Why do we assume opening is more difficult?

[eugene]

Is opening really more difficult for every player? Is this a correct assumption. I am sure there are plenty of players who have tasted more success as openers than middle-order batsmen. Jayasuriya comes to mind as one, Simon Katich another. I would like to think that not every middle-order player is just there because he is hiding from the new ball. Middle order players, particularly in ODIs often have the tougher job as boundaries are not readily available and the run rate is a constant threat.

[jaybro]

True but just about every Zimbabwean opener has moved down the order at some point once they're established e.g. Grant flower, Ebrahim, Taylor, Vermeaulan, Hammie, Vusi, so on so on but yes I agree some people are just better openers like Shane Watson

[eugene]

If Taylor had been left at the top of the order would he have still reached his current dominance anyway? Its not like has was a complete failure at the top.

[jaybro]

Yeah I believe ha could have done well but he wanted to move dwn as most of the others did leaving the impression that opening is extremely hard

[Jemisi]

In Tests unless one has a significant weakness against spin, opening is harder.

In ODIs opening is a bit harder but is balanced by the opportunities to get bigger scores once in, and the lack of hitting pressure early in an innings that middle order players often have, balanced in turn by the middle order players having a chance at more not outs. Top players with top ODI averages are often openers whereas in tests opening usually costs between 3 and 5 runs from a player's average.

In T20s opening is clearly better for one's average.

[eugene]

So players like Matthew Hayden, Justin Langer, Michael Vaughan, and Virender Sehwag should be held in even higher regard then. They dominated tests while being openers.

[Googly]

Opening is by far the most demanding slot, in any format, but particularly tests. Fresh top-of-the-line bowlers steaming in with a new cherry that is usually moving around. Aside from the increased difficulty level there is also the massive psychological pressure.
Top openers are rare birds. If they can take the shine off the new ball and establish a base they make the job so much easier for the guys following as well. I think they are generally the most well paid as well.

[sloandog]

I don't find opening hard Scored 80 last weekend by batting time and playing appropriate shots.
Bit different from test cricket though i admit

[zimfan93]

It's funny you say, because I almost think the lower the standard of cricket, the harder opening is compared to the job everyone else has. I mean, in a test match a side generally has 4 good bowlers, who exploit both conventional and reverse swing throughout the innings when conditions fit, meaning all batsmen have a difficult job. Where as playing 4th XI club cricket on a matting wicket, one generally finds team only have 2 good bowlers, who have about 10 overs to make use of the ball before it is ripped up by the rough outfield/ uncovered concrete at the end of the pitch, so only the openers, presuming they survive have a really tough job. But I might be slightly biased having done a bit of the latter

[ZIMDOGGY]

It is but it isnt.

It is a bit harder with the zip of the new ball. But once that doesnt faze yo... the runs come thick and fast. They hit well of the bat, and scream away to 4 with ease. The 'hump' of the bell curve is a little further. Buty once you get there...jackpot!