Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[subshakerz]

But the fact remains that on the international scene Hayden has seldom if ever faced high quality pace bowlers firing on all cylinders and come out on top. He has conquered high quality spin and medium pace enough to be considered a quality batsman, but has come up short against top pacers. Admittedly, there havent been many for him to face nowadays. But if he didn't score runs against Ambrose and Donald when he started cricket, and struggled against lesser bowlers like Shoaib and the Ashes quartet later on, why should we take a leap of faith and assume he would be so successful against all-time greats like Imran and Marshall?

 

[Brett Dale]

Has to be Sunil, doesn't it?

 

[Ikki]

But the fact remains that on the international scene Hayden has seldom if ever faced high quality pace bowlers firing on all cylinders and come out on top. He has conquered high quality spin and medium pace enough to be considered a quality batsman, but has come up short against top pacers. Admittedly, there havent been many for him to face nowadays. But if he didn't score runs against Ambrose and Donald when he started cricket, and struggled against lesser bowlers like Shoaib and the Ashes quartet later on, why should we take a leap of faith and assume he would be so successful against all-time greats like Imran and Marshall?

He did score against the likes of Ambrose and Donald and Pollock and Murali and Wasim and Waqar and McGrath and Warne...

And he has destroyed Shoaib and the English bowlers...

The generalisations are so poor I should knock out something like: "Because Gavaskar was murdered here against the only true strong bowling attack of his time it shows he had a problem with high quality attacks".

 

[Beleg]

Kirsten, Hayden, Langer and Anwar are underrated so much it's not even funny.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Kirsten, Hayden, Langer and Anwar are underrated so much it's not even funny.

The fact that any of those received a single vote as the greatest opener of all time actually is very funny.

 

[Richard]

Well i would love to hear your reason..

I've given it. Several million times.

 

[silentstriker]

The fact that any of those received a single vote as the greatest opener of all time actually is very funny.

Can't disagree. Regardless of what you think of them, this is the poll for the single greatest....

 

[Richard]

Really, only 3 of the above should be on the poll, Hobbs, Hutton and Gavaskar.

To suggest any others come close to them is silly, really.

Fine openers though the likes of Greenidge, Trumper and Anwar were, they were nowhere near being the best.

Geoff Boycott better than all of them, really, with the possible exception of Greenidge. And mentioning them and not mentioning Sutcliffe or Washbrook, well... poor form, BhupinderSingh, poor form.

 

[silentstriker]

Really, only 3 of the above should be on the poll, Hobbs, Hutton and Gavaskar.

To suggest any others come close to them is silly, really.

IMO, Hobbs is ahead of the rest by a margin.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

IMO, Hobbs is ahead of the rest by a margin.

Personally think the C_C school of era-comparing has a case here. When Gregory and McDonald are the nippiest attack one faces, compared to the likes of Sunny's circuit-trained and specially-coached oppo, it makes me reconsider somewhat.

Not like County-bashing's anything new, either. George Gunn, Cyril Washbrook, Maurice Leyland, the brothers Langridge? All have better FC records than most you care to name (100+ FC tons), and none really had delusions of grandeur.

 

[Richard]

Washbrook and Leyland remain amongst the better batsmen produced by this country.

And scoring 100+ centuries is a reflection of the fact they played more cricket in those days, nouwt more. Many very good batsmen did such a thing, nowadays you need stars aligning for you to manage it.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Washbrook and Leyland remain amongst the better batsmen produced by this country.

Yes, but not the best. That's what I'm thrusting at.

And scoring 100+ centuries is a reflection of the fact they played more cricket in those days, nouwt more. Many very good batsmen did such a thing, nowadays you need stars aligning for you to manage it.

And this is the Hobbs club's principal case for keeping Sir Jack on that pedestal.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but not the best. That's what I'm thrusting at.

So what if they weren't the best? They were both magnificent players and would be certain candidates for a Second or Third England All Time XI. Don't see why "well Leyland did it" can be used to talk down Hobbs TBH.

And this is the Hobbs club's principal case for keeping Sir Jack on that pedestal.

Not really. How much else have you read of him?

 

[aussie]

I've given it. Several million times.

Ha, well i know i the past you along with TEC rightfully accused Hayden of being FTB around the 2005 Ashes & flopped & you guys looked brilliant. But i didn't know you had a few million other reason too son. But don't speed you know you can have a civilised argument with your boy so lets hear those reasons..

 

[silentstriker]

Personally think the C_C school of era-comparing has a case here. When Gregory and McDonald are the nippiest attack one faces, compared to the likes of Sunny's circuit-trained and specially-coached oppo, it makes me reconsider somewhat.

But it works both ways. Batmen also had more training, were specially coached, better bats, covered pitches, etc.

