Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[Ikki]

SS assessment of Hayden seems fairly spot on.
You only have to look at his average in series where the pitches haven't been totally flat and had a decent bowler or 2.
Ashes 05 is an example.
India 03/04.... he batted exceptionally in 01 in India but there was Harbhjan from one end and another random indian spinner at the other end, who he totally dominated. But in 03/04 he had 2 good spinners from both sides of the wicket and struggled.
SA 05/06... pitches were pretty lively and there were decent paceman bowling, Nel and Pollock and Hayden averaged around 38... which isn't bad but far cry from 50 which he manged on the flat decks in Australia against them.
We all know Hayden is great batsman to dominate crap bowling and especially bowling on flat decks but he hasn't shown much to show that he can play the same way against quality bowling on lively pitches.
After watching some of the SA series... my respect for Ponting went up a fair bit... he played really well on those pitches.

Falsely generalising. Batsmen will always have trouble when the pitch is lively AND the bowlers are bowling excellently. Every batsman, or almost all, in history have performed much worse in these times. The english attack in 05 was one of the great performances of a team pace attack since the Windies. The same attack - minus Jones - got smashed in the next series by Hayden, where he averaged 51.

Likewise, the South Africans in 01 in South Africa were manhandled by Hayden in a series where he averaged 61; unless you think Donald, Ntini, Nel and Kallis aren't a decent attack.

Also, Australia has some of the liveliest pitches in the world, which are becoming increasingly less. Brisbane has been and continues to be one of the most liveliest. This is Hayden's home ground, he performs fantastically there.

What you're saying is akin to saying Gavaskar got owned in 75 and 82 against the Windies hence he wasn't affective when the pitch was moving and the Windies were firing.

There will always be series where the bowlers will have the stick on the batsman but overall is what matters.

 

[archie mac]

SS assessment of Hayden seems fairly spot on.
You only have to look at his average in series where the pitches haven't been totally flat and had a decent bowler or 2.
Ashes 05 is an example.
India 03/04.... he batted exceptionally in 01 in India but there was Harbhjan from one end and another random indian spinner at the other end, who he totally dominated. But in 03/04 he had 2 good spinners from both sides of the wicket and struggled.
SA 05/06... pitches were pretty lively and there were decent paceman bowling, Nel and Pollock and Hayden averaged around 38... which isn't bad but far cry from 50 which he manged on the flat decks in Australia against them.
We all know Hayden is great batsman to dominate crap bowling and especially bowling on flat decks but he hasn't shown much to show that he can play the same way against quality bowling on lively pitches.
After watching some of the SA series... my respect for Ponting went up a fair bit... he played really well on those pitches.

Bit selective?

 

[R_D]

Falsely generalising. Batsmen will always have trouble when the pitch is lively AND the bowlers are bowling excellently. Every batsman, or almost all, in history have performed much worse in these times. The english attack in 05 was one of the great performances of a team pace attack since the Windies. The same attack - minus Jones - got smashed in the next series by Hayden, where he averaged 51.

Likewise, the South Africans in 01 in South Africa were manhandled by Hayden in a series where he averaged 61; unless you think Donald, Ntini, Nel and Kallis aren't a decent attack.

Also, Australia has some of the liveliest pitches in the world, which are becoming increasingly less. Brisbane has been and continues to be one of the most liveliest. This is Hayden's home ground, he performs fantastically there.

What you're saying is akin to saying Gavaskar got owned in 75 and 82 against the Windies hence he wasn't affective when the pitch was moving and the Windies were firing.

There will always be series where the bowlers will have the stick on the batsman but overall is what matters.

Its nothing different to you bringing out few selective innings to put a case forward for Hayden....
Australian pitches are anything but lively.. most of them are on the flat side and have been for a while now. There's were so many results in test matches because of Mcgrath and Warne combination.. Warne i think can turn the ball on glass and Mcgrath will take wickets on anything. Best bowler as far as i'm concerned. Thats why Aus has been winning at home not because pitches are so conductive for bowling. The SA pitches and pitches in Eng are far bowler friendly than the pitches in Aus.
I wasn't that surprised by Hayden owning the English attack on flat tracks in Aus or the SA attack for that matter.
Like i said that SA pace attack was hardly great yet Hayden struggled fair bit so you can see why some people might have doubts about Hayden being much good against bowlers in 80's with lively pitches.

As for Gavaskar he has shown in plenty of innings that he can handle a quality bowling attack on good bowling tracks but Hayden has certainly failed in alot more of them. I'm not doubting Hayden's ability to smash medicore attacks, he's certainly one of the greatest at that.

