Opening batsmen for Post WW2 XI

[bagapath]

Please choose two of the following to open the batting for the Post WW2 Dream XI


Sir Len Hutton
Sunil Gavaskar
Gordon Greenidge
Matt Hayden

 

[Burgey]

Hutton & Gavaskar

 

[bagapath]

hutton and gavaskar. good enough to open any all-time XI.

 

[Fusion]

Hutton & Gavaskar

hutton and gavaskar. good enough to open any all-time XI.

Yeah, what they said.

 

[The Sean]

Hutton & Gavaskar

hutton and gavaskar. good enough to open any all-time XI.

Yeah, what they said.

More of the same from me. Difficult to see this being close.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hayden & Gavaskar.

Perfect combination of one opener attacking the bowling whilst the other one see's off the new ball. Can't beat it.

 

[SJS]

Hutton and Greenidge.

I consider Hutton a better player than Gavaskar and did not consider Gavaskar for the second spot because that would give two cautious players.

Between Greenidge and Haden (both attacking my instinct) I prefer Greenidge for his superior all round game. He has the far better back foot game which is of prime importance for an opener if he is going to play world class fast bowlers.

 

[archie mac]

Hutton and Greenidge.

I consider Hutton a better player than Gavaskar and did not consider Gavaskar for the second spot because that would give two cautious players.

Between Greenidge and Haden (both attacking my instinct) I prefer Greenidge for his superior all round game. He has the far better back foot game which is of prime importance for an opener if he is going to play world class fast bowlers.

Spot on mate, as per usual

 

[bagapath]

for younger members of this forum who are more stats driven than even me (yeah, i admit i have a weakness for decimals) i want to draw their attention to gordon greenidge's cumulative average

Cricinfo Statsguru - CG Greenidge - Test matches - Batting analysis

after 10 years of test cricket and 60 tests he averaged 50 which in the era he played in would be equal to 55+ in the hayden era. similarly his average stood at 48 after 80 tests, and 13 years of international cricket. the eventual decline brought it down to a very respectable, but not so great, 44; a modern day 48 i would say.

but please dont just look at his number hovering around 44 and hayden's around 48 (minus the minnows) and choose hayden purely based on numbers. it was a more difficult proposition facing fast bowling in the 70s and 80 compared to the late 90s and 00s.

i still am a huge gordon greenidge fan. but jack hobbs should be available for selection for me to choose anyone over hutton and gavaskar.

 

[SJS]

for younger members of this forum who are more stats driven than even me (yeah, i admit i have a weakness for decimals) i want to draw their attention to gordon greenidge's cumulative average

Cricinfo Statsguru - CG Greenidge - Test matches - Batting analysis

after 10 years of test cricket and 60 tests he averaged 50 which in the era he played in would be equal to 55+ in the hayden era. similarly his average stood at 48 after 80 tests, and 13 years of international cricket. the eventual decline brought it down to a very respectable, but not so great, 44; a modern day 48 i would say.

but please dont just look at his number hovering around 44 and hayden's around 48 (minus the minnows) and choose hayden purely based on numbers. it was a more difficult proposition facing fast bowling in the 70s and 80 compared to the late 90s and 00s.

i still am a huge gordon greenidge fan. but jack hobbs should be available for selection for me to choose anyone over hutton and gavaskar.

You just have to look at the quality of bowling he faced in different series. Here is a sample.

Note : I have put the figures of the great Viv Richards for each series just to stress the quality of the attack not to compare Greenidge with Richards.

1. 1976 in ENGLAND

• Bob Willis
• John Snow
• Chris Old
• Derek Underwood
• Tony Greig
• Pat Pocock

Superb attack.

Greenidge, in five Tests, scored 592 at 65.8 with 3 centuries and 2 fifties !!
Only Richards scored more runs. Kallicharan, Lloyd, Fredricks and Rowe scored fewer.

