what is more important, hit with timing and panache.
The more unorthodox, like Srikkanth and Anwar nevertheless had superb reflexes and eyesight to make them as effective. What is important is all these batsmen had the attitude to dominate and the skills, conventional or improvised, to achieve this.
Yet, this does not undermine the value of the batsman who cannot play big shots. The clever opener, who can find gaps in the field for two and three with pushes, nudges, glances, steers and drives, can be equally effective in a one-day game. He might not be conspicuous, but he also runs the lesser risk of dismissal, and may in fact score at the same rate as the blaster if he does his job well.
Many such batsmen too have been invaluable to their side. Gavaskar, Des Haynes (till the retirement of Greenidge), Mark Taylor, Ravi Shastri, Manoj, Prabhakar and Aamir Sohail would let their more aggressive partners steal the limelight with their big hitting. They would be content to play to their limitations, get runs even if inconspicuously, keep one end going.
Having said this, either both types of openers need to strike the right balance between aggression and attrition. Getting too defensive could set the team back irrevocably; playing too aggressively might cost the side a precious wicket.
In fact, most managers and captains aim to have one player of each kind to form the opening pair. Complementary skills apart, it also helps if the openers have a fine understanding with each other. Perhaps the very nature of the task ensures compatibility because openers, as in Test cricket, have hunted in pairs in limited overs cricket too. The better the understanding between the openers, the greater the effectiveness, in running between the wickets, in getting runs, and ultimately results.
The Greenidge and Haynes duo formed the fountainhead of West Indies` spectacular success in the 70s and 80s, India`s best periods in limited-overs cricket have come when adventurous Srikkanth partnered either the sedate Gavaskar or the doughty Shastri.
Now, the blazing brilliance of Tendulkar is matched by the resoluteness of Prabhakar or Sidhu. Australia reached the top through the Boon-Marsh pair, and now look good enough to stay at the pinnacle with Taylor and Slater in cracking form. Pakistan in Anwar and Sohail a pair of fabulous openers.
In conclusion, it is important to understand that opening the innings, whatever the form of the game, and the playing conditions, is never easy. Apart from wicket-keeping, it is perhaps the most onerous job in cricket and calls for extremely strong nerves and self-confidence.
While there has been no great debate on the subject, it is agreed amongst cricketers that opening the innings requires a strange and strong mental attitude. Playing the first ball of an innings is an extraordinarily daunting proposition that very few can adjust to. This explains why an opener`s job is a speciality, and why there have in fact been very few great openers, even in one day cricket.
A team of Great One Day Openers:
Gordon Greenidge, Des Haynes, Graham Gooch, Krish Srikkanth, Sunil Gavaskar, Sachin Tendulkar, Saeed Anwar, Mark Slater, David Boon, Geoff Marsh, Kepler Wessels.