Opening batsmen for Post WW2 XI

[wfdu_ben91]

It could be that the batsman were much poorer than the wickets were flatter so the greater degree of skill needed by Pollock on the flatter wickets is negated by the level of inferiority of the batsman.

Well then that's wrong because the majority of the batsman that Pollock bowled to were allot more successful then the batsman that Hadlee & Imran bowled to. Batsman play more shots nowdays so that the margin for era is immensely smaller for Pollock then what it was for Imran & Hadlee.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well then that's wrong because the majority of the batsman that Pollock bowled to were allot more successful then the batsman that Hadlee & Imran bowled to. Batsman play more shots nowdays so that the margin for era is immensely smaller for Pollock then what it was for Imran & Hadlee.

The argument is that they were more successful because the wickets were flatter and there were fewer quality bowlers - and batsman playing more shots increases the chances of wickets being taken as well as increasing the run rate.

Incidently I don't particularly subscribe to the view that some divine intervention flattened all wickets and all decent bowlers were taken out by snipers in the September 2001 conspiracy.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

The argument is that they were more successful because the wickets were flatter and there were fewer quality bowlers - and batsman playing more shots increases the chances of wickets being taken as well as increasing the run rate.

Yeah and bowling to more successful batsman is harder because they are more likely to make runs against you.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah and bowling to more successful batsman is harder because they are more likely to make runs against you.

...........and they're only more successful because of the flatter wickets.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

...........and they're only more successful because of the flatter wickets.

So obviously batsman are going to be better on flatter pitches then what batsman will be on bowler-friendly pitches which brings me back to my initial arguement of Pollock's average compare to Imran & Hadlee, given the conditions.

Nevertheless, back on topic...

Hayden > Greenidge

 

[Cricket_God]

So obviously batsman are going to be better on flatter pitches then what batsman will be on bowler-friendly pitches which brings me back to my initial arguement of Pollock's average compare to Imran & Hadlee, given the conditions.

Nevertheless, back on topic...

Hayden > Greenidge

Hayden struggled in the 1990s in international cricket when most teams had good attacks
its only on the indian tour in the 2000's he got going.

-http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/5616.html?class=1;spanmax1=03+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

He never faced donald,wasim,waqar,pollock at prime but when they were near the end
and on flat tracks world over ,you surely are not saying dominating the likes of medicore
medium pacers in the 2002-2006 period could make hayden ahead of some legends and
his struggles against good pace attacks are for everybody to see,he could not dominate
good pace attacks.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hayden struggled in the 1990s in international cricket when most teams had good attacks
its only on the indian tour in the 2000's he got going.

-http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/5616.html?class=1;spanmax1=03+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

He never faced donald,wasim,waqar,pollock at prime but when they were near the end
and on flat tracks world over ,you surely are not saying dominating the likes of medicore
medium pacers in the 2002-2006 period could make hayden ahead of some legends and
his struggles against good pace attacks are for everybody to see,he could not dominate
good pace attacks.

So Shoaib Akhtar is a medium pacer, eh? Because Hayden was making hundreds against Shoaib when he was at his best in 2002, bowling well over 150kph. Pollock was at his peak in 2001, Hayden made 3 tons against him. He also made consecqutive 100's against Flintoff when he was at his peak in 2005, he a medium pacer is he? Ntini a medium pacer aswell? Made plenty of 100's against him when he was at his peak. Ishant Sharma a medium pacer? Made 100's against him aswell...

 

[bagapath]

If Pollock was not in the same league as Imran & Hadlee then by your logic Greenidge isn't in the same league as Hayden?

You say a batting average of 44 in Greenidge's era is equal to an average of 48 in the modern era, so what does that mean for bowlers like Pollock? A bowling average of 23 in the modern era is like an average of 19 in Hadlee's & Imran's (both averaged 22) era? I fail to see where you are coming from. Either Hayden's way better then Greenidge or Pollock is way better then Imran & Hadlee? You can't have it both ways.

Sure I can. Pollock never took a ten-fer in 100+ tests. he took 58 balls to take a wicket. he averaged less than 4 wickets per test and he averaged more runs per wicket than hadlee and imran.

both imran and hadlee took wickets under 9 overs (54 balls). took quite a few 10 wicket hauls (the sign of a bowler's ability to run through a batting side in case you wanted to know why it is a big deal) and averaged under 23. imran took 4.5 wickets per test (in the 81 tests he bowled) and hadlee took 5 wickets per test. they took 23 and 36 five wicket hauls respectively. pollock managed only 16 despite playing more matches. while he would struggle to make it to the list of top 20 great fast bowlers of all time, hadlee and imran would easily walk into the top 10.