2. 1976-77 Pakistan in Windies

• Imran Khan
• Sarfaraz Nawaz
• Mushtaq Mohammad
• Intikhab Alam
• Saleem Altaf

Superb Attack.
Greenidge in five Tests scored 536 runs at 53.6 (Viv Richards averaged 28.6)
He scored more runs and had a better average of all the illustrious Windies batsmen.

3. 1979-80 in New Zealand

• Richard Hadlee
• Lance Cairns
• Jeremy Coney
• Gary Troup

Good attack. Good enough to win the series !

Greenidge averaged 46.7. (Richards topped the averages at 60.3)

4. 1982-83 in INDIA

• Kapil Dev
• Venkitraghavan
• Maninder Singh
• Ravi Shastri
• Madan Lal

Very good spinners with Kapil at his peak.

Greenidge topped the averages at 78.6 (Richards averaged 47.0)

5. 1983-84 Australia in West Indies

• Geoff Lawson
• Terry Alderman
• Carl Rackmann
• Rodney Hogg

Decent Attack

Greenidge scored 393 runs at 78.6. (Viv Richards averaged 34)

6. 1984 in ENGLAND

• Botham
• Willis
• Allott
• Pringle
• Pocock

Good Attack

Greenidge scored 572 runs at 87.8 and headed both runs and averages (Richards averaged 41.7)

7. 1984-85 NZL in West Indies

• Richard Hadlee
• Ewan Chatfield
• Lance Cairns
• Steven Boock
• Jeremy Coney

Good attack.

Greenidge averaged 52.8 (Richards averaged 62.0)

8. 1986-87 in New Zealand

• Hadlee
• Chatfield
• Boock
• Bracewell

Good attack. Good enough to square the two Test series 1-1. In fact New Zealand with Richard Hadlee at his best and good support from Cairns and Chatfield during this period stood up very well to the all conquering West Indians.

Greenidge with 344 runs in three matches at 68.8 scored almost as many runs as the next three batsmen put together. (Richards averaged 19.3)

10. 1987-88 in India

• Kapil Dev
• Chetan Sharma
• Arshad Ayub
• Ravi Shastri
• Maninder Singh
• Narendra Hirwani

Very good attack. Good enough to square the series 1-1 with the world champs.

Greenidge scored 260 runs at 43.3. Only Richards scored more (295 at 59.0) in a relatively low scoring series for West Indies.

11. 1988 in ENGLAND

• Dilley
• Foster
• DeFreitas
• Pringle
• Emburey

Decent attack.
Greenidge was third amongst run getters averaging 47.0 (Richards averaged 37.2)

12. 1990-91 Australia in West Indies

• Merv Hughes
• McDermott
• Whitney
• Greg Mathews
• Border

Good attack.
Greenidge scored 366 runs at 45.8. Richie Richardson and Haynes scored more runs (Richards averaged 24.9)

By the end of this series, Greenidge was forty years old. He was 23 when he had made his debut. It was a long innings and he was consistent against the best attacks and all over the world. There were no weak attacks to get easy runs from. England, Pakistan and New Zealand were much better bowling sides than we have seen in the last couple of decades. India were spin-centric but with good spinners and Kapil at the top.

No. Greenidge faced far superior attacks than Hayden did.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You just have to look at the quality of bowling he faced in different series. Here is a sample.

Note : I have put the figures of the great Viv Richards for each series just to stress the quality of the attack not to compare Greenidge with Richards.

1. 1968 in ENGLAND

• Bob Willis
• John Snow
• Chris Old
• Derek Underwood
• Tony Greig
• Pat Pocock

That should be 1976 not 68. The problem that year was getting enough of those bowlers playing at the same time. At Headingley the attack was Snow, Willis, Ward, Greig and Underwood which was a quality attack. Unfortunately because of injury the genuine fast men didn't play together much. At Old Trafford where Edrich and Close took the famous battering the seam attack was Hendrick, Selvey and Greig. Had Willis and Snow bowled on that wicket it's highly improbably that Greenidge would have made a century in each innings.

Though I still agree that Greenidge should be chosen ahead of Hayden.

