Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[R_D]

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.

Well done.. we so were arguing about Australia's winning record weren't we
In 03/04... India got beaten pretty easily... didn't see anyone play out of their skin there.
SA series Aus beat them quite easily as well. Again we weren't talking about Australian series wins here but about Hayden short comings as batsman against decent attacks on bowler friendly wickets. He's certainly had his chances to prove doubters wrong but hasn't done to date.
As for 5-0 win... point stands.. Flat pitches in Aus.... Warne and McGrath masters of taking wickets on those.

 

[Ikki]

Well done.. we so were arguing about Australia's winning record weren't we
In 03/04... India got beaten pretty easily... didn't see anyone play out of their skin there.
SA series Aus beat them quite easily as well. Again we weren't talking about Australian series wins here but about Hayden short comings as batsman against decent attacks on bowler friendly wickets. He's certainly had his chances to prove doubters wrong but hasn't done to date.
As for 5-0 win... point stands.. Flat pitches in Aus.... Warne and McGrath masters of taking wickets on those.

Yeah, it is relevant to talk about the winning record because without batsmen scoring those tonnes of runs they're not going to win.

Well, if you DO think the difference between Aussies doing good on flat-tracks is 5-0, it still hardly proves the point that indeed Australia has the flattest tracks. But that's putting aside a pretty inane argument...that the difference was flat-tracks.

BTW: in 03/04 India were very very good. They were not beaten easily. And Warne and McGrath weren't there either .

 

[Sanz]

BTW: in 03/04 India were very very good. They were not beaten easily. And Warne and McGrath weren't there either .

And Australia beat India in 2003/04, didn't they ?

 

[R_D]

Yeah, it is relevant to talk about the winning record because without batsmen scoring those tonnes of runs they're not going to win.

Well, if you DO think the difference between Aussies doing good on flat-tracks is 5-0, it still hardly proves the point that indeed Australia has the flattest tracks. But that's putting aside a pretty inane argument...that the difference was flat-tracks.

BTW: in 03/04 India were very very good. They were not beaten easily. And Warne and McGrath weren't there either .

It doesn't matter how many runs the batsman score, its ultimately the bowlers who win you matches, you win by taking 20 wickets.
My mistake i was talking about Australia in India.. pretty sure that was 03/04.
Do you honestly think Hayden faced the same pace attack that terorised him in Ashes 05.
No Simon, Flintoff undercooked, Harmison (the usless outside England) and the great Jimmy Anderson was playing in Austrlia. Certainly was the great attack Hayden smashed around. The flatter pitches weren't the only difference but the crap bowling attack was the other reasons. I thought that was given since you have Jimmy Anderson was the 3rd choice seamer. Not to mention Flecthcher's obsession with Giles.

 

[Ikki]

And Australia beat India in 2003/04, didn't they ?

Which is precisely my point: Australia is very very good. They drew the first test, India won the 2nd and Australia won the 3rd. Even when teams play Australia and are very good, when they're fronted with an Australia that is on song they rarely win.

 

[Ikki]

It doesn't matter how many runs the batsman score, its ultimately the bowlers who win you matches, you win by taking 20 wickets.
My mistake i was talking about Australia in India.. pretty sure that was 03/04.
Do you honestly think Hayden faced the same pace attack that terorised him in Ashes 05.
No Simon, Flintoff undercooked, Harmison (the usless outside England) and the great Jimmy Anderson was playing in Austrlia. Certainly was the great attack Hayden smashed around. The flatter pitches weren't the only difference but the crap bowling attack was the other reasons. I thought that was given since you have Jimmy Anderson was the 3rd choice seamer. Not to mention Flecthcher's obsession with Giles.

No, I don't think that. Just as I honestly don't think the Hayden in England was even near his best.

Which is why I find your picking of his career very convenient.

 

[R_D]

Just look at his record against the SA in Aus and than a month down the track... same bowlers but some of most bowler friendly wickets seen in SA after long time and boom.. from average around 52.66 to 38.5. Not saying its poor but certainly shows where Hayden stands as batsman. As does the previous 2 examples i provided. Hence why its bit hard for us to accept some people saying he would hold his own against the great bowlers of era gone by.

 

[Ikki]

Just look at his record against the SA in Aus and than a month down the track... same bowlers but some of most bowler friendly wickets seen in SA after long time and boom.. from average around 52.66 to 38.5. Not saying its poor but certainly shows where Hayden stands as batsman. As does the previous 2 examples i provided. Hence why its bit hard for us to accept some people saying he would hold his own against the great bowlers of era gone by.

But how does it? If anything, pitches in 06 are more flat than in 01. In 01 Hayden battered a BETTER attack on those pitches; he averaged 61. It hardly says anything. As I said before, you're falsely generalising.

In fact, it almost mirrors Gavaskar in 83. At the start of 83, India in West Indies, Gavaskar averages 30; and then he meets them again at the end of the year in India and averages 50. Want to make another generalisation?

 

[R_D]

But how does it? If anything, pitches in 06 are more flat than in 01. In 01 Hayden battered a BETTER attack on those pitches; he averaged 61. It hardly says anything. As I said before, you're falsely generalising.

In fact, it almost mirrors Gavaskar in 83. At the start of 83, India in West Indies, Gavaskar averages 30; and then he meets them again at the end of the year in India and averages 50. Want to make another generalisation?

