thierry henry
International Coach
I don't think I have ever heard you even attempt to make an "argument"
-
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.
Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?
- Thread starter George.Hinton
- Start date
archie mac
International Coach
What is the point? Everything is shot down with 'this is his average, so he is as good as him'
Also when everyone who watched them both (Sunny and Matt the bat) has no doubt who was the better, but that is still not good enough for yourself, you answer with 'his average, is as good, so he must be as good'
It is very hard to argue with the same argument for everything, so you will excuse me if I don't bother
I have tried in the past when we 'discussed' Richards, but it goes around in circles, you seem to have no concept that anyone who played the game before you started watching can be better then modern players with the same average?
And for the record I think Hayden a fine batsman, but not as good as Sunny, and imo a fair way behind
Precambrian
Banned
Easily Gavaskar. Tell me one series where Hayden made his runs outside home against top quality pace attack. And by a decent pace attack it should include atleast two guys who were top class.
Sunny faced the West Indies quickies when the quickies themselves were in their prime. And he did that in an age when batsmen were less equppied (don't think he wore a helmet early in his career) and an average of 40 was enough tor regard one as a super bat.
Oh and not to mention of his ability to score in the 4th innings of a test match.
Sunny faced the West Indies quickies when the quickies themselves were in their prime. And he did that in an age when batsmen were less equppied (don't think he wore a helmet early in his career) and an average of 40 was enough tor regard one as a super bat.
Oh and not to mention of his ability to score in the 4th innings of a test match.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Although a great fan and defender of Hayden ability, this isn't a totally accurate interpretation of Gavaskar's record vs West Indies although i do agree after doing this myself before that his record in 70/71 & 78/79 when West Indies best attack went to world series cricket can be discarded.
Outside that his record vs them is pretty solid.
Although i have heard the argument for those who saw him bat againts the the 4-prong that all his hundreds where when the pitch was flat, he didn't look very comfotable when the pitch had anything in it. But then again who would?. So basically i don't think Gavaskar can be ridiculed on this basis, why not give the great West Indies there due credit?
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think Gavaskar was better, but there's certainly room for a discussion about a comparison between them, given their records. I mean, if the thread was "Sunny Gavaskar v Graeme Wood" I think you could easily say there's no comparison, but when you have 2 openers with such good records, albeit from difference eras, there's room for discussions (as the thread has amply demonstrated) .
One of the most pleasing things about cricket is its aesthetic beauty, which of course is in the eye of the beholder. So some find Hayden's power better to watch, while others prefer Sunny's style of play. I don't think someone is either right or wrong in prefering one over t'other as a player.
.One of the most pleasing things about cricket is its aesthetic beauty, which of course is in the eye of the beholder. So some find Hayden's power better to watch, while others prefer Sunny's style of play. I don't think someone is either right or wrong in prefering one over t'other as a player.
Last edited:
thierry henry
International Coach
Point out where I said Hayden was as good as Gavaskar?
Gavaskar was better for sure
You seem to have no concept that you should have reasons for a belief that you have.
It only went around in circles because you're not interested in justifying yourself. Given some useful explanation/evidence I'd happily believe that Richards was (substantially?) better than other top batsmen. However, whenever you or anyone else has tried to put forward a case for Richards being substantially > than x batsman who averages 50something, there seems to have been a fairly easy rebuttal.
thierry henry
International Coach
I don't think I ever said (and if I did, I take it back) that e.g. Kallis>Sobers, a whole list of batsmen>Richards, etc etc.
I merely pointed out the numbers and asked why they shouldn't be compared.
I think it's a shame that most of those who want to argue that Sobers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kallis, or Richards>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>almost everyone, have often been so assured in their beliefs that they cannot bring themselves to form a coherent argument to support them.
Since I am so ignorant, I would love to be educated
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Oh I would love to impart 'education' as you call it but its a bit difficult to do it to students who come to a class convinced they know all.Since I am so ignorant, I would love to be educated
And I wont do it to win an argument. Its never worth it.
thierry henry
International Coach
But it's not really an argument. It's more an argument about the assumptions that need to be made before argument commences.
I only know what I know, and I actually don't have a solid opinion on the matters being discussed. Certainly not a know-it-all.
I think it's a damn shame that this forum has reached a point where so many things can't be discussed because simply bringing them up is regarded as trolling.
I only know what I know, and I actually don't have a solid opinion on the matters being discussed. Certainly not a know-it-all.
I think it's a damn shame that this forum has reached a point where so many things can't be discussed because simply bringing them up is regarded as trolling.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
First of all, I dont think it is trolling.