 

[SJS]

That should be 1976 not 68. The problem that year was getting enough of those bowlers playing at the same time. At Headingley the attack was Snow, Willis, Ward, Greig and Underwood which was a quality attack. Unfortunately because of injury the genuine fast men didn't play together much. At Old Trafford where Edrich and Close took the famous battering the seam attack was Hendrick, Selvey and Greig. Had Willis and Snow bowled on that wicket it's highly improbably that Greenidge would have made a century in each innings.

Though I still agree that Greenidge should be chosen ahead of Hayden.

Its true that Englands attack kept changing but it was never bad. For three of the four Tests they had a very good pace attack

1st Test : Snow, Old, Hendrick
2nd : Snow and Old (Because they brought in an extra specialist spinner in Pocock)
4th : Snow, Willis and Ward.

They had a good spin attack in every game with Underwood playing all five, Pockock two and Miler one.

As for the third Test centuries, the century in the first inings by Greenidge is considered one of the finest innings of that decade.

It was not just scored out of 211, look at what the others did

• Fredricks : 0
• Richards : 4
• K'charan : 0
• C Lloyd : 2
• D Murray : 1

Selvey (replacement for Old or Snow, had a fabulous spell and England were 26 for 4. But for the partnership between Greenidge (134) and King (32) West Indies would have been routed. The other 9 batsmen scored just 32 runs between them.

It was this innings of Greenidge followed by Holdings 5 for 17 which with Roberts and Daniell bundled England out for just 71 that demoralised England so much that they were so lost in the West Indian second innings, not the weakness of their attack.

I think to run down Greenidge's centuries (particularly the first innings one) is unbelievably unfair.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

for younger members of this forum who are more stats driven than even me (yeah, i admit i have a weakness for decimals) i want to draw their attention to gordon greenidge's cumulative average

Cricinfo Statsguru - CG Greenidge - Test matches - Batting analysis

after 10 years of test cricket and 60 tests he averaged 50 which in the era he played in would be equal to 55+ in the hayden era. similarly his average stood at 48 after 80 tests, and 13 years of international cricket. the eventual decline brought it down to a very respectable, but not so great, 44; a modern day 48 i would say.

but please dont just look at his number hovering around 44 and hayden's around 48 (minus the minnows) and choose hayden purely based on numbers. it was a more difficult proposition facing fast bowling in the 70s and 80 compared to the late 90s and 00s.

i still am a huge gordon greenidge fan. but jack hobbs should be available for selection for me to choose anyone over hutton and gavaskar.

So you mention how Greenidge declined which brought his statistics down but yet you fail to mention how Hayden endured the same fate? Hayden's average was almost touching 54 before he declined in the last few months of his career and that before his decline, he was scoring a 100 at just over an average of 3 Tests per hundred, second only to Bradman? Then again, deducting a batsman's statistic against a bowling attack that featured a bowler with over 200 Test wickets at an average of well under 30 is questionable logic aswell. Here's a stat: Hayden had scored more Test centuries after 55 Tests then Greenidge did after 108.

 

[bagapath]

So you mention how Greenidge declined which brought his statistics down but yet you fail to mention how Hayden endured the same fate? Hayden's average was almost touching 54 before he declined in the last few months of his career and that before his decline, he was scoring a 100 at just over an average of 3 Tests per hundred, second only to Bradman? Then again, deducting a batsman's statistic against a bowling attack that featured a bowler with over 200 Test wickets at an average of well under 30 is questionable logic aswell. Here's a stat: Hayden had scored more Test centuries after 55 Tests then Greenidge did after 108.

you completely missed my point. i wanted to make it clear to people who never saw greenidge bat that he was much more than the 44 average. he was no flash in the pan and that he averaged 50 after 60 tests in an era when those numbers were more difficult to attain than the hayden era. of course, i consider greenidge a superior opening batsman but that doesnt mean i am going to call hayden crap against good fast bowlers. he was marginally better than crap, i admit.