Also, Sehwag batted at 6 when he scored his debut century in SA - Not opener. Hayden always opened the batting in every single Test innings he played. Both of Sehwag's triple centuries were in the subcontient on incrediably slow flat wickets with no movement, which offered nothing for pace bowlers and both Tests were run-flooded draws by both teams. The conditions may of offered something for spin but South Africa didn't have a capable spinner and Saqlain was far past it by 2004. In 2003/04, Lee was useless, going for over 200 runs in an innings. Gillespie was still a formidable bowler, yes, but the rest were all struggling at the time.

agree. totally forgot sehwag scored that hundred at no.6. it doesnt count in the argument we are having.

the rest of the post is just garbage. how many triple centuries has hayden scored in the subcontinent if it is a piece of cake as you make it out to be? for that matter, how many triples were scored by indian batsmen in the subcontinent before sehawag scored those two? and sehwag's 195 in melbourne cant be brushed aside so simply. if lee went for 200 that means he got slaughtered by the indian batsmen who were in prime form. do you want to rank him as a club bowler so that any success against him should be ignored? feel free to do so, but maintain that stance in your future arguments.

also, dont bring in the pitch conditions, sideways movement blah blah as though you have taken all those factors into consideration while judging hayden's knocks.

your tone of appreciating everything recent and assuming past players were not as good is baffling. my guess is you are a very young man who started watching cricket only about 10 years ago. if not, i would be amazed.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Sure I can. Pollock never took a ten-fer in 100+ tests. he took 58 balls to take a wicket. he averaged less than 4 wickets per test and he averaged more runs per wicket than hadlee and imran.

both imran and hadlee took wickets under 9 overs (54 balls). took quite a few 10 wicket hauls (the sign of a bowler's ability to run through a batting side in case you wanted to know why it is a big deal) and averaged under 23. imran took 4.5 wickets per test (in the 81 tests he bowled) and hadlee took 5 wickets per test. they took 23 and 36 five wicket hauls respectively. pollock managed only 16 despite playing more matches. while he would struggle to make it to the list of top 20 great fast bowlers of all time, hadlee and imran would easily walk into the top 10.

This post proves nothing and that you are trying to dig yourself out of the hole. You haven't proved why Greenidge would average 48 in the modern era but yet by your logic Pollock cant average 19 with the ball in Greenidge's era?

So you are discrediting Pollock's ability to keep his economy rate at under 3 in a batsman dominated era, where aggressive batting has been so fluid?

You're comparing 5 wicket hauls, which is rubbish. Pollock always had Donald & Ntini bowling with them whilst Hadlee had no one and Imran only had an inexperienced Wasim & Waqar towards the latter end of his career. So obviously Pollock isn't going to have as many 5 wicket hauls.

Pollock also took a 10fer against India - One of the better batting lineups in world cricket of the past decade.

Mate, you just can't say that a batsman averaging 44 in the 1980's would be averaging 48 in the modern era without accepting the fact that a bowler averaging 23 in the modern era would average 19.

the rest of the post is just garbage. how many triple centuries has hayden scored in the subcontinent if it is a piece of cake as you make it out to be? for that matter, how many triples were scored by indian batsmen in the subcontinent before sehawag scored those two? and sehwag's 195 in melbourne cant be brushed aside so simply. if lee went for 200 that means he got slaughtered by the indian batsmen who were in prime form. do you want to rank him as a club bowler so that any success against him should be ignored? feel free to do so, but maintain that stance in your future arguments.

If Hayden had've played the majority of his career in the subcontient then it is quite likely that he would've made triple-centuries. Obviously Hayden didn't grow up and get to adapt to the beautiful conditions that Sehwag got to.

Lol, hypocrite. You are telling me to maintain my stance? When you're arguement is collasping because you say that Pollock wouldn't average 19 in Greenidge's era, even though Greenidge would supposely average 48 in Pollock's era.

also, dont bring in the pitch conditions, sideways movement blah blah as though you have taken all those factors into consideration while judging hayden's knocks.

