“Travis head boxing day” by Neb is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
In the era of Tik Tok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts feeding the brain with sharp bursts of stimulation, Test cricket too orients towards this trend with the T20-fication of the format. Test opening batting, deemed the toughest specialist role in the 5-day game, has become an enigma. With every passing year the currency of success in the eyes of selectors gradually shifts from slow and steady to short and snappy. In a sport covered in T20’s fingerprints, has the job description of a Men’s Test opening batter in 2025 been radically altered?
Dubbed the hardest job in cricket, a proficient Test opening batter is a team’s most prized possession.
Some argue this sentiment, regularly voiced by esteemed former openers, is merely navel gazing to prop up their achievements in a game that insists on gushing over middle-order batsmanship. Regardless of where you land on this debate one thing is clear – Test opening batters rarely get the love they deserve.
Cricket is a microcosm of life, with the fanatics among us taking pleasure in romanticising the parallels between what happens on the field and what unfolds in the real world. Through a societal lens, the role of a Test opening batter was traditionally one of nobility, responsibility and selflessness – or ‘boring’, as some would call it.
Aside from a couple of anomalies, the Test opening batter’s modus operandi was to play it safe and not veer from the plans scribbled on the team whiteboard.
Yet, no matter how dutifully they fulfilled their purpose, their work would remain a mere footnote to the record-making, record-breaking feats racked up by the ‘bad boys’ in the middle order.
That was until the new kid on the cricketing block, T20, rolled up in 2003. Today in its unruly early 20s, the format is no longer happy just being the party animal of the sport, nor is it content with simply being the most financially lucrative. It is revolutionising how cricket is fundamentally being played beyond the unfathomable amount of cash, player power and celebrity that now exist.
A Test opening batter, particularly in the Men’s game, now seeks to share the limelight with their free-flowing middle-order teammates. Unfortunately for them, the requirements that must be satisfied by fledgling openers in the 5-day game are unlike any in cricket.
In 2025, the role of a Men’s Test opening batter has become a game within a game.
Once upon a time…
Consumers of Test cricket will lucidly describe the many enthralling components and sensory stimulants that make this format so compelling.
Whether it is a fast bowler haring in late in the day with a reverse-swinging ball as the Sun begins to set, a modern master scoring a back-to-the-wall 100 or a mystery spinner weaving their magic on Day 5 to seal a final-hour win, a good game of Test cricket has something for everyone.
Often going under the radar are the players who get the ball rolling: the openers.
The hybrid role of a Test opening batter was, at a time, a non-negotiable
Essential to understanding the once-revered stature of a Test opening batter is appreciating the function they served. They were the most adaptable.
Or rather, they were forced to be by virtue of their job description.
First they navigated the swinging new ball, at its hardest, delivered by the opposition’s freshest bowlers. Simultaneously, they sussed out the pitch conditions to set about building a solid platform for themselves and their teammates. Thirdly, with the intel gained out in the middle, they relayed back to the remaining batters what a competitive score may be.
Should they survive the initial tête-à-tête, they were entrusted with kicking on themselves with tons, double tons and on a good day, much more. This meant repelling any mental and physical fatigue that had accumulated to that point – yet another thing to add to their to-do list.
In times gone by, their value to a side was undeniable and hybrid role crystal clear.
'Old-school' Test opening batsmanship gave us unmistakable identities and clear blueprints for success
Those who grew up in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s viewed opening batsmanship on the first morning of a Test as its own artform.
So if opening batting is – or was – an artform, who have been the discipline’s greatest artists in the Men’s game?
Sunil Gavaskar, Matthew Hayden, Gordon Greenidge, Sir Alastair Cook, Graeme Smith, David Warner, Virender Sehwag, Chris Gayle, Sir Geoffrey Boycott, Mark Taylor – the list could go on. The indelible impression left by these superstars on fans and players alike has been profound.
Like the great artists of times gone by, they each did it their own way.