 

[R_D]

Bit selective?

What can i say... you got to prove yourself when the opportunity comes but Hayden has failed on those occasions. He hasn't failed in his ability to dominate below average bowling attacks but has looked below average against quality attacks. Ashes 05 was the first time after 90's horror he faced a good attack and didn't fare too well.
Could've done better against the SA over there but was made to look pretty average by Nitin, Pollock and co and they are probaly an average pace attack at best.

 

[archie mac]

What can i say... you got to prove yourself when the opportunity comes but Hayden has failed on those occasions. He hasn't failed in his ability to dominate below average bowling attacks but has looked below average against quality attacks. Ashes 05 was the first time after 90's horror he faced a good attack and didn't fare too well.
Could've done better against the SA over there but was made to look pretty average by Nitin, Pollock and co and they are probaly an average pace attack at best.

All players have bad series, I think you have simply highlighted his poorer ones and than assumed his best was against poor attacks, I could do that with Ponting, in that series in India where Hayden dominated Ponting failed, does not make him a failure as a batsman?

 

[R_D]

All players have bad series, I think you have simply highlighted his poorer ones and than assumed his best was against poor attacks, I could do that with Ponting, in that series in India where Hayden dominated Ponting failed, does not make him a failure as a batsman?

Ponting was failure in Ashes 05 and i held the same views of him until he did so well in SA. Like i said in my previous post... i regard Ponting even more highly after his series in SA. He averaged around 58 with couple of centuries, which was quite good on those pitches. I didn't think he'd be able to do it.

 

[archie mac]

Ponting was failure in Ashes 05 and i held the same views of him until he did so well in SA. Like i said in my previous post... i regard Ponting even more highly after his series in SA. He averaged around 58 with couple of centuries, which was quite good on those pitches. I didn't think he'd be able to do it.

You are a hard marker, the Ponting century during the 05 series gave the Aussies us chance to hold the Ashes

 

[R_D]

You are a hard marker, the Ponting century during the 05 series gave the Aussies us chance to hold the Ashes

He was failure because of the high standard he had set for himself...... Average of can't remember... might've been high 90's from previous few seasons. Thats why i was of the opinion that Ponting over-rated because he's just cashing in on poor standard of bowling and flat pitches. But like i said my respect for Ponting as batsman in general has gone up a fair bit now. If he does well in India than i'll certainly regard him as close to Lara and Tendulkar until than nowhere close to either for mine.

 

[Matt79]

Saying Ponting was a failure with the bat in 05 is a bit of a joke - he looked mortal but he certainly wasn't a failure.

I've had so many posts about Hayden, so I'll be brief. It's unfair to label him as a flat-track bully based on his failures against very good attacks when he was but a callow youth first trying in international cricket. It's similarly unfair to say 05 confirms that he can't play well against good bowling. The English attack in 05 was more than good, it was superb and inspired. There were four bowlers who were hunting as a pack and doing plenty with the ball. I'd go as far to say that it was, for the period of that series, as good an attack to have taken the field since the days of the Windies of the mid-90s. In those conditions Hayden struggled no doubt. But the fact was that he was also out of form at the time - after a peak period of several years he was struggling with himself. He hadn't made a century in a long period before those Ashes - against much lesser attacks and in more favourable conditions. But as has been mentioned often, form is a different thing to class. So you have a great batsman, out of form, confronted with a brillant pace attack, and unsurprisingly he struggled. What marks him as great is that by the fifth test, he'd evaluated what he was doing wrong, and when the English attack did eventually decline from its unsustainably brilliant level when Jones went out, he came back with a century. Since then he's again dominated in a fashion that very few openers before have done.

 

[R_D]

Saying Ponting was a failure with the bat in 05 is a bit of a joke - he looked mortal but he certainly wasn't a failure.

I've had so many posts about Hayden, so I'll be brief. It's unfair to label him as a flat-track bully based on his failures against very good attacks when he was but a callow youth first trying in international cricket. It's similarly unfair to say 05 confirms that he can't play well against good bowling. The English attack in 05 was more than good, it was superb and inspired. There were four bowlers who were hunting as a pack and doing plenty with the ball. I'd go as far to say that it was, for the period of that series, as good an attack to have taken the field since the days of the Windies of the mid-90s. In those conditions Hayden struggled no doubt. But the fact was that he was also out of form at the time - after a peak period of several years he was struggling with himself. He hadn't made a century in a long period before those Ashes - against much lesser attacks and in more favourable conditions. But as has been mentioned often, form is a different thing to class. So you have a great batsman, out of form, confronted with a brillant pace attack, and unsurprisingly he struggled. What marks him as great is that by the fifth test, he'd evaluated what he was doing wrong, and when the English attack did eventually decline from its unsustainably brilliant level when Jones went out, he came back with a century. Since then he's again dominated in a fashion that very few openers before have done.

