Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[Richard]

Would put... well, the names I've mentioned about 10 times... ahead of him TBH. Woodfull, Ponsford, Barnes, Morris, Lawry, Simpson, Redpath, Taylor, Slater. And maybe more.

 

[Burgey]

When we rate batsmen, do we/ should we factor in how their batting went when and if they became captain? That is, how they coped with the captaincy in terms of their batting?

I raise this in the context of the Lara/ Tendulkar v Ponting post which Manan made on this page. I would say, as pure batsmen, each of the former are ahead of Ponting, but TBF to the latter, his average as captain is something phenomenal.

Whilst this fact does not, imo, alter Lara/ Tendulkar > Ponting, I wonder if we underestimate the impact which captaincy can have on players. Should the fact that a batsman (less so bowlers, as there are less bowling captains, but the point may well still apply) who may be on a level = to another, but is captain of his side, be weighted higher in our ratings of him as a player?

The abillity to cope or otherwise with the responsibilities of captaining a side at the top level is, imo, a factor to take into account. For example, Mark Taylor's average once captain fell away, iirc I Chappell's went up, as has Ponting's.

Anyway, just throwing it out there to discuss.

 

[Ikki]

Would put... well, the names I've mentioned about 10 times... ahead of him TBH. Woodfull, Ponsford, Barnes, Morris, Lawry, Simpson, Redpath, Taylor, Slater. And maybe more.

You seriously have no clue. There is only one name in that list that comes close to Hayden.

 

[Richard]

Nah, people who think Hayden would've coped with the sorts of bowlers that lot often repelled have no clue.

And as I've said before, I'm wholly sick of discussing Hayden with you. I suggest you cease responding to my posts concerning Hayden, because nothing constructive can ever come of it. I'm astounded you continue to bother, it's the biggest waste of time anyone could wish to undertake.

 

[Richard]

When we rate batsmen, do we/ should we factor in how their batting went when and if they became captain? That is, how they coped with the captaincy in terms of their batting?

I raise this in the context of the Lara/ Tendulkar v Ponting post which Manan made on this page. I would say, as pure batsmen, each of the former are ahead of Ponting, but TBF to the latter, his average as captain is something phenomenal.

Whilst this fact does not, imo, alter Lara/ Tendulkar > Ponting, I wonder if we underestimate the impact which captaincy can have on players. Should the fact that a batsman (less so bowlers, as there are less bowling captains, but the point may well still apply) who may be on a level = to another, but is captain of his side, be weighted higher in our ratings of him as a player?

The abillity to cope or otherwise with the responsibilities of captaining a side at the top level is, imo, a factor to take into account. For example, Mark Taylor's average once captain fell away, iirc I Chappell's went up, as has Ponting's.

Anyway, just throwing it out there to discuss.

In Ponting's case, I don't think it's much other than the fact that he inherited the captaincy at a time he was playing well (and continued to play well). I don't think it's a case of captaincy making him do better than he otherwise would have, per se.

Some players - like Mark Taylor - struggle for a time after taking-on the captaincy, but then recover. Some don't get the chance - and maybe (Tendulkar, for example) it's good that they don't.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, people who think Hayden would've coped with the sorts of bowlers that lot often repelled have no clue.

And as I've said before, I'm wholly sick of discussing Hayden with you. I suggest you cease responding to my posts concerning Hayden, because nothing constructive can ever come of it. I'm astounded you continue to bother, it's the biggest waste of time anyone could wish to undertake.

Pardon me, but make a stupid statement in public and chances are people will call you on it. McCosker and Redpath better than Hayden... it's like saying Johnston and Fleming are better than Lillee. 50+k posts and it seems all you do is propagate.

