-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Hayden the best bat since this century?
- Thread starter abcdef
- Start date
gettingbetter
State Vice-Captain
Century as in since 2000?
There are plenty of candidates: Hayden, Ponting, Kallis, Dravid and Yousuf probably being the most prominent. Guys like Tendulkar and Lara probably predate your criteria if in fact it is 2000.
I'd like to take Dravid as my pick, batsmen seem so much better when they face adversity as opposed to forcing it IMO.
There are plenty of candidates: Hayden, Ponting, Kallis, Dravid and Yousuf probably being the most prominent. Guys like Tendulkar and Lara probably predate your criteria if in fact it is 2000.
I'd like to take Dravid as my pick, batsmen seem so much better when they face adversity as opposed to forcing it IMO.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
No.
archie mac
International Coach
Richard!!!
Not that far fetched on Averages, but not for my money, I think Ponting
Not that far fetched on Averages, but not for my money, I think Ponting
Yes, I mean this century (since 2000). Its not just his runs but he is so dominant and put Australia in such commanding positions on so many ocassions, especially the big ocassions like big test series' , world cups, etc. I think Gilly aslo has a case because he turned so many matches with his belligerent batting. The problem with Dravid is that he is too slow and not at all domineering. ALso, being an opener, you are going to face the best of the bowling up fron when the conditions are more difficult and bowles are really up for it.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
No, they aren't. They are just a different style - a style which the narrow minded cannot appreciate. If you score 150 in the first innings of a test match, how are you not putting your team in a commanding position? I'd take 150 off 250 over 149 off 100 any day of the week.
You over-estimate the importance of "dominating". It's becoming a trend on CW which is really starting to turn me insane. You should have a domination party with haroon and talk about how you like to dominate, the effects of domination and maybe even your plans for world domination.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That's a bit silly. What if you're playing a team whose best bowler is a spinner, and who would therefore be better off with an older ball on a worn pitch rather than with a ball that's 15 overs old on a first day strip?
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I know I certainly wouldn't. It depends on the consistency of each batsman though...if the first was regularly scoring runs at a slower rate, and the second only had flashes of this sort of form then I'd take the first.
Thanks!
I think you will find openers tend to have a lower average than middle order batters throughout criket history (in general with few exceptions).
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
That's quite absurd. 1 run for 150 balls difference?
Dominating is important, though. In terms of being an opener and dominating, even moreso.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well, there are more middle order batsman than openers, so more chance of having someone with a higher average.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Scoring quickly isn't all it is cracked up to be, though.
For all that is made of sending a bowler around the park to destroy morale, there is an equal case for grinding the bowlers into ground not only mentally by physically as well, by building long partnerships, wearing out all the bowlers and sending them mad trying to think of how the hell they are going to get a wicket. I'd be much more demoralised as a bowler if I failed to take a wicket for two sessions than if a batsman got hold of me a bit, hit a few boundries and managed to get a score quickly. Long periods with a wicket, IMO, is a lot more damaging to a bowler's confidence than a few quick runs - or at least it should be to test bowlers.
Another argument often made is the fact that quick scoring promotes victories which slow scoring can cost them. Well that's all well and good if you play for Australia, I suppose, but what if you aren't the better team in the test? All of a sudden that run-a-ball 90 from your opener in the first innings and then his 10 off 12 in the second dig doesn't look so good when you end up losing the game in the last hour with the tail failing their desperate attempts to block out a draw. For all that quick scoring can gain a team in the cause of winning, it can cost a team if they find themselves in a situation where they need to save the match.
I'm not, in any way, saying that slow scoring > fast scoring. But as far as test matches go, it actually isn't the other way either, contrary to popular belief. Different situations require different approaches and simply crease occupation can be more appropriate than quick scoring depending on how the game is traveling. Mental deterioration can be achieved through smashing bowlers around, but it can also be achieved through long unbroken partnerships - and the latter aids in physically tiring the bowlers as well.
You'll never see me hold scoring quickly against a batsman as it can obviously be advantageous, but it certainly doesn't make one batsman better than another who scores the same amount of runs as scoring slowly can turn out advantageous as well.
I couldn't disagree more. As an opener, ensuring you spend time at the crease is more important than in any other position. Tiring the new ball bowlers and seeing the shine off the ball to protect the middle order is an opener's first job. Dominating is not at all important, especially as an opener.