Sunil Gavaskar, the first cricketer to pass 10,000 runs in Test cricket
“Sunil-Gavaskar” by Bollywood Hungama is licensed under CC BY 3.0
If Wassily Kandinsky was credited as one of the pioneers of abstract expressionistic art, bringing to the canvas emotion and imagination, Virender Sehwag and David Warner were the cricketing counterparts. Similarly, where Nicolas Poussin embodied classicist sensibilities – a marriage of symmetry and aesthetics – Sunil Gavaskar mirrored this with bat in hand.
There has been no shortage of vibrancy and flavour in opening batters with a wide spectrum of styles dotted throughout history. Most importantly, run scoring was always assured. Even among those more attacking, balancing a flamboyant batting philosophy with consistent outputs never appeared to be a burden too heavy for their shoulders.
And no matter how they chose to do it, there was a blueprint for success for those aspiring to open the batting, should they wish to study it.
But this heterogeneity which once blessed the longest format has eroded away, with the breakaway debris drifting in the currents generated by the T20 winds of change. Today, this debris has settled to create a different chimeric entity altogether.
In an era which rewards efforts that are short and snappy, rambunctiousness is now the faddish thing to do at the top of the order. The finesse that once characterised some of the opening greats is increasingly seen as a hindrance and just too old-fashioned by some.
But can an artform really be called old-fashioned in a format of the game that, in its very nature, is still deeply rooted in the ‘old-fashioned’?
Test cricket in 2025: still its own thing or T20 in whites?
From Tik Tok to Instagram Reels to YouTube Shorts, the modern person wants things fast and with a punch. In 2025, Test cricket orients towards this trend more than ever before.
In the lead up to 2022 and the emergence of ‘Bazball’, we saw glimpses of T20 cricket’s DNA in the 5-day game. Virender Sehwag, Chris Gayle and Sanath Jayasuriya were all trendsetters well ahead of their time at the top of the order.
More recently, David Warner picked up this baton.
But their roles were pragmatic, calculated and served a purpose within the team’s batting dynamics at a macro level. They were primarily a tactical spanner that could be thrown into the works to discombobulate the opposition’s best laid plans when the going got tough.
When ‘Bazball’ took center-stage in the English summer of 2022, it shone a light on an uncomfortable truth many purists believed was too taboo to acknowledge. Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum made it clear that their way of playing Test cricket would tear apart the centuries-old sacred pillars of Test cricket – that too in England, the birthplace of the sport and its proud traditions.
This seismic shift in thinking to a format historically shaped by conservative attitudes suggested it was only a matter of time before others started to lean in with interest.
Test match batting has become harder since 2000 and prolific openers have dropped off decade by decade
In the 2020s, batting in the Test arena has arguably been at its toughest since the start of the 21st century.
The number of individual batters averaging 45 or more has steadily declined from the 2000s (34), through to the 2010s (25) and into the 2020s (14) (Figure 1; data correct as of 16 January 2025).
In the same data sets, the number of bona fide regular openers present has similarly trended towards a decline from the 2000s (7), through to the 2010s (4) and into the 2020s (4).
In the 2000s, the 7 openers were Matthew Hayden, Virender Sehwag, Graeme Smith, Gary Kirsten, Justin Langer, Gautam Gambhir and Jesse Ryder – all players with reputations of being prolific openers at the domestic and/or international level (including in One Day or T20 cricket).
A similar story is true for the 4 openers in the 2010s: Graeme Smith (again), Sir Alastair Cook, David Warner and Chris Gayle.
Rohit Sharma’s average exceeded 45 in the 2010s but his tenure at the top only began in October 2019, thereby excluding him as an opener in this analysis given the small sample size.
Figure 1. Batters with a Test average of 45 and above in the 2000s, 2010s and 2020s in Men’s cricket
Data cutoff was 16 January 2025. The red dots indicate Men’s Test openers within each data set
Data courtesy of ESPNCricinfo
However, the 2020s is where team strategy and player philosophy have strained ‘the old ways’. The reliance on familiarity and understanding of opening the batting, something that was once a prerequisite for Test cricket, has been abandoned.