Those pitches that Aus and SA played on in 06 were far from being on the flatter side.
As most of the fast bowlers did really well and alot of batsman struggled.
Ponting shined in that series... Obviousally Aus superior bowling and Ponting were the difference in that series.
I didn't see the 01 series but by pitches were deemed to be on the flatter side by the turn of century. The points have been covered regarding why Hayden averaged 61 in that series.... Richard made and good post and Perm backed it up with the stats. Very arguable that he battered a good attack, on paper good looking attack but very deceiving. Like i said comments made by Richard made sense.

 

[Ikki]

Those pitches that Aus and SA played on in 06 were far from being on the flatter side.
As most of the fast bowlers did really well and alot of batsman struggled.
Ponting shined in that series... Obviousally Aus superior bowling and Ponting were the difference in that series.
I didn't see the 01 series but by pitches were deemed to be on the flatter side by the turn of century. The points have been covered regarding why Hayden averaged 61 in that series.... Richard made and good post and Perm backed it up with the stats. Very arguable that he battered a good attack, on paper good looking attack but very deceiving. Like i said comments made by Richard made sense.

What you fail to realise is that Richard did no such thing. In fact, you read it all wrong too. Perm didn't back what Richard up. He implied some truth to Richard's words but he was largely wrong. I provided the stats for the bowlers going into the series. Goughy even explained how well they had done against the Indians; they were far from poor. They just weren't equal to Hayden and co. in that series. Very simple, very straight-forward.

 

[R_D]

What you fail to realise is that Richard did no such thing. In fact, you read it all wrong too. Perm didn't back what Richard up. He implied some truth to Richard's words but he was largely wrong. I provided the stats for the bowlers going into the series. Goughy even explained how well they had done against the Indians; they were far from poor. They just weren't equal to Hayden and co. in that series. Very simple, very straight-forward.

What those stats proved was that there was element of truth to what Richard was saying....

Ntini was rubbish at that time, Donald was nothing but a shadow of a once brilliant bowler, Pollock was not much good on flat pitches by then, Kallis likewise, Klusener was past his best, and Hayward for all his potential never managed to be that good.

That, like almost all other attacks since 2001\02 that Hayden's faced, was wholly average.

 

[Goughy]

Richard made and good post and Perm backed it up with the stats. Very arguable that he battered a good attack, on paper good looking attack but very deceiving. Like i said comments made by Richard made sense.

Now I could be wrong on this, but I didnt see the fact that Perm had taken out the 2 Aussie series for the figures he quoted.

If some players had bad numbers for 2001 and 2002 it is likely because the Aussies battered them.

Now if those stats were included, the figures show that the bowling was supposedly statisitcally poor for the 2 years in question because the Australians hurt their figures.

It becomes an argument with no merit.

The SA bowling attack figures (in certain areas) wasnt great because the Austrailians beat up on them

Due to the poor figures against the Australians the Australians were scoring runs against a weak attack.

By that logic, anytime you score runs against a strong attack it cannot be a strong attack

It makes zero sense.

However, if Perm removed the Aus figures then my point is moot.

 

[Beleg]

Hayden's an amazing player. The second or third best opening batsman (excluding Tendulkar) I have had the pleasure of watching in my life.

He isn't better than Kirsten though, IMO.

 

[Perm]

I assume we are talking about this post that I made? If so, I didn't exclude any stats against Australia. Those averages are from the South African bowlers in 2001 and 2002 respectively.

 

[Mister Wright]

Hayden.

 

[Goughy]

I assume we are talking about this post that I made? If so, I didn't exclude any stats against Australia. Those averages are from the South African bowlers in 2001 and 2002 respectively.

Ok, so they do include the stats against Australia. So my point stands then about them not representetive of their form or ability leading upto and after the Aus series as they are weighted by the Aus games themselves.

 

[aussie]

Can't believe i missed this thread. My choice for best opener ever would be Gavaskar or Hutton. Hobbs will always be respected for the record he set but when judging the greatness of batsmen you got to look at the quality of bowling faced & techinque & Hobbs cannot compare with Gavaskar, Hutton & many other batsman in the post war era.


On Hayden yea he cashed in on some poor bowlers this era but it is not as if he hasn't had testing conditions & as man who has followed Hayden career in great detail i don't see why Hayden wouldn't be able to score runs in the 70s 80s & 90s especially given that he is without doubt the most talented & destructive batsman Australia have produced since the Simpson/Lawry era, people make it sound as if scoring runs then was impossible it isn't. Cutt Hayden some slack will ya fellas..

 

[silentstriker]

The top ten:

1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Hutton
4. Sutcliffe
5. Boycott
6. Mitchell
7. Ponsford
8. Woodfull
9. Morris
10. Simpson

The order of the above isn't right. I tried to arrange them in the right order, but after Hobbs, there could be many permutations, so its just Hobbs plus nine others.

The following would likely be very high up if they played more Tests:

1. Barry Richards
2. Vijay Merchant

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

The following would likely be very high up if they played more Tests:

1. Barry Richards
2. Vijay Merchant

WG Grace

 

[neville cardus]

WG Grace

Agreed. As I believe that W.G. was the unequivocal greatest batsman of all-time, it only follows that he should be my greatest opener.