 

[Richard]

It's nothing like it, and you make the habit of "calling out ignorant statements" in my direction far more often than most people. It's utterly pointless and serves only one purpose: damaging forum atmosphere. I'm going to do my best to stop this by refusing to get drawn into stuff with you on certain subjects, and frankly there's several people who'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

 

[Ikki]

It's nothing like it, and you make the habit of "calling out ignorant statements" in my direction far more often than most people. It's utterly pointless and serves only one purpose: damaging forum atmosphere. I'm going to do my best to stop this by refusing to get drawn into stuff with you on certain subjects, and frankly there's several people who'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

Listen mate, I come here to chat about Cricket not run around in every thread and belittle Cricketers I dislike. I can get into an argument and get out of it thinking not a bit more about what went on. But I'm not blind. I can see you walk in and out of the thread with your weak/cheap shots. Frankly, this is a bigger issue. I'm tired of the non-sense you seem to spread about batsman nowadays having it too easy, bowler's who've been lucky, first-chance averages and all your other stuff.

I may yak on about Cricketers I cherish but I leave it at that. I don't try to propagate my thoughts on how Cricket should be into every bloody thread. 53k+ posts and it's still going on. You say you are trying to keep forum atmosphere but I know a fair few people who reckon you ruin it. You can see people restrict themselves because they can't be arsed trying to bother with you. Now I don't have that many posts. I wander in from time to time and say my piece. Don't worry about me, worry about yourself.

 

[Richard]

Listen mate, I come here to chat about Cricket not run around in every thread and belittle Cricketers I dislike. I can see you walk in and out of the thread with your weak shots.

I cannot believe you have the nerve to say this. You are every bit as "bad" in this respect. As are many others. It's pretty natural.

I'm tired of the non-sense you seem to spread about batsman nowadays having it too easy, bowler's who've been lucky, first-chance averages and all your other stuff.

I tend to get pretty tired of the nonsense people spread about how luck doesn't happen\matter, how virtually nothing's changed in terms of bat-friendliness of late and the like. So I'll try and and avoid talking to people who deny what, IMO, are pretty blatant truths. And those who are not going to be constructive about it more so than ever.

You say you are trying to keep forum atmosphere but I know a fair few people who reckon you ruin it. You can see people restrict themselves because they can't be arsed trying to bother with you.

Exactly, this is the sensible thing to do under such circumstances. There is no point two people continuously arguing over and again and again about the same stuff. I recognise this has happened too often with me in the past - because of these suggestions from people you mention - and hence try to take steps to discontinue it.

 

[Ikki]

I cannot believe you have the nerve to say this. You are every bit as "bad" in this respect.

I go into threads throwing cheap shots at who, Richard?

I tend to get pretty tired of the nonsense people spread about how luck doesn't happen\matter, how virtually nothing's changed in terms of bat-friendliness of late and the like. So I'll try and and avoid talking to people who deny what, IMO, are pretty blatant truths. And those who are not going to be constructive about it more so than ever.

In pure volume, no one comes close to you to spreading anything. How can any discussion with you be constructive if you rarely, if ever, concede anything?

Nasser Hussain is better than Hayden right? Jesus...

I come on this forum and lots of things have been changed in my mind. Murali and his action has become much more clearer for me; Sobers and his legacy is much clearer for me; Miller and his value have become apparent to me...

This forum is invaluable for information. I come here to give an opinion that I know may be wrong - unlike you who never says something he thinks could be wrong and hence it appears is incapable of being wrong. What's the use of posting then Richard? If you already know everything and are unbending to other interpretations then why waste your time and others discussing?

 

[Richard]

I go into threads throwing cheap shots at who, Richard?

You talk down the achievements of many - to name two examples, SF Barnes and Waqar Younis - on plenty of occasions. This is nothing different to what I do regarding Hayden. Yet because you love Hayden so, what I do is to you "taking cheap shots".

In pure volume, no one comes close to you to spreading anything. How can any discussion with you be constructive if you rarely, if ever, concede anything?

Nasser Hussain is better than Hayden right? Jesus...

I come on this forum and lots of things have been changed in my mind. Murali and his action has become much more clearer for me; Sobers and his legacy is much clearer for me; Miller and his value have become apparent to me...

This forum is invaluable for information. I come here to give an opinion that I know may be wrong - unlike you who never says something he thinks could be wrong and hence it appears is incapable of being wrong. What's the use of posting then Richard? If you already know everything and are unbending to other interpretations then why waste your time and others discussing?

