Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[Ikki]

Overall there were 47, which was a few more than I'd thought actually. But let's look at them...

Maybe it is better to look at it like this:

Warne

McGrath

Gillespie

 

[aussie]

Overall there were 47, which was a few more than I'd thought actually. But let's look at them...

The first 9 of these were when Gillespie was just starting out, and was never a complete fixture in the side. Still bowled pretty well, though, of course.

The next 7 were during the period when Warne was mostly bowling very poorly.

The next 13 were during a time when Gillespie wasn't actually doing that well - he took 17 at 20 in the first 3, then 26 at 42.46 in the remaining 10.

There were 3 games in The Ashes 2002/03 when the combination was perhaps at the peak of its powers. Then McGrath (and Gillespie briefly) got injured again, then there were another 5 where the combination was often thereabouts but never fully on together. Then there was 5 at home in 2004/05 where they ransacked all before them (along with Michael Kasprowicz in the best comination of the lot).

Then another 5, in New Zealand and England in early 2005, when Gillespie completely went off-the-boil.

So as I said - it was a combination that could have done great things, but through various combinations of circumstances, never quite managed it. Still there won't have been a hell of a lot more attacks obviously in or near the same class in recent times. But their own calibre is of times overstated.

Ha, you are full problems rich i love how you just break things down statistically. But using this breakdown to recharge my memory i would say simply between the 2001 Ashes to the IND 2004 the trio (with Kasper coming into play in 04) was bowling at the peak of their powers.

 

[Richard]

Maybe it is better to look at it like this:

Warne

McGrath

Gillespie

It might be the best way if you were trying to portray that the attack always fired together. If you wanted the truth of the matter, though, you'd do best to look at things on a game-by-game basis.

 

[Richard]

Ha, you are full problems rich i love how you just break things down statistically. But using this breakdown to recharge my memory i would say simply between the 2001 Ashes to the IND 2004 the trio (with Kasper coming into play in 04) was bowling at the peak of their powers.

I used virtually nothing in the way of stats there - I just gave how each bowler was bowling in different games, and periods of consecutive games. Obviously, how they were bowling is reflected in certain stats, as always, but that's it.

McGrath, Gillespie and Warne didn't all that often all fire simualtaneously, but when you have as many as three bowlers of this calibre, you can still win matches very often even with just two or even one firing.

 

[Ikki]

It might be the best way if you were trying to portray that the attack always fired together. If you wanted the truth of the matter, though, you'd do best to look at things on a game-by-game basis.

The other way would also mislead for example if there were at times spells of Ponting or another part-timer dragging the triumvirate down.

Anyway, wouldn't it be apt to look at "totals for bowling team" rather than "totals for batting team"?

I am not quite sure at what you're measuring there, I could be wrong.

 

[aussie]

D'you know how good Ian Redpath was?

Very, very good.

No doubt Redpath has a good career based on stats, but don't know how he suddenly jump up to be mentioned as one of the top 10 Australian openers ever you are probably the first person i've ever heard rate him so highly.

The current Hayden though is easily the most talented, destructive & prolific opener Australia has had since the Simpson/Lawry era.

 

[Richard]

The other way would also mislead for example if there were at times spells of Ponting or another part-timer dragging the triumvirate down.

Anyway, wouldn't it be apt to look at "totals for bowling team" rather than "totals for batting team"?

I am not quite sure at what you're measuring there, I could be wrong.

I'm looking purely at who out of just 3 bowlers (taking 0 account of any others) was bowling well at certain times. That's why I said this is the best way of looking at how the attack was functioning as a pack.

 

[Richard]

No doubt Redpath has a good career based on stats, but don't know how he suddenly jump up to be mentioned as one of the top 10 Australian openers ever you are probably the first person i've ever heard rate him so highly.

I've heard many people talk in glowing terms of him - unsurprising for one with such a good record.

The current Hayden though is easily the most talented, destructive & prolific opener Australia has had since the Simpson/Lawry era.

Slater more so, and against generally better bowling, IMO.

 

[Engle]

Redpath actually batted more in non-opening spots (61 to 59) than opening.
How he can be considered a better opener than Hayden is beyond me. He was plainly good, nothing more.

For my AT Aus XI, I'd have Hayden walking out with Trumper to open.

 

[neville cardus]

I dont see why not.
You wouldnt call yourself a better scientist than Newton, Jenner etc but chances are yourself and many others know far more than they did.
Same with modern batsmen, they have the benefit of accumulated knowledge without having to do anything revolutionary themselves.
Grace is the father of modern batting and should be revered as such. Without him cricket as we know it wouldnt exist. Its certainly possible that a modern player could be a better actual batsman than him (though impossible to know for sure) though that really isnt that relevant. What is more relevant is that he changed the cricketing world and layed a foundation for every subsequent player to build upon. In the same way the average science school teacher has a greater knowledge than even the greatest scientific minds of yesteryear, however we would never class them as greater based purely on the fact they know more.

Very well put, sir. As Fry said to Arlott over a good meal, prior to their falling out, "W.G. was not just the greatest batsman; he created modern batting, so no-one can ever be greater than he was without remaking the entire game." Arlott, lovely chap, later adapted that praise to yours truly and his literary greatness. Difficult to argue with either point, wouldn't you say?

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

sunny

1.sunil broad bat gavaskar ( > sobers , lara , sachin , viv , bradman > headly) > 2.hobbs


(elite club of eight greatest batsmen of alltime)

 

[hang on]

just adore your definitive pronouncements, tinjujishnu, in so many of these threads.

almost as much as your spelling of some of the players' - about whom u show such blithe certitude - names. an admirable trait, really.

 

[hang on]

difficult to split hobbs, hutton, and gavaskar.

hutton and gavaskar, perhaps. only because their game was more 'modern', for whatever that is worth. not very much i'd wager, but cannot find any other way of separating them.

 

[zaremba]

For me, Hobbs then Hayden.

tee hee hee. Hayden the second greatest opening batsman of all time? I think not. CBF to trawl through the thread to see whether you were joking or not.

I agree that Jack Hobbs is in the top 2, but a very distant second to WG Grace.

 

[Burgey]

Gavaskar better than Bradman and Sobers?

 

[Howe_zat]

Did Bradman or Sobers ever open the batting?

 

[Burgey]

Did you read the post?

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

wil u b happy , if i swap don-sunny positions?
i knw , don was most dominant , but wht about sticky wickets ? no: of opponents ? lack of professionalism, quality of 80s bowlers .. may b i am wrong , but i believe sunny as d best with my limited cricket knowledge..

 

[grecian]

tee hee hee. Hayden the second greatest opening batsman of all time? I think not. CBF to trawl through the thread to see whether you were joking or not.

I agree that Jack Hobbs is in the top 2, but a very distant second to WG Grace.

Not sure that's in the top 20 of the trollish statements in this thread, TBH.

 

[slowfinger]

I remember Bhupinder's controversy, good times