That's why Hayden has comprehensively outperformed Sehwag as an opener in the most difficult batting conditions in world cricket since 2000 - South Africa.

your tone of appreciating everything recent and assuming past players were not as good is baffling. my guess is you are a very young man who started watching cricket only about 10 years ago. if not, i would be amazed.

Well that's true and maybe you're a bitter old man that you can't accept the fact that cricket has improved.

You say the modern batsman have only made runs because of flat pitches. That's like saying bowlers that averaged 22-25 in Test Cricket before the 1990's would get murdered on flat pitches by flattrack bullies like Sehwags, Gilchrist's, etc because batsman wore helmets and the bowlers weren't allowed to bowl more then 2 bouncers in an over.

 

[bagapath]

Well that's true and maybe you're a bitter old man that you can't accept the fact that cricket has improved.

i am older but not bitter by any standards. my guessing your age was not meant to insult you personally but it was to understand your stance. if you choose to use terms like "bitter" and get into personal insults then i will choose to ignore you. no point in talking to you because you are not too keen on knowing about players you've not seen. good luck to you. end of argument from my side.

 

[Pratters]

Oh yes. I too think Gavaskar was an over all better player than Greenidge but I just felt it would be good to have one of the openers a bit mote aggressive than Hutton and Gavaskar.

Its just a matter of strategy not at all a reflection on their relative merits.

I understand your view point re strategy. I wouldn't apply it in this case as Hutton/Gavaskar seems a dream pair to me.

 

[Cricket_God]

So Shoaib Akhtar is a medium pacer, eh? Because Hayden was making hundreds against Shoaib when he was at his best in 2002, bowling well over 150kph. Pollock was at his peak in 2001, Hayden made 3 tons against him. He also made consecqutive 100's against Flintoff when he was at his peak in 2005, he a medium pacer is he? Ntini a medium pacer aswell? Made plenty of 100's against him when he was at his peak. Ishant Sharma a medium pacer? Made 100's against him aswell...

He struggled against shoaib and making 1 hundred in 6 matches does not mean a thing
on flat decks.Pollock had lost his zip by the time hayden got going,consecutive
hundreds against flintoff? he struggled throughout the ashes and do not mention the icc world 11 match.He surely made some good hundreds against some decent attacks
but most attacks in the 2000-2005 were medicore and his downfall was done by rising fast bowling stocks in the world.

 

[Cricket_God]

This post proves nothing and that you are trying to dig yourself out of the hole. You haven't proved why Greenidge would average 48 in the modern era but yet by your logic Pollock cant average 19 with the ball in Greenidge's era?

So you are discrediting Pollock's ability to keep his economy rate at under 3 in a batsman dominated era, where aggressive batting has been so fluid?

You're comparing 5 wicket hauls, which is rubbish. Pollock always had Donald & Ntini bowling with them whilst Hadlee had no one and Imran only had an inexperienced Wasim & Waqar towards the latter end of his career. So obviously Pollock isn't going to have as many 5 wicket hauls.

Pollock also took a 10fer against India - One of the better batting lineups in world cricket of the past decade.

Mate, you just can't say that a batsman averaging 44 in the 1980's would be averaging 48 in the modern era without accepting the fact that a bowler averaging 23 in the modern era would average 19.


If Hayden had've played the majority of his career in the subcontient then it is quite likely that he would've made triple-centuries. Obviously Hayden didn't grow up and get to adapt to the beautiful conditions that Sehwag got to.

Lol, hypocrite. You are telling me to maintain my stance? When you're arguement is collasping because you say that Pollock wouldn't average 19 in Greenidge's era, even though Greenidge would supposely average 48 in Pollock's era.


That's why Hayden has comprehensively outperformed Sehwag as an opener in the most difficult batting conditions in world cricket since 2000 - South Africa.


Well that's true and maybe you're a bitter old man that you can't accept the fact that cricket has improved.

You say the modern batsman have only made runs because of flat pitches. That's like saying bowlers that averaged 22-25 in Test Cricket before the 1990's would get murdered on flat pitches by flattrack bullies like Sehwags, Gilchrist's, etc because batsman wore helmets and the bowlers weren't allowed to bowl more then 2 bouncers in an over.

Hayden -http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/5616.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround

shewag-http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround

and shewag outclass in everyother place except newzealand which by the second test the record will be straight .

 

[wfdu_ben91]

He struggled against shoaib and making 1 hundred in 6 matches does not mean a thing
on flat decks.Pollock had lost his zip by the time hayden got going,consecutive
hundreds against flintoff? he struggled throughout the ashes and do not mention the icc world 11 match.He surely made some good hundreds against some decent attacks
but most attacks in the 2000-2005 were medicore and his downfall was done by rising fast bowling stocks in the world.