There's one hell of a lot that I've learnt in my 4-and-a-half years and via my 53,000 posts on CW - both in terms of stuff I thought I knew about before, and stuff I had never given a second's thought to (much more of the latter).

I don't tend to concede stuff, no - nor can I think of a single occasion where you've done such. But you don't read all my posts (nor, I'd bet, remotely close to), nor I all yours.

 

[Ikki]

You talk down the achievements of many - to name two examples, SF Barnes and Waqar Younis - on plenty of occasions. This is nothing different to what I do regarding Hayden. Yet because you love Hayden so, what I do is to you "taking cheap shots".

I've talked them down in many occasions? I can think of one for both at most. At other times I've been completely flattering towards them.

I'd love to see you prove that indeed it has been 'plenty of occasions' either that or an apology would do.

There's one hell of a lot that I've learnt in my 4-and-a-half years and via my 53,000 posts on CW - both in terms of stuff I thought I knew about before, and stuff I had never given a second's thought to (much more of the latter).

I don't tend to concede stuff, no - nor can I think of a single occasion where you've done such. But you don't read all my posts (nor, I'd bet, remotely close to), nor I all yours.

Well, in my previous post I just mentioned at least 3 things where I changed my mind in a major way towards. I recall in the Sober's case I actually made a formal apology.

Anyway, I am thoroughly tired of this chat.

 

[Richard]

I've talked them down in many occasions? I can think of one for both at most. At other times I've been completely flattering towards them.

I'd love to see you prove that indeed it has been 'plenty of occasions' either that or an apology would do.

I'm thoroughly confident it'd be every time someone placed on them the sort of lebel I tend to place on both. There's at least 2 separate occasions in the Barnes case, incidentally.

Well, in my previous post I just mentioned at least 3 things where I changed my mind in a major way towards. I recall in the Sober's case I actually made a formal apology.

Yes, I've changed my mind many times too. Don't often say as much at the time, but it has happened. As one totally random example, look at the difference between any early post of mine about Jeff Thomson and some more recent ones. Occasionally I'll make the odd formal apology, too.

Anyway, I am thoroughly tired of this chat.

Good, let us hope you tire of every chat with me regarding Hayden... and other subjects along the lines of "dominant" batsmen and Australians\players-who've-not-done-well-against-Australia.

 

[neville cardus]

Indeed I do. Some things just look so much better when it's emphasised that they're part of the same thing.

As I am presently in the throes of an essay for English (a subject in which I am majoring), I feel morally obligated to inform you that a-lot-of-that was just-plain-wrong.

 

[neville cardus]

Of course he does. Even Bradman had questions about him regarding his ability on the sticky wickets...

In fifteen first-class innings on rain-affected surfaces, Bradman passed fifty once and forty twice. His average of sticky tracks was 16.66, a little under a sixth of the average for his entire career.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

In fifteen first-class innings on rain-affected surfaces, Bradman passed fifty once and forty twice. His average of sticky tracks was 16.66, a little under a sixth of the average for his entire career.

What sort of average was par on stickies?

 

[pasag]

What sort of average was par on stickies?

CLR James does some analysis on the Bradman vs Headley on sticky wickets in Beyond a Bounday. In 13 innings, Headley passes 50 seven times and only three times scored less than double figures for an average of 39.85 (In England) whereas Bradman, as Nev said only passed 50 once in 15 innings in FC stickies for an average of 16.66.

James also continues that 'you need not build on these figures a monument, but you cannot ignore them' and it is also 'easy to give figures and make comparisons and draw rational conclusions.'

 

[bagapath]

it is quite sad to see the great victor trumper struggling to open his account. that too when merely good - but very far from great - openers like anwar and langer have got some votes.

 

[Richard]

What sort of average was par on stickies?

More interestingly, how exactly did you class a the point at which something went from non-sticky to sticky?

Obviously the conditions required were not constant; fairly heavy rain, and fairly hot sun. Stickies in the UK were pretty rare, UIMM - so what was the point at which a "wet-and-drying wicket" became a "sticky"?

 

[NZTailender]

Question: Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

Answer: The guy who scored 158 runs (total) opening the batting on debut versus McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne. Who else has done that?