As i already said failure in the sense to the standard he had set for himself because one time he came against a good attack and he looked pretty miserable. Once he came back to familiar pitches, didn't take him long to rack up the same high scores again.
As for Hayden , Cue SA 06.... Big surprise Hayden struggles. This time he wasn't out of form as he bullied the SA attack in Australia just a month or so back.. What was the difference in SA, same attack but pitches were on the side of bowler friendly. Anyway, i think i made my point and we aren't likely to change each others opinions so i'm going to leave it at that.

 

[Matt79]

He averaged approx 38 - that's hardly terrible for an opening batsman confronting a good attack and bowler friendly conditions. Plenty of international specialist batsman have that as their career average, for him it was one of his poorer series - but he still did a fair job.

You do understand that with a career average there will be series that fall below it as well as above it? And that its going to be an exceedingly rare batsman who's better series were against the better attacks in unfavourable batting conditions? I just reckon Hayden gets criticised a lot more harshly for that phenomenon than the majority of batsmen out there.

 

[pasag]

Agree strongly with Matt here that the Ashes 05 is not on its own a proof that any of the batsmen who failed have inherent issues with high quality fast bowling. Merely you have a lack of quality for so long and all of a sudden spring an attack like this in those conditions upon any bastmen and it will take time to get used to. Failing in the beginning doesn't prove much for mine, if we would have had more of that bowling for a longer period of time and he still didn't conquer it, then I'd agree but his career shows he tends to work on his flaws and has a history of overcoming them, so at most he's unproven here. For me it's similar to Bodyline, where all of a sudden you have this barrage of brilliant fast bowling and the Australian bastmen were all over the place and were said to have issues with high quality fast bowling, but toward the end guys, especially Bradman were have said to have figured it out and adapted to it, so another series or two of it, who knows how much better they would have done. We'll never know and I doubt Hayden will ever face an attack like 05 again so we'll never know there either so again, at most their unproven but certainly not evidence to the contrary for mine.

 

[slugger]

Mark Richardson of NZ is pretty good I know hes not a world superstar at it.. but orginally he was a spin bowler lower order batsmen for Otago.. and he basically saw an opportunity to be an opener for NZ and worked on it with a strong belief in himself.. the guy was detrermined and it showed in his batting...

 

[Ikki]

Its nothing different to you bringing out few selective innings to put a case forward for Hayden....
Australian pitches are anything but lively.. most of them are on the flat side and have been for a while now. There's were so many results in test matches because of Mcgrath and Warne combination.. Warne i think can turn the ball on glass and Mcgrath will take wickets on anything. Best bowler as far as i'm concerned. Thats why Aus has been winning at home not because pitches are so conductive for bowling. The SA pitches and pitches in Eng are far bowler friendly than the pitches in Aus.
I wasn't that surprised by Hayden owning the English attack on flat tracks in Aus or the SA attack for that matter.
Like i said that SA pace attack was hardly great yet Hayden struggled fair bit so you can see why some people might have doubts about Hayden being much good against bowlers in 80's with lively pitches.

Who says Australian pitches aren't lively? I was going through articles the other day and all I hear is that Australia, especially Brisbane, are the livelier pitches. Here's the article I remember specifically

Yousuf bemoans flat tracks

"Yes it is flat but we've been playing cricket around the world on such pitches for the last 10-12 years. Even in South Africa, that 434 ODI match, there are pitches like this everywhere," he said later, as agitated as a mild nature allows him to be.

"I don't support this at all. Wickets should be tougher, there should be enough in them for everyone. Batsmen are too dominant. The ideal pitch should have bounce at least, like there is in Brisbane which is one the best pitches." Mohali, he argued, was different altogether.

As for Gavaskar he has shown in plenty of innings that he can handle a quality bowling attack on good bowling tracks but Hayden has certainly failed in alot more of them. I'm not doubting Hayden's ability to smash medicore attacks, he's certainly one of the greatest at that.

You're just generalising. Just as Gavaskar was out of form and struggled time to time against great attacks so has Hayden. And both at their best have done very very well too.

 

[Ikki]

You are a hard marker, the Ponting century during the 05 series gave the Aussies us chance to hold the Ashes

And Hayden with his gave us a chance of retaining it again.