He averaged over 40 in matches played against Shoaib. That's hardly struggling.
Pollock was all class up until 2003.
Hayden batted well in the 2005 Ashes, he even said he did. His main problem was that he kept getting caught when he was in the 30's and when he got his head down he got a big 100.
Deducting the ICC World XI game is the poorest excuse, he made runs against the best bowlers in the world, you can't possibly argue against it.

Here are Hayden's 100s against good attacks since 2000

136 vs. New Zealand, 2001 @ Brisbane
Bowlers: Chris Cains (177 wkts @ 29.20), Dion Nash (93 wkts @ 28.48), Simon O'Connor (53 wkts @ 32.52), Daniel Vettori (106 wkts @ 33.31), Nathan Astle (30 wkts @ 49.60), Craig McMillan (21 wkts @ 43.76)

131 vs. South Africa, 2001 @ Adelaide
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (254 wkts @ 20.46), Nantie Hayward (30 wkts @ 29.80), Makhaya Ntini (45 wkts @ 35.93), Jacques Kallis (105 wkts @ 28.20), Lance Klusener (78 wkts @ 37.34), Claude Henderson (18 wkts @ 33.27)

138 vs. South Africa, 2001 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Allan Donald (328 wkts @ 21.77), Shaun Pollock (258 wkts @ 20.50), Nantie Hayward (32 wkts @ 31.34), Jacques Kallis (105 wkts @ 28.72), Claude Henderson (19 wkts @ 37.21), Lance Klusener (78 wkts @ 37.48)

105 vs. South Africa, 2002 @ Sydney
Bowlers: Allan Donald (329 wkts @ 22.10), Shaun Pollock (261 wkts @ 20.72), Jacques Kallis (106 wkts @ 29.66), Claude Henderson (19 wkts @ 43.84), Nicky Boje (48 wkts @ 27.06), Justin Ontong (0 wkts @ -)

122 vs. South Africa, 2002 @ Johannesburg
Bowlers: Allan Donald (330 wkts @ 22.25), Makhaya Ntini (46 wkts @ 37.84), Jacques Kallis (108 wkts @ 30.19), Andre Nel (8 wkts @ 36.12), Nicky Boje (49 wkts @ 29.63), Neil McKenzie (0 wkts @ -)

119 vs. Pakistan, 2002 @ Sharjah
Bowlers: Waqar Younis (357 wkts @ 23.22), Shoaib Akhtar (78 wkts @ 27.87), Danish Kaneria (39 wkts @ 23.83), Abdul Razzaq (48 wkts @ 31.83), Saqlain Mushtaq (181 wkts @ 28.09)

197 & 103 vs. England, 2002 @ Brisbane
Bowlers: Andy Caddick (220 wkts @ 29.60), Matthew Hoggard (60 wkts @ 34.16), Simon Jones (5 wkts @ 32.20), Craig White (47 wkts @ 39.44), Ashley Giles (55 wkts @ 38.21), Mark Butcher (10 wkts @ 32.00)

130 vs. Sri Lanka, 2004 @ Galle
Bowlers: Chaminda Vaas (230 wkts @ 30.45), Kumar Dharmasena (69 wkts @ 42.31), Muttiah Muralitharan (496 wkts @ 22.86), Tillakaratne Dilshan (0 wkts @ -, Sanath Jayasuriya (75 wkts @ 33.72), Upul Chandana (22 wkts @ 39.00)

117 & 132 vs. Sri Lanka, 2004, Cairns
Bowlers: Chaminda Vaas (253 wkts @ 30.31), Nuwan Zoysa (64 wkts @ 33.70), Thilan Samaraweera (14 wkts @ 45.35), Lasith Malinga (10 wkts @ 26.40), Upul Chandana (34 wkts @ 33.17), Sanath Jayasuriya (80 wkts @ 33.73)

138 vs. England, 2005 @ London
Bowlers: Stephen Harmison (138 wkts @ 28.49), Matthew Hoggard (173 wkts @ 29.63), Andrew Flintoff (143 wkts @ 32.31), Ashley Giles (137 wkts @ 38.66), Paul Collingwood (0 wkts @ -)

