The way in which England have disposed of their opening batting options in the short term has made it difficult to reselect them in the longer term without unbearable pressure.
The main credentials needed to fill the poisoned chalice has been a good record in domestic cricket, and who can argue with that convention in theory.
Yet, one only has to look at the returns to realise that all have been inadequate.
Only Nick Compton managed more than one century, and with the exception of Joe Root who averaged 37 in the role, all others averaged 31 or below.
They all have similarly disappointing records because they were all picked and dropped with a similarly impatient attitude and unreasonably unbearable weight of expectation.
Even those with moderate success, such as Michael Carberry who scored 281 runs in a disastrous tour to Australia, were dismissed.
Indeed, invincible Joe Root, who had the best least worst time, was taken out of the position.
They were all removed because they didn’t translate their county runs into international runs, instantly.
There was a plethora of reasons as to why:
Sam Robson showed frailty on both edges.
Despite being second top run-scorer for England in the 2013/14 Ashes, Michael Carberry continuously failed to convert starts to fifties.
Nick Compton got tangled with mental and technical knots and Adam Lyth looked as if he lacked control outside off stump.
Almost like a frankensteins monster of openers problems – they all had frailties.
But problems can be solved.
All of the players were expected to have an instant success, and when they didn’t were got rid of, only for the next to be expected to do the same.
In reality, this process was ill-thought, because none of these openers are really any better than the other.
They are all successful domestically. They all scored runs, all had a shot at the big time, all failed, all dropped, all re-integrated back into domestic cricket, all scoring buckets of runs once again.
If these openers are ever reconsidered, which judging by Alex Hales performance in South Africa may be likely, there needs to be a clearer message as to expectation.
It would be unreasonable to re-select a player for example, for the exact same reason as before (good domestic form), with the hope of immediately translating that on to the international stage.
England need to say why a player should be re-selected; such as a technical improvement, but they also need to be more patient. Sometimes batsmen do struggle when they first emerge, especially in such a high-pressure position.
By the position’s every nature, openers are exposed right away to the toughest conditions. If an opener fails they leave virtually no impact on the game.
The way England exhausted their options so rapidly has made the position taboo.
England have given an unreasonably small margin of error for failure, and even smaller room for improvement in the role.
Reselecting any of the discarded openers must come with a clear message of faith in ability or improvement.