Best Test Opener ?

[Richard]

1) Sehwag
2) Langer
3) Hayden
4) Trescothick
5) Smith
6) Butt
6) The rest.

Hmm...
I'm interested as to how Salman can be classed as above the-rest.
To me he seems a pretty bog-standard in-out Test-match opening batsman and being Pakistani only makes that more likely. Sure, he looks good when he comes-off, but he has so far done so an unexceptional number of times, in both First-Class and Test cricket.

 

[aussie]

How on Earth anyone can possibly call Hayden better than Smith is beyond me when both clearly have huge (and identical) flaws in their game yet Smith has had his exposed far less often.

well i would agree with you if it was still the ahses but clearly Hayden has improved in his ability to playing the swinging ball coming back into since & Smith still has big problems againts it, so for now Hayden is better than Smith.

 

[Richard]

well him missing those simple straight balls isn't a technical fault?

No, it's not - even the most basic batsmen rarely miss lots of straight balls. For someone usually so strong in that area such as Smith to miss so many hints at poor form.

and please tell me the others occassion in Smith's career that he faced a quality all-round attack other than vs England 2004/05 & Australia just recently?

Australia 2001\02, Sri Lanka 2002\03, Pakistan 2003\04, Sri Lanka 2004, India 2004\05.
Several of whom could be called in no uncertain terms much better than the Australia class of 2005\06.

 

[Richard]

well i would agree with you if it was still the ahses but clearly Hayden has improved in his ability to playing the swinging ball coming back into since & Smith still has big problems againts it, so for now Hayden is better than Smith.

Hayden has made no improvements whatsoever, anyone can see that. That a bowler as simple as Kyle Mills caused him such problems in 2004\05 attests to that.

 

[Swervy]

How on Earth is Langer better technically equipped than de Villiers?
de Villiers does not tend to get hit 50 times every Test. Langer mightn't be troubled by the short-ball in terms of losing his wicket, but de Villiers generally tends to avoid it.
Obviously it's not too difficult to have a better technique than Hayden, Trescothick or Sehwag (or Smith, really) and I find it near enough inconceivable that any would average much more than the early 30s in an era of better bowling and more seam-friendly pitches. That they can be ranked at the top of the openers' tree is a sad commentary on the times and it'll be a gross injustice if any are ranked ahead of the like of Atherton, Kirsten, Slater, Taylor, Anwar, etc..

again, it pure guess work regarding those players and what their averages would be in more bowler friendly times...but I would guarantee that those players wouldnt have averages in the early 30's...remember technique isnt actually everything.

I think you do have a romanticised view of the players that were around when you started following cricket

As for Atapattu - most infuriating batsman. Ever. How anyone can go from being so immovable to so stupidly vulnerable in the space of a week (sometimes even less) is totally beyond me. If he could have less single-figure days and more 30s and 70s he'd be up there with the best openers in history.

somewhat of an exageration I think....

 

[aussie]

No, it's not - even the most basic batsmen rarely miss lots of straight balls. For someone usually so strong in that area such as Smith to miss so many hints at poor form.

Australia 2001\02, Sri Lanka 2002\03, Pakistan 2003\04, Sri Lanka 2004, India 2004\05.
Several of whom could be called in no uncertain terms much better than the Australia class of 2005\06.

1. It cant be poor form in Smith's case everytime the ball is swinning into him (not just straight balls) he has much problems, Hoggard showed it in SA & Lee showed it just recently.

2. Fair enough here..

 

[aussie]

Hayden has made no improvements whatsoever, anyone can see that. That a bowler as simple as Kyle Mills caused him such problems in 2004\05 attests to that.

yes & didn't he play in NZ before the ashes (more precisely the oval test)?

Since that game he has had a few matches where he has had conditions where the ball has been swinning into him i.e the oval test, super test, 1st day at perth, 1st day at the MCG & throughout the SCG test, Hayden has definately improved in that area, he doesn't anymore push out the front in front of the stumps very early when facing the right arm bowlers which has made him such a LBW candidate in the past, now he waits and plays late.