111 vs ICC World XI, 2005 @ Sydney
Bowers: Stephen Harmison (142 wkts @ 28.40), Andrew Flintoff (150 wkts @ 31.52), Jacques Kallis (184 wkts @ 31.63), Muttiah Muralitharan (568 wkts @ 22.23), Daniel Vettori (208 wkts @ 34.86)

137 vs. South Africa, 2005 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (384 wkts @ 22.39), Makhaya Ntini (230 wkts @ 29.22), Jacques Kallis (187 wkts @ 31.80), Andre Nel (72 wkts @ 25.91), Nicky Boje (88 wkts @ 38.89), Graeme Smith (8 wkts @ 81.50)

102 vs. South Africa, 2006 @ Durban
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (387 wkts @ 22.97), Makhaya Ntini (239 wkts @ 29.15), Nicky Boje (93 wkts @ 39.30), Andre Nel (81 wkts @ 27.20), Jacques Kallis (194 wkts @ 31.56)

153 vs. England, 2006 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Matthew Hoggard (235 wkts @ 30.18), Andrew Flintoff (196 wkts @ 31.89), Stephen Harmison (187 wkts @ 30.36), Sajid Mahmood (19 wkts @ 36.05), Monty Panesar (40 wkts @ 33.15), Paul Collingwood (1 wkt @ 265.00), Kevin Pietersen (1 wkt @ 201.00)

124 vs. India, 2007 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Zaheer Khan (170 wkts @ 33.60), RP Singh (29 wkts @ 32.89), Harbhajan Singh (251 wkts @ 30.72), Sourav Ganguly (32 wkts @ 49.93), Anil Kumble (591 wkts @ 28.63), Sachin Tendulkar (42 wkts @ 52.04)

103 vs. India, 2008 @ Adelaide
Bowlers: RP Singh (40 wkts @ 33.22), Irfan Pathan (100 wkts @ 31.41), Ishant Sharma (12 wkts @ 45.58), Harbhajan Singh (256 wkts @ 31.40), Anil Kumble (604 wkts @ 28.85), Virender Sehwag (18 wkts @ 41.61), Sachin Tendulkar (42 wkts @ 52.66), Sourav Ganguly (32 wkts @ 50.53)

Hayden -http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/5616.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround

shewag-http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;orderby=default;template=results;type=allround

and shewag outclass in everyother place except newzealand which by the second test the record will be straight .

Sehwag averages 44 outside the subcontient. That's his true away average. Getting cheap runs on pitches that are exactly the same as your home countries, do not count as away runs. After 66 Tests (Same as Sehwag has currently played), Hayden averaged 47 away from home.

47 > 44 = Hayden > Sehwag

If Sehwag plays as many Tests as Hayden then Sehwag won't average over 50. He isn't in the same class as Hayden.

 

[Cricket_God]

He averaged over 40 in matches played against Shoaib. That's hardly struggling.
Pollock was all class up until 2003.
Hayden batted well in the 2005 Ashes, he even said he did. His main problem was that he kept getting caught when he was in the 30's and when he got his head down he got a big 100.
Deducting the ICC World XI game is the poorest excuse, he made runs against the best bowlers in the world, you can't possibly argue against it.

Here are Hayden's 100s against good attacks since 2000

136 vs. New Zealand, 2001 @ Brisbane
Bowlers: Chris Cains (177 wkts @ 29.20), Dion Nash (93 wkts @ 28.48), Simon O'Connor (53 wkts @ 32.52), Daniel Vettori (106 wkts @ 33.31), Nathan Astle (30 wkts @ 49.60), Craig McMillan (21 wkts @ 43.76)

131 vs. South Africa, 2001 @ Adelaide
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (254 wkts @ 20.46), Nantie Hayward (30 wkts @ 29.80), Makhaya Ntini (45 wkts @ 35.93), Jacques Kallis (105 wkts @ 28.20), Lance Klusener (78 wkts @ 37.34), Claude Henderson (18 wkts @ 33.27)

138 vs. South Africa, 2001 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Allan Donald (328 wkts @ 21.77), Shaun Pollock (258 wkts @ 20.50), Nantie Hayward (32 wkts @ 31.34), Jacques Kallis (105 wkts @ 28.72), Claude Henderson (19 wkts @ 37.21), Lance Klusener (78 wkts @ 37.48)