As we begin 2025, only Yashasvi Jaiswal, Usman Khawaja, Dimuth Karunaratne and Imam-ul-Haq feature as regular openers averaging 45 or more this decade. Of these, Imam-ul-Haq last played a Test in 2023 (at the time of writing this). This has effectively left 3 batters who have put together solid records at Number 1 or 2.
So, what has prompted these trends?
Is it the pitches, many of which now – in the subcontinent and beyond – overwhelmingly favour bowling sides? Is it the packed schedule which simply prohibits players from having the necessary time to hone Test techniques? Or is it simply the fact batters now prefer the ‘here for a good time, not a long time’ mentality to capture the imaginations of a new market and a younger demographic…and maybe hope to make a quick buck or two while they are at it?
The answer likely exists somewhere within all of that.
Pick your best 7 batters and draw straws to see who opens
Although being a Test opening batter was a coveted and aspirational post with dedicated training to the craft, this is no longer the case.
Specialism is not necessarily an opening prospect’s unique selling point in 2025. Today, they must conform to the greater vision of a side, both as a player and a personality.
As a result, a Test opening batter now appears to have a nondescript role, especially in the Men’s game.
Australia’s relationship with the opening batting role has piqued the interest of the old guard
The exceptionalism of the Australian Men’s cricket team has always garnered admiration and encouraged imitation among the other nations. When the Australian team make moves, and success follows, people usually want in. In the 2020s, they now look to challenge what it takes to be a Test opening batter.
David Warner’s presence at the top, much like Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer before him, remained evergreen throughout his career until he walked away during the 2023/2024 Australian summer. The same could not be said for his opening partners.
Following Warner’s debut in 2011, 12 players were given the opportunity to cross the boundary rope with him. The merry-go-round of opening hopefuls largely stemmed from poor performances or a change in how the team wanted to play the game. But in general, no-one was able to cement their spot for any substantial period besides 2 men: Chris Rogers and Usman Khawaja.
Chris Rogers was a grizzled Sheffield Shield and County Championship veteran by the time he got a prolonged gig at the top in the Baggy Green in 2013. Unsurprisingly, this came off the back of cutting his teeth in the breeding ground of domestic cricket for several years.
Ending his Test career after 25 Tests and an average of 42.87, his time partnering Warner was short and sweet as age was not on his side having started his extended run in the Australian team at 35.
Both Usman Khawaja and Steve Smith, international middle-order Test batters by trade, have been trialed as openers for Australia in the 2020s
“File:2018.01.05.17.43.25-Usman Khawaja & Steve Smith (38876757994).jpg” by www.davidmolloyphotography.com from Sydney, Australia is licensed under CC BY 2.0
This set the wheels spinning once again with the Test opening batter merry-go-round resuming normal service.
In 2021/2022, after being left out of the side for over 2 years, Australia recalled middle-order batter, Usman Khawaja. Hindered by a stop-start career, Khawaja’s Test aspirations were once again resurrected. But this time, the circumstances were curious.
With Warner appearing to be the only opener selectors were confident of picking, the think tank set upon a new path with selection. Captain Pat Cummins, coach Andrew McDonald and chairman of selectors, George Bailey, decided to not dip into the domestic pool to find an uncapped partner for Warner. Instead, they opted to give Usman Khawaja a chance at reinventing himself.
And with twin tons in his comeback Test in the Ashes at the Sydney Cricket Ground, the rest was history.
This focus on versatility and adaptability was again on show in the wake of Warner’s retirement. Steve Smith, Australia’s maverick whom netizens regularly label ‘the best since Bradman’, has created a legacy for himself at Number 4.
The middle order is holy territory in the sanctum of Australian Test batting, a place where some of their greatest have batted: Ricky Ponting, Allan Border, Greg Chappell, Michael Clarke and even ‘the Don’ himself.