Okay let me tell you something else I think. Statistics are an extremely unreliable way of understanding how good a player was. And to compare two players its even worse.
The best way to do that is to have seen them both play yourself. This presupposes a good understanding of the game. I do not want to say that I have a better understanding than you. I am just making a point about how to compare two cricketers. The deeper one's knowledge of the game (all aspects of it) the better one's ability to judge the capabilities of a player and hence the comparison of two players. My understanding of Gavaskar and Hayden falls in this category (that I have seen both of them play not that I have a great understanding of the game
)Then comes the problem of comparing two players one has never seen, say Bradman with Trumper or Spofforth with Tom Richardson. Its so easy to look at the stats and come out with a numerical criteria but that is what I call the "fast food of cricketing punditry". If it was as easy as that we could just feed all the data into a computer and settle all arguments once for all and all the cricket lovers across the entire planet would have nothing more to argue about. Unfortunately it doesn't work. So what does one do?
I will tell you what I do. I read. I try to understand from those who have seen both Bradman and Trumper or Grace and Hobbs, or Lohmann and Spofforth. I read what those who actually saw them play, played with and against them think of them. It doesn't tell me in black and white who is better than who in all cases but it tells me much more about each of these cricketers than I could ever, ever, hope to learn by merely looking at figures. PLUS the process gives me joy and pleasure to be transported into the times of my great grand father and feel what they felt in those days. I may then form an opinion about who was better between Bradman and Trumper or I may not but I do get to understand what type of a cricketer each of them was and I can see that they were so different from each other and each was great in his own way.
This reduces the 'tension' (for want of a better word) in me to somehow or the other rank them so very precisely, because one cant - not in all cases.
Finally comes the most difficult comparison of all, to compare a player you have seen with a player you haven't. This is very tough indeed. I may be able to compare Hobbs and Hutton from the writings of Cardus and Thomson but thats because my own opinion based on 'evidence of vision' does not interfere. I do have a problem comparing Gavaskar with, say Vijay Merchant or Len Hutton or Bert Sutcliffe. It is very tough and I can understand that it is the same for you when you compare Gavaskar with Hayden.
But trust me, statistics are not the best way to solve that issue for you. Its much better to talk to a cricketers who have seen both (not one but as many as you can) and then see what they have to say. You dont have to listen to someone like me and if you cant talk to cricketers then read. There are enough accounts of the cricketers of Gavaskar's era who are still watching and writing and even commenting on the game. Try and understand what they are saying. It will help not to come to CW and win a pointless argument but to better appreciate the game you clearly love so much.
If nothing else, if it just reinforces in you the idea that stats are not the ideal way to understand cricketers you haven't seen, I think you would have done fabulously.
I have nothing else to say and defiinitely don't want to bore you with what I think of Gavaskar and Hayden. I am sure you will. if you try, find many more eminently qualified to do so.
All the best.
Last edited:
archie mac
International Coach
Sorry if I misunderstood your intention re-Sunny and Mat
OK, Richards, seemingly had more time then any other player I have watched
Richards could tear apart an attack faster then anyone else I have ever watched (Gilly included, but I would rate him 2nd), I think he still holds the fastest Test ton
He refused to be intimidated, never wore a helmet, and this would often demoralise the bowlers and the opposition and would also seem to inspire his team-mates (I have read this from a number of the players he played with)
If you wanted to turn the above around like a lawyer you could make a case that this attitude cost him many runs, and stopped him delivering more for his team
archie mac
International Coach
That is a bit strong mate
I don't feel offended in any way, in fact I thought he made some good points
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
well, I was not around in the 70s and was in my toddler years in the mid 80s, so I am not going to argue that point, I will take your word for it.
But what I meant was, relative to Hayden, Gavaskar did face more difficult pitches and better bowling attacks.. I think, even though I was obviously not around to personally judge, it is something one can say to a degree of confidence.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
SJS is having a bit of a rejuvenation in his posting form, much like SRT.....First of all, I dont think it is trolling.
Okay let me tell you something else I think. Statistics are an extremely unreliable way of understanding how good a player was. And to compare two players its even worse.
The best way to do that is to have seen them both play yourself. This presupposes a good understanding of the game. I do not want to say that I have a better understanding than you. I am just making a point about how to compare two cricketers. The deeper one's knowledge of the game (all aspects of it) the better one's ability to judge the capabilities of a player and hence the comparison of two players. My understanding of Gavaskar and Hayden falls in this category (that I have seen both of them play not that I have a great understanding of the game
Then comes the problem of comparing two players one has never seen, say Bradman with Trumper or Spofforth with Tom Richardson. Its so easy to look at the stats and come out with a numerical criteria but that is what I call the "fast food of cricketing punditry". If it was as easy as that we could just feed all the data into a computer and settle all arguments once for all and all the cricket lovers across the entire planet would have nothing more to argue about. Unfortunately it doesn't work. So what does one do?