105 vs. South Africa, 2002 @ Sydney
Bowlers: Allan Donald (329 wkts @ 22.10), Shaun Pollock (261 wkts @ 20.72), Jacques Kallis (106 wkts @ 29.66), Claude Henderson (19 wkts @ 43.84), Nicky Boje (48 wkts @ 27.06), Justin Ontong (0 wkts @ -)

122 vs. South Africa, 2002 @ Johannesburg
Bowlers: Allan Donald (330 wkts @ 22.25), Makhaya Ntini (46 wkts @ 37.84), Jacques Kallis (108 wkts @ 30.19), Andre Nel (8 wkts @ 36.12), Nicky Boje (49 wkts @ 29.63), Neil McKenzie (0 wkts @ -)

119 vs. Pakistan, 2002 @ Sharjah
Bowlers: Waqar Younis (357 wkts @ 23.22), Shoaib Akhtar (78 wkts @ 27.87), Danish Kaneria (39 wkts @ 23.83), Abdul Razzaq (48 wkts @ 31.83), Saqlain Mushtaq (181 wkts @ 28.09)

197 & 103 vs. England, 2002 @ Brisbane
Bowlers: Andy Caddick (220 wkts @ 29.60), Matthew Hoggard (60 wkts @ 34.16), Simon Jones (5 wkts @ 32.20), Craig White (47 wkts @ 39.44), Ashley Giles (55 wkts @ 38.21), Mark Butcher (10 wkts @ 32.00)

130 vs. Sri Lanka, 2004 @ Galle
Bowlers: Chaminda Vaas (230 wkts @ 30.45), Kumar Dharmasena (69 wkts @ 42.31), Muttiah Muralitharan (496 wkts @ 22.86), Tillakaratne Dilshan (0 wkts @ -, Sanath Jayasuriya (75 wkts @ 33.72), Upul Chandana (22 wkts @ 39.00)

117 & 132 vs. Sri Lanka, 2004, Cairns
Bowlers: Chaminda Vaas (253 wkts @ 30.31), Nuwan Zoysa (64 wkts @ 33.70), Thilan Samaraweera (14 wkts @ 45.35), Lasith Malinga (10 wkts @ 26.40), Upul Chandana (34 wkts @ 33.17), Sanath Jayasuriya (80 wkts @ 33.73)

138 vs. England, 2005 @ London
Bowlers: Stephen Harmison (138 wkts @ 28.49), Matthew Hoggard (173 wkts @ 29.63), Andrew Flintoff (143 wkts @ 32.31), Ashley Giles (137 wkts @ 38.66), Paul Collingwood (0 wkts @ -)

111 vs ICC World XI, 2005 @ Sydney
Bowers: Stephen Harmison (142 wkts @ 28.40), Andrew Flintoff (150 wkts @ 31.52), Jacques Kallis (184 wkts @ 31.63), Muttiah Muralitharan (568 wkts @ 22.23), Daniel Vettori (208 wkts @ 34.86)

137 vs. South Africa, 2005 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (384 wkts @ 22.39), Makhaya Ntini (230 wkts @ 29.22), Jacques Kallis (187 wkts @ 31.80), Andre Nel (72 wkts @ 25.91), Nicky Boje (88 wkts @ 38.89), Graeme Smith (8 wkts @ 81.50)

102 vs. South Africa, 2006 @ Durban
Bowlers: Shaun Pollock (387 wkts @ 22.97), Makhaya Ntini (239 wkts @ 29.15), Nicky Boje (93 wkts @ 39.30), Andre Nel (81 wkts @ 27.20), Jacques Kallis (194 wkts @ 31.56)

153 vs. England, 2006 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Matthew Hoggard (235 wkts @ 30.18), Andrew Flintoff (196 wkts @ 31.89), Stephen Harmison (187 wkts @ 30.36), Sajid Mahmood (19 wkts @ 36.05), Monty Panesar (40 wkts @ 33.15), Paul Collingwood (1 wkt @ 265.00), Kevin Pietersen (1 wkt @ 201.00)

124 vs. India, 2007 @ Melbourne
Bowlers: Zaheer Khan (170 wkts @ 33.60), RP Singh (29 wkts @ 32.89), Harbhajan Singh (251 wkts @ 30.72), Sourav Ganguly (32 wkts @ 49.93), Anil Kumble (591 wkts @ 28.63), Sachin Tendulkar (42 wkts @ 52.04)

103 vs. India, 2008 @ Adelaide
Bowlers: RP Singh (40 wkts @ 33.22), Irfan Pathan (100 wkts @ 31.41), Ishant Sharma (12 wkts @ 45.58), Harbhajan Singh (256 wkts @ 31.40), Anil Kumble (604 wkts @ 28.85), Virender Sehwag (18 wkts @ 41.61), Sachin Tendulkar (42 wkts @ 52.66), Sourav Ganguly (32 wkts @ 50.53)


Sehwag averages 44 outside the subcontient. That's his true away average. Getting cheap runs on pitches that are exactly the same as your home countries, do not count as away runs. After 66 Tests (Same as Sehwag has currently played), Hayden averaged 47 away from home.

