Who is the second best opener of the last half century?

[honestbharani]

Yeah, Sehwag for me too. Fine record in its own right despite the drastic downturn in form towards the end but he made cricket fun after all the ethical turbulence India fans endured around the turn of the century. He also seemed genuinely mental in a way Jayasuriya or Gilchrist, his closest contemporaries in fearless exploits, never did.

Pfft.. we all know Jaya and Gilly and Ponting had spring in their bats.

 

[GIMH]

Cook, clearly

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If you remove the bits when he was crap it would be Mike Atherton.

 

[ataraxia]

Barry = Gavaskar

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Give Devon Conway 5 years and you'll have your answer.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Give Devon Conway 5 years and you'll have your answer.

The 12 Test Matches New Zealand play in that time won’t be enough.

 

[Flem274*]

Nobody since Greenidge or Richards has quite the universal respect of those two. Maybe we don’t give openers enough credit generally any more.

We definitely don't.

There's a reason there are way more 50+ averaging middle order batsmen than openers, especially in the past 50 years. It's the worst job in cricket.

When talking averages 45 for an opener is equal to 50 for a 3-5 batsman imo, with high 40s being 54-55.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The 12 Test Matches New Zealand play in that time won’t be enough.

He's already played 75% as many tests as Barry Richards and I voted for Bazza in the poll.

 

[Flem274*]

I've gone Graeme Smith, narrowly.

 

[GIMH]

Smith hid in the middle order to hide from our seamers, automatic DQ

 

[Uppercut]

We definitely don't.

There's a reason there are way more 50+ averaging middle order batsmen than openers, especially in the past 50 years. It's the worst job in cricket.

When talking averages 45 for an opener is equal to 50 for a 3-5 batsman imo, with high 40s being 54-55.

The other thing is that we think of openers as needing to be more technically correct than the rest of the lineup. But all of the realistic options after Greenidge have huge weaknesses offset by huge strengths. Really weird disparity between the ideal of an opener and what the best ones have actually been like.

 

[stephen]

Hayden averaged 58 over an 8 year period and did it against some very good attacks. His weaknesses are overstated and his strengths underrated. He'd probably have sustained that peak for longer if given a proper run earlier too.

Barry Richards may have had all the potential but you can't play 4 tests and be considered the best IMO.

Sehwag was good and played some fine knocks but his weaknesses were the same as Hayden's, only worse. And he was less consistent as Hayden - more likely to go huge but less likely to get a hundred.

Smith was gutsy and earned a lot of respect but was a bit below the other two. His home record is not good. He make a good foil to one of the other two.

A case can be made for someone like Greenidge or Slater, given the tougher periods they played in but I genuinely think that Hayden was better than both.

 

[Slifer]

To me it's close between Hayden and Sehwag. Hayden definitely gets respect from me for being one of the very few openers to average 50+.

Opening is easily the toughest job in all of cricket, especially in England and RSA.

 

[Gob]

Hayden averaged 58 over an 8 year period and did it against some very good attacks. His weaknesses are overstated and his strengths underrated. He'd probably have sustained that peak for longer if given a proper run earlier too.

Barry Richards may have had all the potential but you can't play 4 tests and be considered the best IMO.

Sehwag was good and played some fine knocks but his weaknesses were the same as Hayden's, only worse. And he was less consistent as Hayden - more likely to go huge but less likely to get a hundred.

Smith was gutsy and earned a lot of respect but was a bit below the other two. His home record is not good. He make a good foil to one of the other two.

A case can be made for someone like Greenidge or Slater, given the tougher periods they played in but I genuinely think that Hayden was better than both.

Wasn't it well documented that the pitches he played on at the Gabba in 90s were difficult to distinguish from the out field and he still made a mountain of runs on them? I think 05 ashes was the biggest dent of his record but not many people seem to remember his form was absolutely shot going in to that series

 

[Gob]

As far as records are concerned, Smith wins hands down

 

[Gob]

Cook, clearly

I think he was vastly over rated in Ashes cricket but equally underappreciated for his performances in the subcontinent

 

[Raz0r6ack]

We definitely don't.

There's a reason there are way more 50+ averaging middle order batsmen than openers, especially in the past 50 years. It's the worst job in cricket.

When talking averages 45 for an opener is equal to 50 for a 3-5 batsman imo, with high 40s being 54-55.

One of the tougher and understated aspects of being an opener is having to field for a day and a half and then go straight into batting. Especially after a big total has been posted and the bowlers have been resting.

Whereas middle order batsmen get to sit back and have a breather inbetween innings.

Can't recall many top openers having nightwatchmen.

 

[Shady Slim]

I think he was vastly over rated in Ashes cricket but equally underappreciated for his performances in the subcontinent

this is a solid take

 

[TheJediBrah]

Any of Smith, Cook, Hayden or Sehwag. Impossible for me to distinguish enough to place one ahead of the others

 

[Flem274*]

The other thing is that we think of openers as needing to be more technically correct than the rest of the lineup. But all of the realistic options after Greenidge have huge weaknesses offset by huge strengths. Really weird disparity between the ideal of an opener and what the best ones have actually been like.

True. I suspect this is true for all batsmen, but openers have this feature exacerbated because they open.

Complete batsmen are very rare at test level, and the ones we do see almost always bat 3 or 4. As early as childrens cricket the best player is encouraged to those positions.

I can't think of many best players through the grades who insisted they were openers. Hobbs and Gavaskar spring to mind, but culturally cricketers choose to open so they actually get a bat as kids and fc batsmen. At least that is the case in this country. The young bloke Ravindra in the first in decades to insist he's an opener.