 

[Richard]

Ha, well i know i the past you along with TEC rightfully accused Hayden of being FTB around the 2005 Ashes & flopped & you guys looked brilliant. But i didn't know you had a few million other reason too son. But don't speed you know you can have a civilised argument with your boy so lets hear those reasons..

I may be able to have a civilised argument with you, but a couple of things:
a) that can't be said for all CWers
b) I've said all I can possibly say regarding Hayden, including in discussion with yourself, and there really isn't any point in doing it all again.

I'll risk summarising (this is far from a complete reasoning, and a complete reasoning as stated above will NOT be gone into again) as below:

Hayden was found-out by high-calibre seam-bowling between 1993/94 and 2001 and did poorly (excluding one series in India, where seam was not prevalent but spin was, and his ability against spin is exceptional) in this time. This was due to technical flaws, most notable against the inswinger but also apparent against the outswinger. These technical flaws have never gone away, but mostly between 2001/02 and now have not been exploited because bowlers haven't been good enough, pitches have mostly offered no seam and cricket-balls have often been of poor quality and haven't swung as they should. Despite being poor against good seam-bowling on non-seaming pitches, Hayden is brilliant against poor seam-bowling (and spin of all kinds), and can cash-in on it to levels beyond most batsmen.

Those who insist that the sole reason for Hayden's prolific increase in scoring as of 2001/02 is improvement in his game are completely wrong, IMO.

 

[aussie]

But the fact remains that on the international scene Hayden has seldom if ever faced high quality pace bowlers firing on all cylinders and come out on top. He has conquered high quality spin and medium pace enough to be considered a quality batsman, but has come up short against top pacers. Admittedly, there havent been many for him to face nowadays. But if he didn't score runs against Ambrose and Donald when he started cricket, and struggled against lesser bowlers like Shoaib and the Ashes quartet later on, why should we take a leap of faith and assume he would be so successful against all-time greats like Imran and Marshall?

Maybe because when he faced those bowlers in the 90s he was not even half the player he was now?. I remember a very knowledgeable australian poster on this site who followed Hayden's domestic career during the 90s said Hayden was so off track back then no one even expected him to do well in IND 2001 that came as a shock.

The argument that has been held againts Hayden on this forum over the years is that he is basically a FTB & if he comes againts any quality bowling in helping conditions more specifically swing bowling that exposes his past glaring weakness of the ball swinging into his pads he would always struggle. Which was true when he faced Akhtar, Mills in 04/05, the Ashes 05 & even way back in the 2001 Ashes.

But what people need to remember about Hayden's career post 2001 is that it had two periods. The first between India 2001 to Sri Lanka 2004 where he totally murdered poor attacks on flat decks, he absolutely no real challenge againts top quality pace attacks in tough conditions (when Akhtar was producing a spell of high pace reverse swing & Vaas & Malinga where making it move around alarmingly on a difficult Darwin pitch & vs ENG in the 2001 Ashes was troubled by the moving ball a lot.

So in that period without doubt i'll admit i over-rated totally looking past his technical glitches thinking it was nothing & when it was highlighted by poster i.e Richard & Tec in late 04 that he would fail in the Ashes i laughed & in the end those blokes were spot on & i was so disappointed i remember calling for his head for that Oval test.

But since Hayden has without doubt transformed. That Ashes series although it was in a year long form slump from Bangalore 04 to Trent Bridge 05 people tend to forget that, was a blessing in disguise IMO since the challenges he faced from Akhtar in late 04 then in the Ashes helped him to reinvent himself out of the bully-mode that he had established between India 2001 & SRI 2004. That was a big change that most batsmen careers could never recover from & since then he has come up with with conditions againts bowling attacks that potentially would expose his weakness againts the moving ball & decent bowling line-up here, here, here (the standout batting performance since his reinvention for me), here, here, here (a flat pitch but their was enough new-ball movement in that second innings hundred to suggest that Hayden had riddin himself of his weakness againts the moving ball especially when other batsmen where struggling to adjust.

Yea its not up to the callibre on paper of the great bowlers that have been on show in the 70s, 80s & 90s. But those examples just goes to show that the "reinvented" Hayden has proven that he now longer has that glearing weakness againts the ball moving into him & also would not be trapped with the plan that Vaughan used againts him in 05 of constantly swinging the ball into his pads then sending the wide delivering hoping his lack of footwork would get him out caught in the slips because his off-side game has improved tremendously againts the quicks.

So simply i see no reason why the Hayden since the Oval 05 would not have been able to score runs in the era's since the form he has shown since then is definately better than anything any Australian opener has shown since the Lawry/Simpson era.

NOTE: If my argument is countered by any talks of first chance averages i'm gonna blow...