47 > 44 = Hayden > Sehwag

If Sehwag plays as many Tests as Hayden then Sehwag won't average over 50. He isn't in the same class as Hayden.

Most of the bowlers average well above 25 calling them great attacks is a joke.
Fact is shewag has averaged more than hayden in most countries and shewag averages 60 in australia and he has just hit his prime.Really i hate to compare people of different eras so hayden comparison is only with shewag and not with legendary openers as bowling attacks,pitches,tempo of the game were different.for the 1990-2010 i would choose
shewag and hayden for the best opening combination anyday.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Most of the bowlers average well above 25 calling them great attacks is a joke.
Fact is shewag has averaged more than hayden in most countries and shewag averages 60 in australia and he has just hit his prime.Really i hate to compare people of different eras so hayden comparison is only with shewag and not with legendary openers as bowling attacks,pitches,tempo of the game were different.for the 1990-2010 i would choose
shewag and hayden for the best opening combination anyday.

Mate, overall attacks nowadays are probably stronger then ever. Australia, England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa have all had quality overall bowling attacks at atleast one stage over the last decade.

In the 1980's the West Indies were the only team with a great overall attack.
In the 1970's the Englishmen were the only team with a great overall attack.

Sure, their was probably a wider spread of great bowlers from different countries but that doesn't mean the overall bowling attacks were stronger. Bowlers nowdays are far more experienced at International level, because they play more matches and have more Test wickets under their belts.

The only reason Sehwag has averaged more then Hayden in some countries is because Hayden has played twice as many matches as Sehwag. If you compare them when they had played the same amount of matches then Hayden was far ahead of Sehwag and that's when Sehwag has played in easier conditions.

 

[Cricket_God]

Mate, overall attacks nowadays are probably stronger then ever. Australia, England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa have all had quality overall bowling attacks at atleast one stage over the last decade.

In the 1980's the West Indies were the only team with a great overall attack.
In the 1970's the Englishmen were the only team with a great overall attack.

Sure, their was probably a wider spread of great bowlers from different countries but that doesn't mean the overall bowling attacks were stronger. Bowlers nowdays are far more experienced at International level, because they play more matches and have more Test wickets under their belts.

The only reason Sehwag has averaged more then Hayden in some countries is because Hayden has played twice as many matches as Sehwag. If you compare them when they had played the same amount of matches then Hayden was far ahead of Sehwag and that's when Sehwag has played in easier conditions.

It agree nowadays bowlers may have been better as they bowl mostly on flat pitches ,
but still you cannot compare different eras,comapriso with shewag is allright and as i said
shewag is now at his peak ,so we will see when he e nds who is better.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It agree nowadays bowlers may have been better as they bowl mostly on flat pitches ,
but still you cannot compare different eras,comapriso with shewag is allright and as i said
shewag is now at his peak ,so we will see when he e nds who is better.

Sehwag relies on a good eye more then anything else, much like Viv and Gilly did. Sehwag is reaching the same age as Viv & Gilly when their eyes started to fade on them -- So I don't see Sehwag getting close to Hayden.

Graeme Smith, Gautam Gambhir and Phillip Hughes are more likely to get close to Hayden or even surpass him.

 

[Cricket_God]

Sehwag relies on a good eye more then anything else, much like Viv and Gilly did. Sehwag is reaching the same age as Viv & Gilly when their eyes started to fade on them -- So I don't see Sehwag getting close to Hayden.

Graeme Smith, Gautam Gambhir and Phillip Hughes are more likely to get close to Hayden or even surpass him.

Hughes,Give him some time mate. Every batsman gets better with experience
its crap talking about eye getting weak in the 30,s fact is shewag is improving and adding more to his game his legside play has improved so has his defence and he has addd the pull shot also.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hayden proves he's up with the best - Cricket - www.theage.com.au