So when Smith offered to open the batting, and was given the green light to open the batting, the jury was still out as to whether this was a criminal choice on the part of the Australian selectors.
His modest returns of 171 runs from 8 innings at an average of 28.50 suggested this had been a misfire, despite a 91* against the West Indies.
Smith’s brief flirtation with the opening role has since been quashed. The team has set their sights on fresh meat as shown by Nathan McSweeney’s and Sam Konstas’ debuts during the 2024/2025 Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
Potential, capability and batting eye candy
Cricket is inherently a sport that thrives on specialism. A Test opening batter epitomises this.
As observed with the likes of Steve Smith and Usman Khawaja, there has been a growing movement towards devaluing what it means to be a Test opening batter.
England – more specifically ‘Bazball’ – has earned its fair share of criticism in this department. Their staunch backing of Zak Crawley, who averages just 30.51 from 53 Tests, suggests he is not going anywhere.
Crawley’s ceiling is described as being higher than most. With innings like his 267 vs Pakistan and 189 vs Australia, it is easy to see why. But the feast-or-famine pattern of returns over a long period of time has left those outside of the ‘Bazball’ bubble questioning whether potential alone is enough to justify a spot in Test cricket’s toughest position.
The England camp continues to justify the overall vision of the team – one of entertainment, reinvigoration and bravery – as being the basis for its selection of players from 1 to 11. So while there are others across England who may be more capable, their potential to help ‘Bazball’ achieve complete realisation has been deemed unsatisfactory by those in charge.
Zak Crawley has played over 50 Tests for England but continues to lack the big scores at the top of the order
“3 09 Zak Crawley” by ForwardDefensive is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0
Many refrain from passing final judgment given Crawley is still only in his mid-20s, adopting a ‘let us wait and see’ approach. But now 53 Tests into his career (one more than Bradman played in his entire career, just for reference), is his time running out?
To be clear, it is not just Zak Crawley and ‘Bazball’ that face this conundrum.
Travis Head, based on his proven reputation at Number 5 as an Adam Gilchrist-like counter-attacker, has had his hat thrown into the ‘could he open for Australia?’ ring.
The attractive qualities Head possesses as a Test batter harken back to the years of Matthew Hayden – attacking, on the front foot and intimidating. And following moderate success at the top in the subcontinent, he may still get a chance to open full time.
But after the failed trial with Smith, the old guard have been quick to shun this idea.
For India, Shubman Gill and KL Rahul – both touted for their potential and natural talent – have been trialed at the top with mixed results. With Rohit Sharma’s Test career slowly coming to a close, India’s selectors strive to find a suitable partner for Yashasvi Jaiswal.
The balance between capability and potential is a tightrope many teams are committed to walk in the 2020s. It will be interesting to see how many of these decisions pay off in the long run.
Is the current Test opening batter a strength or a liability to a team in Men's cricket?
More and more Test opening batters are being selected for what they can potentially do to serve their team’s overall purpose. Gone are the days of forcing your way into a side by statistically and spiritually being the frontrunner for the role.
Some, such as Zak Crawley and Ben Duckett, are given a license to be belligerent for a cause greater than themselves. Others, such as Yashasvi Jaiswal, are encouraged to play their natural aggressive game as a Plan A but to not rule out going through all the gears if required; in other words, be ‘situation-savvy’.
And then there are others, such as Usman Khawaja, Ryan Rickleton, Dimuth Karunaratne and Tom Latham, who appear to prioritise blunting the new ball first in an old-school manner to ensure the middle order cashes in later. If things work out, they too can cash in.
The statistics discussed earlier show that opening the batting has become more challenging with every passing decade. Globally, obvious choices for filling the vacancies at the top grow ever-more scarce at a time when Test specialists would be like gold dust.
India’s Yashasvi Jaiswal is fast emerging as this decade’s Test opening superstar
“Yashasvi Jaiswal (cropped)” by Dee03 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
In 2025, what concrete purpose do they serve?