 

[Ikki]

Aussie, you're argument is good and well thought out, but it just isn't completely true. Hayden was blasted touring sides when in Queensland. There was a thread where I listed such innings against West Indies and Pakistan in the 90s. He's also done more than enough when it was tough. Or games Vs. Australia A or other state sides. These sides contained better bowlers than what was in Test standard. If we are talking about simple technique, Hayden's hasn't been disadvantaged enough by having a 'flawed' one because he has made too many runs against great bowlers. Just look at his centuries and the conditions they were in - check if the opposition or a teammate had a century and who was the highest scorer, etc.

Now, the fact of the matter is that to assume bowlers in the past were much better is just misguided. GO LOOK AT THOSE BOWLING ATTACKS. We had GREAT bowlers in the past, but they were surrounded by mediocre crap. One great bowler and no one else, sometimes a decent 2nd bowler in sight. There was Hadlee, but surrounded by nobodies, there was Thompson but again, no one of real steel to support (there was Lillee, but in Gavaskar's case he never faced both at the same time and in 79 he didn't face either.) The Windies had at times Sobers leading them, suffice to say, not an attack that would get any plaudits today) S.Africa didn't play and New Zealand held him again ...suffice to say, if there is minnow bashing, you see it there.

It's in the 80s where some of the teams like Pakistan and West Indies actually had a bowling 'attack' consisting of more than 1 real bowler. Against the Windies his record is average (actually, below his own average, but considering the opposition...) but against Pakistan he was great. Australia were crap, Sri Lanka were crap, New Zealand owned him, much the same with England and South Africa didn't play. Gavaskar played more than half his matches in the 80s+ and averaged 46...And that's his great record. Very easy to go through careers like this because all these openers have just as many if not more question marks over them.

....

Oh lord, this tripe again.

 

[subshakerz]

So in that period without doubt i'll admit i over-rated totally looking past his technical glitches thinking it was nothing & when it was highlighted by poster i.e Richard & Tec in late 04 that he would fail in the Ashes i laughed & in the end those blokes were spot on & i was so disappointed i remember calling for his head for that Oval test.

But since Hayden has without doubt transformed. That Ashes series although it was in a year long form slump from Bangalore 04 to Trent Bridge 05 people tend to forget that, was a blessing in disguise IMO since the challenges he faced from Akhtar in late 04 then in the Ashes helped him to reinvent himself out of the bully-mode that he had established between India 2001 & SRI 2004. That was a big change that most batsmen careers could never recover from & since then he has come up with with conditions againts bowling attacks that potentially would expose his weakness againts the moving ball & decent bowling line-up here, here, here (the standout batting performance since his reinvention for me), here, here, here (a flat pitch but their was enough new-ball movement in that second innings hundred to suggest that Hayden had riddin himself of his weakness againts the moving ball especially when other batsmen where struggling to adjust.

Yea its not up to the callibre on paper of the great bowlers that have been on show in the 70s, 80s & 90s. But those examples just goes to show that the "reinvented" Hayden has proven that he now longer has that glearing weakness againts the ball moving into him & also would not be trapped with the plan that Vaughan used againts him in 05 of constantly swinging the ball into his pads then sending the wide delivering hoping his lack of footwork would get him out caught in the slips because his off-side game has improved tremendously againts the quicks.

So simply i see no reason why the Hayden since the Oval 05 would not have been able to score runs in the era's since the form he has shown since then is definately better than anything any Australian opener has shown since the Lawry/Simpson era.

NOTE: If my argument is countered by any talks of first chance averages i'm gonna blow...

By your own admission he had a glaring weakness against the moving ball until the Ashes 2005. Yet since then he has never faced an attack as challenging as the one in that series or in seaming conditions (even England in 2006 were a far cry from the attack they had in 2005), or a bowler as fast and dangerous as Shoaib. It just seems convenient that his weakness was exposed against high quality pace yet has disapperared since playing merely decent pace attacks on non-seaming tracks.

 

[Ikki]

By your own admission he had a glaring weakness against the moving ball until the Ashes 2005. Yet since then he has never faced an attack as challenging as the one in that series or in seaming conditions (even England in 2006 were a far cry from the attack they had in 2005), or a bowler as fast and dangerous as Shoaib. It just seems convenient that his weakness was exposed against high quality pace yet has disapperared since playing merely decent pace attacks on non-seaming tracks.

Did you just happen to miss the last series between India and Australia? Hayden, best batsman of the series? I guess when Sharma bamboozles Ponting but is handled by Hayden it must have been luck.

BTW, Hayden has smashed Shoaib, do your research. Also Brett Lee has been taken to the cleaners by Hayden as well. So much for being fast and dangerous.