I will tell you what I do. I read. I try to understand from those who have seen both Bradman and Trumper or Grace and Hobbs, or Lohmann and Spofforth. I read what those who actually saw them play, played with and against them think of them. It doesn't tell me in black and white who is better than who in all cases but it tells me much more about each of these cricketers than I could ever, ever, hope to learn by merely looking at figures. PLUS the process gives me joy and pleasure to be transported into the times of my great grand father and feel what they felt in those days. I may then form an opinion about who was better between Bradman and Trumper or I may not but I do get to understand what type of a cricketer each of them was and I can see that they were so different from each other and each was great in his own way.
This reduces the 'tension' (for want of a better word) in me to somehow or the other rank them so very precisely, because one cant - not in all cases.
Finally comes the most difficult comparison of all, to compare a player you have seen with a player you haven't. This is very tough indeed. I may be able to compare Hobbs and Hutton from the writings of Cardus and Thomson but thats because my own opinion based on 'evidence of vision' does not interfere. I do have a problem comparing Gavaskar with, say Vijay Merchant or Len Hutton or Bert Sutcliffe. It is very tough and I can understand that it is the same for you when you compare Gavaskar with Hayden.
But trust me, statistics are not the best way to solve that issue for you. Its much better to talk to a cricketers who have seen both (not one but as many as you can) and then see what they have to say. You dont have to listen to someone like me and if you cant talk to cricketers then read. There are enough accounts of the cricketers of Gavaskar's era who are still watching and writing and even commenting on the game. Try and understand what they are saying. It will help not to come to CW and win a pointless argument but to better appreciate the game you clearly love so much.
If nothing else, if it just reinforces in you the idea that stats are not the ideal way to understand cricketers you haven't seen, I think you would have done fabulously.
I have nothing else to say and defiinitely don't want to bore you with what I think of Gavaskar and Hayden. I am sure you will. if you try, find many more eminently qualified to do so.
All the best.
seriously, it is always great to read such posts when you are at your eloquent best, sir... Hope you continue for as long as possible.
bagapath
International Captain
This was one of two series in which garner, marshall, holding and roberts bowled together. The other one was against England. In total, only three batsmen have scored hundreds against this attack. Gavaskar, Amarnath and Kapil Dev. If you look at marshall, garner and holding (minus roberts) then only one batsman has scred two hundreds against them, martin crowe. gavaskar did not play agains them as a bunch other than the first series (including roberts) mentioned above.
against holding, garner and marshall his overall record is
18 31 3 1464 236* 52.28 7 2 4
you cant take anything away from his record against top class fast bowling
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Australia V S.Africa 20001.
Already explained he met them sometimes singularly or in pairs and very few in 3s. Already explained that one of these series Marshall was on debut and shocking...lot of the above explains itself. I don't think it's particularly as hard meeting that trio as a group than by themselves where you can fend off one and then play the weaker WIndies bowling.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
The problem with reading, especially about older players, are the rose-tinted ways that they are described. We went through this in the Sobers thread.
The problem with relying on reading material too much is becoming indoctrinated with the bias' and maybe with certain variables that were important then and less important now. For example, in most of what I read regarding Sobers' bowling, it's amazing very very few people talk about how poor his strike-rate is or mention it at all. Wickets-per-test sufficed as a measure. But really, it doesn't.
Unless the sample is too small or we're talking about a player who had some special occurrence (S.Africans/apartheid, for e.g.) the stats are the only reliable criteria. I am aware that not everything is quantified in statistics, but a large portion of the game is to get a very very good idea about said player or bowler. In fact, the times where stats "seem" to be incorrect are very very few. And there has not been any assertion I've heard of, of Gavaskar being better than his stats suggest.
I've seen Gavaskar bat, and I didn't think it remarkable at all. But I think it's stupid to watch old tapes because you don't get the true sense of occasion or pressure the batsman is under, for example. But if you're going to say "I saw Gavaskar bat, he is that much better" then you have to explain on that point. But don't say he had a beautiful technique, etc. A lot of people don't care if the batsman just has the cut shot, because he may average 60.
Get down to the nitty gritty about why x is better than y. But to say they are not comparable as you have, even compared Hayden to Dev... just silly. When one hears that, they don't care if you have seen them both bat because you just gave up your credibility.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Precambrian
Banned
He took a time machine?
Lame perhaps, but only one series to show? Against quality pace attack? Gavaskar has done 10 times that.