Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hard to go past Sehwag. Maybe there are better openers, but none have combined attacking and success in such measure.
-
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.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
CricAddict
International Coach
Yeah, Hayden and Sehwag are the ones who strike my mind. Jayasuriya was ok but not at the ATG level in tests.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
If he's not the greatest attacking opener he's certainly the most attacking great opener. Sr of 81 is just mind boggling.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The Hot 50: The Fastest-scoring Batsmen of All Time
Charles' Davis Hot 100 has a good list of batsmen, just pick out the openers.
Sehwag is obviously out in front with an average of 49 and a strike rate of 82, but Warner (49/77), Trumper (39/67), Dilshan (41/65) Jayasuriya (40/65), Gayle (42/60) and Hayden (51/60) are other possibilities.
Charles' Davis Hot 100 has a good list of batsmen, just pick out the openers.
Sehwag is obviously out in front with an average of 49 and a strike rate of 82, but Warner (49/77), Trumper (39/67), Dilshan (41/65) Jayasuriya (40/65), Gayle (42/60) and Hayden (51/60) are other possibilities.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah Warner could trump Sehwag if he makes a successful comeback. He's shown a little more adaptive capaibilieacross conditions than Sehwag even though he's not quite as destructive when he gets in.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
G Smith's SR of 60 always surprises me too. Not a guy I'd describe as very attacking but his Sr is on the high side, about the same as harden.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think it's his rather ugly technique that throws people off, with the work around to leg. I only saw the tail end of his career but he certainly hammered us around Perth in 2012.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I could swear I've seen 74 listed somewhere, by Davis himself. Edit: no I was confusing him with Tate of all people. Davis has done a lot of score reconstruction of matches from that era so I think his figures are fairly reliable.
Last edited:
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Davis estimated that his 569 test runs were scored at a strike rate of about 112.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I wonder why pre-WWI batsmen scored much quicker than their successors albeit at a lesser average. We know average and SR are a bit of a trade-off (unless you're Bradman). Quality of pitches improving post was explains why averages increases but I wonder if something happened which prompted batsmen to bat less wildly.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe a lot of the pitches were probably so bad that they forced a lot of batsmen to score quickly before they get the inevitable ridiculous unplayable ball.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
One thing was that Tests got longer. Before about 1930 most Tests in England were played over 3 days.
Hadlee takes more WPM than Mcgrath, and does so faster considering his era. I don't see a reason to believe Mcgrath would take more WPM in the same team. Call it even for the sake of argument, although this is doing a bit of a disservice to Hadlees vastly superior record in this regard.
Considering his era, Mcgrath takes wickets cheaper. I'd say the difference between them would be that Mcgrath would go at a marginally better economy rate (mostly due to the extra bounce), which would mean marginally cheaper wickets.
The difference in average would be small. Half of Mcgraths career was the 90s, similar enough to Hadlees time. Mcgraths 2000 performances were impressive, but even if you think 2000s Mcgrath would average around 18 in Hadlees era, or that Hadlee would average late 20s in the 2000s (both of which are implausible IMO), this is a 2 rpw difference between the two across career.
Assuming 4wpm in an ATG team, this is an 8 run advantage per game. Probably a lot less, because this calculation is extremely generous to Mcgrath in every way.
In contrast, Hadlees batting would conservatively add an extra 30 runs to the team, factoring in his own runs and partnerships (think of the value add from avoiding a tail collapse when there is a rampaging Sobers for example). This is a huge swing.
Put another way, the average margin of victory between two top teams might be 150. Hadlees extra batting would win one in every 5 matches on average. It's hard to imagine how the advantage provided by Mcgraths bowling would be comparable.
I would hesitate to make this type of comparison with confidence between any other two players. But these two are so similar in style and quality, and it's hard to see them performing very differently with the ball. One of them is one of the best bats going, and one is close to the worst. I can't see a reason to pick Mcgrath.
Last edited:
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wow I never knew that!
Me neither!
Love randomly finding out things like this.
