Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[aussie]

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.

I'm not sure if bringing up runs scored againts those attacks in a non-test match enviroment is such a good argument given that it can be easily countered by the fact that i presume those First class runs would have been made in the 95-97 period but he did tour SA in 97 & failed. Plus it could be said that maybe the opposition West Indies & Pakistan players weren't really playing full out. I remember when Australia toured WI in 03 Calton Baugh smashed Australia in a warm-up game before the first test in Guyana & people where hyping up as something big but againts the same attack in the test the quickly worked him out. I understand what you are trying to say but its a bit of a dangerous argument to make i think.

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.

Yea i agree, there is a big misguided conseption even though in the 70s 80s & 90s they were great bowlers that they were periods where it was hard for batsmen to score runs when they were actually some average attacks bowlers intergrated with some pretty average one's NZ with Hadlee is the perfect example.

I was not old enough to see some of the better openers of those periods such as Gavaskar, Greenidge, Richards, Haynes, Gooch, Boycott bat but from my knowledgeable sources (not on this site) who say them plus Hayden they rate Gavaskar, Greenidge & Richards better based on what they have seen & not stats but they do share my beliefs that the post Ashes Hayden would have scored runs back then but just that he wouldn't have been that prolific.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not sure if bringing up runs scored againts those attacks in a non-test match enviroment is such a good argument given that it can be easily countered by the fact that i presume those First class runs would have been made in the 95-97 period but he did tour SA in 97 & failed. Plus it could be said that maybe the opposition West Indies & Pakistan players weren't really playing full out. I remember when Australia toured WI in 03 Calton Baugh smashed Australia in a warm-up game before the first test in Guyana & people where hyping up as something big but againts the same attack in the test the quickly worked him out. I understand what you are trying to say but its a bit of a dangerous argument to make i think.

LOL, so they let Hayden score centuries off them? The thing is I respect what you just said because it has relevance. But when the argument is that Hayden's technique is flawed and he is not a good enough batsman to counter said bowlers and their styles, then those games show ample evidence. Especially when the suggestion is that they'd OWN Hayden.

When it suits some people FC record is indicative and in others it doesn't, though. e.g. George Headley.

I was not old enough to see some of the better openers of those periods such as Gavaskar, Greenidge, Richards, Haynes, Gooch, Boycott bat but from my knowledgeable sources (not on this site) who say them plus Hayden they rate Gavaskar, Greenidge & Richards better based on what they have seen & not stats but they do share my beliefs that the post Ashes Hayden would have scored runs back then but just that he wouldn't have been that prolific.

Of the names you mentioned, Gavaskar was quite better than the rest. And I've shown here the holes in his record. Gavaskar himself only averaged 46 in the 80s - and that's with the largely weak bowling units.

Too many myths my friend. These are all great batsman and I do not begrudge them their legacy. But we have one too many starry-eyed gazers who simply cannot acknowledge that better players come along and some of them are still playing. No, it's the bowling, the pitches, the equipment... always something. Hayden's scored runs so easily that people just don't/can't believe it can be done. LOL, I remember SS saying Hayden would average 35-40 in another period. Cricket has been too concerned with making it's past look glorious.


What I think is the biggest argument against Hayden, and the most apt too, is his away record. It's not upto shape at all. I hope he rectifies it and proves his worth by the time he retires.

 

[aussie]

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..

Did you not check the examples of runs he made post Ashes more precisely since the Trent Bridge test in 2005?.

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.

Nothing convenient, disappeared is probably not the right word, but its no longer a glaring weakness & as yea the attacks he faced since the 05 Ashes even though on paper the Flintoff/Harmison's he faced in the super test, Ntini/Nel vs SA in 05/06 & the Khan/Singh/Sharma the other don't look as good as Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop, Donald/Pollock/Schultz, the Ashes quartet & Akhtar 04 that he failed him in the 90s but given that the argument thrown againts Hayden was that he is a FTB & when it its when conditions are helpul to bowlers he was be found out. Those bowlers after his career saving hundred @ the Oval tested that weakness & he came out on top (unless you saw these test i fear i may be talking to a brick wall here).

