YORKSHIRE are considering some fairly radical changes to their batting order in 2009, including opening with Jacques Rudolph and dropping captain Anthony McGrath down to No 4. Your opinions, please!" YP Story
I think it's a terrible idea all brought about because we are pandering to Vaughan's wishes of batting 3, Vaughan is an opener and should be made to open. Grrrrrr
Rudi is our best player and shouldn't be exposed to the new ball where he is much more likely to get out early.
Vaughan may still be opening, could be Rudolph and Vaughan opening, with Gale at 3 Mags at 4 and Lyth at 5. I agree though, Rudolph opening is certainly an option I never considered but I suppose anything is possible. It will definately be an interesting first match team selection next week.
Agree with Loiner's top six, although you have to make a choice at five, I go with Lyth.
If Vaughan wants to bat three for England then opening for Yorkshire will do him no harm and if he's batting for Yorkshire he should be grateful of a game and bat wherever he is needed or required.
Backing on Rudolph to open in England in april on the back of success in South Africa is a bit like backing a Derby winner for the Grand National because he's the best horse in the race. Opening with Rudolph would be a false move and merely pandering to Vaughan. Vaughan should be told he bats one or twelve, choice is his.
This message has been edited by kennyone on Apr 11, 2009 10:47 PM
Sayers is an opener, and still with potential to be a good one and so I think he deserves to begin the season in prime position. He has greater potential than both Gale and Lyth as an opener and as this is the position in question then Sayers starts for me.
My point with Rudolph was that he is a middle order player who made runs in South Africa as a middle order player in the winter. The fact he did is meaningless when compared to opening at Headingley on a spring morning. World of difference but then again Rudolph might fancy it. Best way back into the South Africa team is as an opener.
Pretty easy for me openers open and middle order players bat in the middle order. Although undoubtedly Rudolph is Yorkshires best bat and could probably become a good opener, don't run th risk and let the experiment become a failure.
Leave rudolph where he is and play Sayers as opener.
If Vaughan so desperately wants to bat 3 then maybe a tailender should open with Sayers and then he'd be happy to be "No. 3" on paper. I'm sure you get my drift.
"Vaughan should be told he bats one or twelve, choice is his."
This could be a good idea. I batted twelve once for a student team against "Twelve Gentlemen of Sawston". Talk about running out of partners. It certainly convinced me I should stick to opening.
Rudolph and Sayers opening against Cambridge University,but of course,Vaughan isn't playing.Mimd you,neither him nor anyone else are doing so at Lord's.
I'll go on record as saying that using Rudolph as an opener will prove to be a disastrous move. Vaughan and Sayers should open...period! The ECB should not dictate our lineup.
The waters are even muddier now re the opening slot. Sayers fails, Rudolph fails, Vaughan fails and Gale scores runs. It`s anyones quess who will get the two opening slots now. It is a specialist job opening, so using middle order batsmen does not work. Why not have openers opening and middle oreder batsmen batting in the middle order. Todays scores have made MM`s job evem more difficult re the batting order.
>>> Rudolph opens against Cambridge UCCE. And gets one. Point proven. Enough of this nonsense.
I see. So its been proven that Rudolph isnt an opener, then has it? This is the same Jacques Rudolph whos opened for about a third of his career, averaging over 40 and scoring ten centuries from that position in the process? But after one innings we now know he cant do the job for Yorkshire? Interesting. Exactly how much of a go should we be giving a young player coming up from the seconds then? A bit more leeway perhaps; maybe an entire match?
Rudolph isnt the ideal solution to our problems, as he hasnt opened on a regular basis for a couple of years; but hes just as much of an opener as Vaughan, who everyone seems to want at the top of the order. Id say that opening with Rudolph was as viable an option as a number of others available to Moxon. To dismiss it out-of-hand as nonsense is, well, nonsense.
Good point although I don't entirely agree. Rudolph is now well-established as an upper middle order batsmen, who is a natural stroke player who scores quickly. I'm very much a "horses for courses" thinker and he's a much better fit (for Yorkshire) going in at 3, 4. I think going in at #1 will cramp his naturally aggressive style.