Saying Ponting was a failure with the bat in 05 is a bit of a joke - he looked mortal but he certainly wasn't a failure.

I've had so many posts about Hayden, so I'll be brief. It's unfair to label him as a flat-track bully based on his failures against very good attacks when he was but a callow youth first trying in international cricket. It's similarly unfair to say 05 confirms that he can't play well against good bowling. The English attack in 05 was more than good, it was superb and inspired. There were four bowlers who were hunting as a pack and doing plenty with the ball. I'd go as far to say that it was, for the period of that series, as good an attack to have taken the field since the days of the Windies of the mid-90s. In those conditions Hayden struggled no doubt. But the fact was that he was also out of form at the time - after a peak period of several years he was struggling with himself. He hadn't made a century in a long period before those Ashes - against much lesser attacks and in more favourable conditions. But as has been mentioned often, form is a different thing to class. So you have a great batsman, out of form, confronted with a brillant pace attack, and unsurprisingly he struggled. What marks him as great is that by the fifth test, he'd evaluated what he was doing wrong, and when the English attack did eventually decline from its unsustainably brilliant level when Jones went out, he came back with a century. Since then he's again dominated in a fashion that very few openers before have done.

Great point. Hayden upto the Ashes was in woeful form.

As i already said failure in the sense to the standard he had set for himself because one time he came against a good attack and he looked pretty miserable. Once he came back to familiar pitches, didn't take him long to rack up the same high scores again.
As for Hayden , Cue SA 06.... Big surprise Hayden struggles. This time he wasn't out of form as he bullied the SA attack in Australia just a month or so back.. What was the difference in SA, same attack but pitches were on the side of bowler friendly. Anyway, i think i made my point and we aren't likely to change each others opinions so i'm going to leave it at that.

Yeah, you're basing the whole thing on 1 series. Go look at the 01 series in South Africa, with Donald, Ntini, Kallis and Nel on the attack and he averaged 61.

 

[archie mac]

And Hayden with his gave us a chance of retaining it again.

.

True although some people say his slow scoring cost us a chance to win

 

[Ikki]

True although some people say his slow scoring cost us a chance to win

I'd add that pretty much all the batsmen have a case for that.

 

[R_D]

He averaged approx 38 - that's hardly terrible for an opening batsman confronting a good attack and bowler friendly conditions. Plenty of international specialist batsman have that as their career average, for him it was one of his poorer series - but he still did a fair job.

You do understand that with a career average there will be series that fall below it as well as above it? And that its going to be an exceedingly rare batsman who's better series were against the better attacks in unfavourable batting conditions? I just reckon Hayden gets criticised a lot more harshly for that phenomenon than the majority of batsmen out there.

Its pretty convenient how Australian batsman seem to go out form against quality bowling and seem to come back in form once they face lesser attacks... same reasoning has been used for Ponting and Warne's failures in India previously so doesn't surprise me really.

What the above series shows is Hayden's weakness not because it had to happen because you can't have a good series all the time. How convenient that he struggles when faced against good quality opposition bowling... its not to do with his short comings as batsman but the anomaly in otherwise fine career.

 

[R_D]

Who says Australian pitches aren't lively? I was going through articles the other day and all I hear is that Australia, especially Brisbane, are the livelier pitches. Here's the article I remember specifically

I'm not the only one .. alot of people have been worried about the general trend of Australian pitches getting flatter day by day. Quite a few people have mentioned the same things on this forum before as well.
Not just one series... Ashes 05, SA 06 and India 03/04 just to mention a few.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not the only one .. alot of people have been worried about the general trend of Australian pitches getting flatter day by day. Quite a few people have mentioned the same things on this forum before as well.
Not just one series... Ashes 05, SA 06 and India 03/04 just to mention a few.

I haven't heard 'quite a few people' say it and nor is their word more convincing than the actual players out there playing on said pitches.

You just named the best 3 series where an opposition played out of their skin to beat the Aussies, and only 1 of them beat Australia. That is how good Australia is. That is why it is a much more likely reason when Australia fails they are injured or out of form - they are that much better than the opposition.

What you're arguing is ridiculous, especially when we're talking about Hayden. Hayden smashed the same Ashes team just the year after. Do you think it's because of flat-pitches that a team goes 2-1 to 5-0? No, I'm sure you would agree it isn't. And when Hayden batters an attack in South Africa, better than the 06 one, you can't say anything about him having a fault against great attacks in South Africa...because of the prescribed reason. What you're saying is akin to pointing out Hayden did badly in India in 05. hence he is bad against them, ignoring he smashed them around in other series.