Australia's Opening Batsman

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think Dean Jones ever opened, or if he did it was an aberration. He was generally a no.5 or 6 in Tests I believe

great username btw I assume it's a reference to One Piece?

 

[BazBall21]

Trumper
Lawry
Hayden
Simpson
Ponsford
Morris
Slater
Langer
Woodfull

Hill always batted 3. I would have Taylor over Khawaja without having to think about it. I think Usman is a flat track bully tbh.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think Dean Jones ever opened, or if he did it was an aberration. He was generally a no.5 or 6 in Tests I believe

great username btw I assume it's a reference to One Piece?

Yep, you right on both fronts. I can swear I read in Wiki that Jones was an opener; but oh well, I should had cross checked that.

 

[BazBall21]

Hayden v Simpson is very close but think Simpson gets inflated acclaim sometimes. His only hundred in England was clearly more about cashing in than mastering swing and seam. Look at the attack and scorecard. Hayden could have done it. He has thirty centuries in 103 games. Happy to have Lawry over Hayden who mastered the moving ball at Lords and Manchester in 1961 and was just as dominant at home.

 

[Burgey]

Uzzie > Elliot > Wessels > Wood > Jaques > Rogers

Mate, if you’re rating graeme wood a better batsman than either Jaques or Rogers then you’re kidding yourself

 

[Burgey]

Openers who faced the might of the W.I. at their peak are often overlooked. Rick McCosker and Bruce Laird were, IMO, better than their raw stats suggest.

Yeah Stumpy Laird was such a gutsy player

 

[BazBall21]

Yeah Stumpy Laird was such a gutsy player

The best to never make a test century.

 

[trundler]

Katich and Khawaja are quite comparable, yeah.

I reckon I'd probably have neither in the top ten though.

Simpson also if we're being fair.

 

[Burgey]

Someone mentioned Colin McDonald earlier. Undone by a comparatively small sample size but by all reports a very fine player. Averaged near enough to 40.

 

[The Sean]

Someone mentioned Colin McDonald earlier. Undone by a small sample size but by all reports a very fine player

And spent his peak years in a low scoring era too, which means his Test average probably doesn't do justice to his quality. He comes out very well on ICC ratings - the second highest rated Aussie opener ever (after Hayden), and on that metric would actually open for the All Time World 3rd XI!

 

[Coronis]

Simpson also if we're being fair.

tbf to him he did play as an opener for more than twice as long as both of those (1960-1968) sadly, fewer tests were played then, which I think needs to be adjusted for re: longevity. In relative match terms yes they’re similar though.

 

[social]

The best to never make a test century.

Made one in WSC and that counts

 

[honestbharani]

The best to never make a test century.

Hmmmm interesting

 

[social]

Simpson was a great player

He had been retired for 10 years and came back to average 50 in a test series against a full strength India

The major criticism of him in his early years was his failure to convert starts not that he couldn’t play certain types of bowling

 

[The Sean]

Made one in WSC and that counts

Made three, in fact.

Laird is a great example of consistent scoring vs all-or-nothing in his two "Test" careers. In WSC, he made three centuries in 13 SuperTests but did very little else and averaged only 25. Whereas in his 21 official Tests, he never made a century but passed 50 no fewer than 11 times and averaged 35.

 

[The Sean]

Openers who faced the might of the W.I. at their peak are often overlooked. Rick McCosker and Bruce Laird were, IMO, better than their raw stats suggest.

Agreed. I was a huge fan of Kepler Wessels for the same reason. His series against the Windies in 1984/85 was a masterclass in both skill and resilience. After starting with scores of 13, 0, 0 - and coming under immense pressure as "Joel Garner's bunny" - he then peeled off innings of 61, 98, 70, 90, 0 and 173 to finish with 505 runs at 56. Under the circumstances and given the opposition it was a fantastic performance.

 

[social]

Q

Agreed. I was a huge fan of Kepler Wessels for the same reason. His series against the Windies in 1984/85 was a masterclass in both skill and resilience. After starting with scores of 13, 0, 0 - and coming under immense pressure as "Joel Garner's bunny" - he then peeled off innings of 61, 98, 70, 90, 0 and 173 to finish with 505 runs at 56. Under the circumstances and given the opposition it was a fantastic performance.

Kepler was a seriously good player

Makes you realise how great AB was as he carried the Australian batting for years and ended up with 11000 runs @ 50

 

[Burgey]

Made three, in fact.

Laird is a great example of consistent scoring vs all-or-nothing in his two "Test" careers. In WSC, he made three centuries in 13 SuperTests but did very little else and averaged only 25. Whereas in his 21 official Tests, he never made a century but passed 50 no fewer than 11 times and averaged 35.

Given the other options around at that time, I’m pretty surprised he wasn’t persisted with tbh. It isn’t like there were a stack of better openers around. He was miles better than Wood and Hilditch, for example. Guess he was getting on a bit

 

[Coronis]

Q

Kepler was a seriously good player

Makes you realise how great AB was as he hid down the Australian batting order for years and ended up with 11000 runs @ 50

ftfy

 

[The Sean]

Given the other options around at that time, I’m pretty surprised he wasn’t persisted with tbh. It isn’t like there were a stack of better openers around. He was miles better than Wood and Hilditch, for example. Guess he was getting on a bit

John Dyson too. Yeah, I suppose the argument was that Stumpy was 32 when they dropped him and the others were all quite a bit younger. I reckon I'd have given him a few more Tests though, and it's not as though all those other blokes started scoring so heavily that they became undroppable.