TBH i reckon i'm fed up arguing Haydos case. Just like how i accepted in 2005 that he really had a big weakness againts the moving ball coming back into him why can't you blokes accept that he has erradicated that weakness & his his game as improved.

 

[Ikki]

Why would you accept any such thing about 2005? Hayden went into 2005 Ashes without a century in 16 Test matches. It's in this run of bad form that he plays both Pakistan and England (the Shoaib/Eng. Quartet argument).

Here you have someone like Richard arguing that Donald/Kallis/Pollock were great then suddenly poor as soon as Hayden smashed them, but at the same time he is ignoring a 16 match drought.

I would also like to ask who in that Ashes 05 series did bat well? Everybody was poor, even the ones with great technique such as Martyn, Katich, Clarke and Ponting.

I mean, the criticism has really become absolutely silly. It's like in high-school when someone would call another kid a queer and it would spread so much that everyone started believing that person was gay even though they weren't. It's in that kind of gutter.

 

[Richard]

Here you have someone like Richard arguing that Donald/Kallis/Pollock were great then suddenly poor as soon as Hayden smashed them

Nah. Before.

 

[Ikki]

Nah. Before.

You were proven wrong there too .

 

[Richard]

I was proven nothing - if it was wrong I wouldn't have said it.

Either way, as proven many times, discussing Hayden with you is utterly pointless.

 

[Ikki]

I was proven nothing - if it was wrong I wouldn't have said it.

Because you don't say anything that's wrong?

Either way, as proven many times, discussing Hayden with you is utterly pointless.

Thank god.

 

[Richard]

Because you don't say anything that's wrong?

If I know something's wrong, I don't say it.

 

[JBH001]

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?

IMO that argument is over-used. Fact is, however good a batsman you are, you are not going to consistently score runs against good quality pace bowlers on helpful decks. All the batsman has to do is make one mistake and the chances of this increase exponentially the better the bowler and the trickier the track and conditions.

Now there are great opening batsmen who may be able to score big runs in these conditions, but usually these occassions are few and far between, and unless they are in the form of their lives they are not going to be able to do this consistently. Arguments of this kind only under-estimate how difficult it is to bat against good quicks on helpful surfaces (especially for opening batsmen). Therefore this needs to be taken into consideration when making judgements of this nature. Its not for nothing after all that most opening batsman have a high proportion of dismissals in the 0 - 9 range. A better question would be how often they are able to weather the conditions and opposing bowlers (if challenging) and give their side some sort of start before getting out and bringing in the middle order (which is their first responsibility).

 

[JBH001]

One more thing, I would have voted for Hobbs and Hutton (I hope I did lol, cant remember now). England owns when it comes to opening bats.

 

[Richard]

You voted for Hobbs, as you bloody well should do.

 

[Richard]

Fact is, however good a batsman you are, you are not going to consistently score runs against good quality pace bowlers on helpful decks.

Of course not. If someone played against Donald, Pollock, Matthews and McMillan on a green seamer every game of their career - even if they were Sachin Tendulkar - they'd do well to average 40. A lesser mortal should be very pleased with an average of 33-34, and satisfied with one of 30.

Point is, the like of Hayden would've struggled to average 23-24 if they played on really helpful surfaces against top-quality bowling every game, and under "normal" (ie, some really helpful, some a bit helpful, some flatter) would probably have averaged about 28-29 and not played for very long.

Had the sea-change in pitches and bowling happened a year later, I'm absolutely certain Hayden would not have lasted to the 2003/04 season, he'd have finished his Test career with 20 or 30-odd games and an average in the early-30s, which would probably go down the the late-20s if you exclude that series in India.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As it doesn't specify Test opener I'll mention Barry Richards in case he hasn't been mentioned already. He might have been the greatest Test opener ever and is certainly superior to many of the rather odd collection of party poopers in this poll.

 

[Gloucefan]

Voted for Hobbs.

Herbert Spencer would come second followed by Hutton. I can't say I've ever seen them, just going on folklore I suppose.

I will say though that Hayden is NOT a 'great', nor Langer.

Seriously

Edit

I do think Hayden is a class bat though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Voted for Hobbs.

Herbert Spencer would come second followed by Hutton. I can't say I've ever seen them, just going on folklore I suppose.