If we have to "experiment" lets leave Sayers in and see if he can regain his form and pair him with a natural opener: Michael Vaughan. The only complication being we have too many batsmen vying for two few places. I'm hoping Vaughan gets back in the England side, that way Sayers, McGrath, Gale, Lyth and Rudolph can all play.
Rudolph - I don't know where Ill bat. I haven't sat down with Martyn (Moxon, director of cricket) yet. If the management feel they need more stability up front, I dont mind facing the new ball.
Michael will be number three, obviously, because he has aspirations to bat there for England. I can only imagine its fair to him to bat where he wants.
Rudolph opened in two CC matches last year. He scored 155 & 0, and 11 & 3. Apologies for speaking without knowing of his earlier career, but I think we have better options than put our best batsmen in front of a new ball, especially in the spring, especially at Headingley.
This message has been edited by YoungClogger on Apr 12, 2009 6:52 PM
I had a premonition when I saw the Durham team that Claydon might just get Vaughan. It had a kind of poetic rightness about it.
I wish I'd posted that now, though not half as much as I wish I'd reverted to my early-80s habit of backing all the horses in the Grand National with French names (we were just back from living in Paris). Ah, dear old Corbière!
I find it slightly worrying that we've waited all winter to get this sorted.
Rudolph says he hasnt yet sat down and talked to management about it.
Maybe they couldnt do anything until the season starts, but it appears they're just going to throw in whoever and if it doesnt work throw in another combination until we hit it.
I can see why mags wants to drop down to 4 - batting 3, captaining and being morethan an occaional bowler is a heavy workload, going in 4 makes it slight easier.
Ruldoph has done very very well at 4, move him to 3 or my preference if a change is essential to accomodate Mags, would be 5. If Mags really wants 4, then Vaughan gets 3 - If the move is because Vaughan wants 3, then tell him to sod off!!
I agree with others than Sayers is our most natual opener and I'd go with him in that slot. If Ruldoph, Mags and Vaughan are 3,4 and 5 than for me Gale opens and Lyth drops out.
My personal pref - Sayers and Vaughan followed by Mags, Rudolph and Lyth. Anyone missing for any reason Gale comes in and bats in their current position.
"Michael will be number three, obviously, because he has aspirations to bat there for England. I can only imagine its fair to him to bat where he wants." - Jacques RudolphLink to story
"Michael will be number three, obviously, because he has aspirations to bat there for England..." (the delightful and unassuming Rudolph).
Nice of you to say so, Jacques, but No, there's no "obviously" about it!
Whoever bats for Yorkshire at three (or any other place) ought to be placed there because this is the best option for Yorkshire in that match. Not because he has aspirations to bat there for another team, England included.
Rudolph is out best batsman. Whilst Jacques may have opened in the past he looks like a 'natural' middle order batter to me. Using Rudolph as an opener is just wrong in my eyes. Interestingley I was having this conversation at Cambridge yesterday ... & most people agree.
Several different options are available to us. The first thing to be considered is what is best for the team. After that then the next consideration is in what position will the individual player be most prolifrigate. Rudolph, however good a bat he is, will score more runs for the team at 4 or 5 than opening and do we want our best batsman out early. Vaughan, IMO, scores more heavily when opening than at number 3. Gale and Lyth again are more comfortable in the middle order than when opening. Moving Mags to 4 is a good idea as the captain does have a lot to think about and if at 3 with our recent record with opening partnerships he could well be batting within 5 minutes after fielding for 5 or 6 hours. With all this in mind the best order for the TEAM surely has to be playing the personnel where they are all at their best. The team and end result must come before personal preferences etc. We have a problem now that Gale has scored runs as to who of the six to leave out if we want 5 bowlers. Before yesterday he was the obvious choice, but now it`s anyones guess. Another option of course is to play all 6 batsmen knocking on the door and go in with four bowlers. I suppose it could be any combination of two of .Sayers, Lyth, Vaughan, Rudolph, Gale. I would go for Sayers, Vaughan, Lyth, Mags, Rudolph, then either the extra batsmen in Gale at 6 or stick with 5 bowlers.