The all-out attack philosophy is a gamechanger on flat pitches. It puts the batting side out in front early and provides breathing room for the middle-to-lower order to add the cherry on top. But on spicier decks and in conditions where bowlers have a head start, players with a rigid and single-minded commitment to ultra-aggression have consistently come unstuck due to their approach’s own excesses.
It is not uncommon to see sides today 30-4 within 10 overs of the 1st innings, exposing a cranky middle order to face the music earlier than anticipated…again.
On the other hand, those who play a risk-free style of batting against the new ball provide stability. But in the modern game where run-scoring and forcing results have become universal, do they simply put pressure on the middle-to-late order to score the bulk of the runs?
Liability or not, the purpose they serve in the world game has evolved. Their value to a team’s consistent success, home and away, is questionable. Nonetheless, in a statistics-driven game their willingness to give themselves so wholeheartedly to a team’s bigger picture must be admired.
Concluding remarks
T20 cricket has forcefully and consciously shifted the entire sport; whether that shift has been forward or backward is subjective. Test cricket, the format steeped in the most tradition, has shown it too is not immune to the progressive nature of T20.
Test batting, especially at the top of the order, had always been its own artform with unique challenges posed across the 5 days. A Test opening batter was once the gold-standard of temperament, technique and tenacity.
But in 2025, Test opening batsmanship has morphed into a ‘choose your own adventure’ game. With a reduced emphasis on domestic cricket and a hazy path to the top for aspiring Test openers, and a devaluing of statistics in general, it remains unclear where this once-prestigious position is headed.
The statistics suggest consistent run scoring has become laborious and a lottery. Add to that the diminishing techniques courtesy of the T20 machine, Test cricket now more than ever needs qualified openers.
Paradoxically however, the opposite is taking place.
In the 2020s, the rewards and appeal of franchise cricket have threatened to launch an ill-conceived Test/T20 chimeric batting dynasty that rewards superficiality over substance.
Will Test cricket ever make Test match openers great again?
DISCLAIMER
The posts published on this blog are intended simply to provide some food for thought for fellow cricket fans across the world. This is a place which respects and enjoys all cricketers from all nations and, as such, does NOT aim to solely vilify any specific person or team.
Differing opinions and lively debates are more than welcome. However, personal attacks and abuse of any kind will NOT be tolerated here.
Thanks for your understanding.
Great article Mo. These things have a habit of ebbing and flowing – much like they do in other sports such as football. I think the era of the Boycotts have perhaps gone for good (thankfully) and the openers have developed a far more attacking mindset – which is good to watch but can perhaps have more random outcomes. Bazball 1.0 worked – until it didn’t – as teams learned to play against it in a better way – especially the Aussies when they applied the more traditional and perhaps more boring approach to the last Ashes. Once a way has been found around “The only Plan A that’s successful” as they see it (especially in England) then there is inevitably fallout (again – especially in England) and they rush off to copy whoever is more successful at the time. The way Roots roll and approach has changed for instance (as you mention in previous articles) shows a nod to at least having a more old fashioned Plan B available. Teams will continue to adapt to local conditions and the ball that’s used (Kookaburra vs Dukes for instance) as they assess the blood-and-thunder versus the watchful-and-patient approach early in the innings- and they will put up with scoring at 2 an over if they have the personnel to do it consistently and well – freeing up the middle order to cause havoc – if they’re successful. If it stops working as teams adapt to it – then they will swing through 180 degrees and go for 5 an over again as the next “only-sensible-plan that can be successful”.
All of this is perhaps a reflection of the societal change, and the rush for fast entertainment and quick results, but as with the changes in society the leaders of the change introduce it as the best way ever – only to throw it away when reality shows its flaws.
Thanks Dave. I definitely agree with your point about societal change and teams trying to do what they deem is ‘needed’ at that moment in time. And especially with Test cricket, the format everyone has been criticising for a while. Teams are trying all sorts of ways to make it more appealing to the current market even if the success rate of said way is hit and miss.
Thanks for the information post really knowledgable on the subject and had a good read, really interesting