I will say though that Hayden is NOT a 'great', nor Langer.

Seriously

Edit

I do think Hayden is a class bat though.

How foolish of us all to have overlooked the immortal Herbert Spencer.

 

[Gloucefan]

How foolish of us all to have overlooked the immortal Herbert Spencer.

oopss Sutcliffe

I think I heard 'Spencer' while making the post

Ah well.

Edit:

I have studied Herbert Spencer mind...

 

[Ikki]

Of course not. If someone played against Donald, Pollock, Matthews and McMillan on a green seamer every game of their career - even if they were Sachin Tendulkar - they'd do well to average 40. A lesser mortal should be very pleased with an average of 33-34, and satisfied with one of 30.

Point is, the like of Hayden would've struggled to average 23-24 if they played on really helpful surfaces against top-quality bowling every game, and under "normal" (ie, some really helpful, some a bit helpful, some flatter) would probably have averaged about 28-29 and not played for very long.

Instead, Hayden averaged 107.25 against the S.Africans. You would have us believe the silly notion they were not in form - where fact is they were. But now you'd have us believe he'd not averaged anything above 30? That's the difference? 70 runs on average?

Had the sea-change in pitches and bowling happened a year later, I'm absolutely certain Hayden would not have lasted to the 2003/04 season, he'd have finished his Test career with 20 or 30-odd games and an average in the early-30s, which would probably go down the the late-20s if you exclude that series in India.

I don't know whether you hate the guy or you have absolutely no clue about Cricket or both.

 

[Richard]

Neither.

 

[aussie]

Why would you accept any such thing about 2005? Hayden went into 2005 Ashes without a century in 16 Test matches. It's in this run of bad form that he plays both Pakistan and England (the Shoaib/Eng. Quartet argument).

Yes thats true, but as i said that bad run of form happened coincidentally with the fact that Mills & Akhtar in Hayden period of total bullying bowlig since IND 2001 where the only bowlers to really test his weakness againts the moving ball since Ashes 2001 technically.

Lets look at that 16 match drought in detail from my memory. In India 04 i wouldn't say he was out form he just was getting starts & wasn't carrying on.

He came on to NZ & Mills trapped him with a fantastic inswinger in the brisbane test i wish i could get a youtube shot of it & Akhtar gave him hell when Pakistan arrived (this was when Richard & Tec starting questioning Hayden).

From then into the tour on NZ Hayden definately was looking a bit edgy at the crease & when the Ashes came about he was totally worked out. But as i said this Hayden since he had to come on of the bully mode he established between IND 01 to SRI 04 & since then he has & is a better player for it.

Here you have someone like Richard arguing that Donald/Kallis/Pollock were great then suddenly poor as soon as Hayden smashed them, but at the same time he is ignoring a 16 match drought.

Richard is right to a level though twhen Hayden smashed SA in 2001/02 season compared to one he faced in 97 their is big difference Donald was past it without a doubt, Pollock hadn't declined as yet while Kallis was during his peak from my memory.

But yes they are wrong to ignore the 16 match drought which as i just showed you has its twists..

I would also like to ask who in that Ashes 05 series did bat well? Everybody was poor, even the ones with great technique such as Martyn, Katich, Clarke and Ponting.

Thats true, but that going into a different argument althogether where by all the dominant batsmen of the 2000's era such as Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Sehwag especially would have questions over their ability to play top-quality fast bowling consistently for me in comparison to batsmen of the 70's, 80's & 90's given the the standard of bowling & pitches that they have faced.

But that doesn't mean they can't play it, they would just take more time to adjust to it. Look at Ponting for example in the 2005 Ashes, since 2001 when he really began establishing himself as the premier batsmen of this era would have never faced bowling of that quality since his debut in 96/97 vs the windies when he wasn't half-the player he was & struggled initially until he played that brilliant knock @ Old Trafford. That doesn't make him a bad player or should it suggest to us that he can't play the moving ball, its the kind of adjustment all batsmen in this era would have to do but not all would be able to play such an innings under such pressure. Thats why for me Ponting at his current best (looking past his current unlucky run this summer) would score runs in the 70's 80's & 90's.