 

[Ikki]

After about 51 tests Hayden was averaging about 59. Greenidge is a great opening batsman but a cut beneath Hayden IMO.

I voted Hayden and Gavaskar based on the right and left combo; defensive and attacking too. Players I also know a bit more about and feel more comfortable voting for.

Also some of SJS's views about the attacks...blah. Hayden faced as good, if not better, attacks.

Listing the attack of the sides of the batsmen in question (yes I know they didn't face their own bowlers):

Australia: Hayden
Sri Lanka: Hayden
Pakistan: Hayden
S.Africa: Hayden
India: Hayden
West Indies: Greenidge
England: Greenidge
New Zealand: Equal

 

[Uppercut]

Hayden's pretty good. It's odd how divided opinions of him are. On one hand, the "sucked against good attacks" is ridiculously overstated considering he spent the first half of his career beating test-standard FC attacks on 90s-Australia pitches into a pulp. Then again, there's little doubt he had it a lot easier than Greenidge did and never quite got the same opportunity to prove himself against all-time greats.

I'd have thought it pretty obvious that he's neither "God" nor "a steaming pile of ****" but CW has some strangely opinionated chaps.

 

[Ikki]

Apart from pitches not being as flat, I am not sure what Hayden benefitted from over Greenidge. With Greenidge, half the bowling stocks of Test Cricket were in his own team. Comparing the attacks, you'll see Hayden had to face better ones. I am not talking about Hadlee+crap, I am talking about balanced attacks.

I agree with you, Hayden's not God, but he's still one of the greatest all-time openers of all time. On this site it gets a bit ridiculous though. You have knowledgeable posters like Manan making comments like Hayden would have averaged 35 in the 80s, or some stupid (sorry) stuff like that - i.e. Hussain > Hayden.

 

[Uppercut]

Apart from pitches not being as flat, I am not sure what Hayden benefitted from over Greenidge. With Greenidge, half the bowling stocks of Test Cricket were in his own team. Comparing the attacks, you'll see Hayden had to face better ones. I am not talking about Hadlee+crap, I am talking about balanced attacks.

I agree with you, Hayden's not God, but he's still one of the greatest all-time openers of all time. On this site it gets a bit ridiculous though. You have knowledgeable posters like Manan making comments like Hayden would have averaged 35 in the 80s, or some stupid (sorry) stuff like that - i.e. Hussain > Hayden.

It's safe to say Hayden's own team contained the world's best bowlers by a distance too, so there's no use accounting for that. Anyway, since you're not shy of spreadsheets I'll direct you here and here and say that Hayden's average crudely translates to one of 44 in the 80s.

More interesting IMO is this and this look at how they ranked among their contemporaries (i couldn't find a way to include Hayden's first forays into the side without skewing the whole thing). Not much to pick between them there really. I'd certainly go for Greenidge but it's pretty reasonable to go for Haydos.

But i took Gavaskar and Hutton

 

[Ikki]

The point wasn't that Greenidge's side had the best attack, like Australia's. The point was a lot of the great bowlers during Greenidge's era were in his own side. Hadlee is an all-time great, but he is surrounded with the Chatfields. Imran is great, but he is surrounded by the Sarfrazs (until the late 80s where Wasim and Waqar show). And was generally poor whenever he faced Lillee. IIRC he was pretty good when Botham was at his peak though - also against Willis. That's about it for great attacks of his time, the majority of good pacers were in his own side: Roberts, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, Croft, Bishop, etc I wouldn't call these great attacks anymore than I would the Sri Lanka of the late 90s.

And amongst contemporaries: Hayden is top, Greenidge probably 3rd.

P.S. during Greenidge's time, Sri Lanka were minnows, you should remove them if you are going to remove Bangladesh/Zimbabwe for overall averages.

 

[Uppercut]

And amongst contemporaries: Hayden is top, Greenidge probably 3rd.

Actually he's third, and you can't use the fact that the players he's behind aren't as good as the one's Greenidge is behind as an argument in Hayden's favour.