 

[Richard]

again, it pure guess work regarding those players and what their averages would be in more bowler friendly times...but I would guarantee that those players wouldnt have averages in the early 30's...remember technique isnt actually everything.

I think you do have a romanticised view of the players that were around when you started following cricket



somewhat of an exageration I think....

Not really, it's fairly obvious to anyone that post-2001\02 has been the most bat-friendly era Test-cricket has ever embraced.
Of course technique isn't everything, I've said that enough times, shot-selection is far more important, but the fact is as an opener it's usually pretty important to have a technique that isn't hugely vulnerable to the moving ball. All of Hayden, Sehwag, Trescothick and, on evidence to date, Smith, would have struggled hugely in any era where the ball moved around plenty (which covers pretty well most of Test history) in my estimation.
Yes, I do indeed regard highly many players of the mid and late 1990s, I think it was a time of high-calibre cricket. However, I also have low regard for the moderate players of that time, and equally high regard for the good players of our current time (though they number far less in my estimation - poor bowlers and poor batsmen who aren't tested by poor bowlers).
Virender Sehwag isn't the most intelligent chap, of course, but when asked, in Sunil Gavaskar's presence, to compare their techniques, he hit the nail on the head - Gavaskar's technique was what was needed in his time, Sehwag plays as play happens in this era. He can't be faulted for doing so, but equally I simply cannot fathom how people can suggest he'd be especially successful against the Australian attack of the 70s, the West Indian ones of the mid-60s, mid-late-70s, 80s and 90s, the South African attack of the 90s, the Pakistan one of the 80s and 90s, or even many England attacks in the 70s, early 80s and most of the 90s.
Not to mention the fact that the higher catching standards would have some effect too.

 

[Richard]

1. It cant be poor form in Smith's case everytime the ball is swinning into him (not just straight balls) he has much problems, Hoggard showed it in SA & Lee showed it just recently.

Except that he has only ever had small, spasmodic problems with the inswinger (Hoggard in the middle of the 2004\05 series, Shabbir Ahmed in 2003\04). Lee (and Bracken) had most success merely with straight balls, not with inswingers, and while inswingers can be attributed to technical faults, missing straight balls can't, when he is naturally so strong in that area.

 

[Richard]

yes & didn't he play in NZ before the ashes (more precisely the oval test)?

Since that game he has had a few matches where he has had conditions where the ball has been swinning into him i.e the oval test, super test, 1st day at perth, 1st day at the MCG & throughout the SCG test, Hayden has definately improved in that area, he doesn't anymore push out the front in front of the stumps very early when facing the right arm bowlers which has made him such a LBW candidate in the past, now he waits and plays late.

He played NZ many times in 2004 and 2004\05, and in just about every game Kyle Mills got him lbw (only rarely did he get the decision, though). Shoaib Akhtar then caused similar problems, but of course Shoaib will cause anyone problems on his day.
I'll wait until I see him face serious inswing for the next time - while Pollock and Nel are admirable in many ways, neither are really noted for swinging the ball into the left-hander. find it near enough inconceivable that the faults of a career can be corrected so late.

 

[marc71178]

Not to mention the fact that the higher catching standards would have some effect too.

What higher catching standards?

 

[C_C]

So Richard, tell me - how good was Viv Richard's technique or Javed Miandad's technique ?

Technique is utterly irrelevant.
What matters is what your balance is when you make contact. If you watch closely, you'd see that Sehwag has excellent balance at the point of contact - head is still and weight distribution is stable.
Which is why you often see batsmen with dodgy techniques doing quite well ( Viv was the prime example, Gilly's technique isnt too flash either. Same with Sehwag and Lara's technique is flawed) and batsmen with perfect technique failing abysmally ( SS Das, Darren Ganga, Carl Hooper, etc.)
Sehwag has done rather well against the full strength Aussie attack and in that series, Bangalore was neutral ( wasnt a spin-paradise) and Nagpur was more seam-friendly than most wickets outside the subcontinent by recent trends...
And yes, i would rate Sehwag ahead of Anwar,Slater, Kirstien, etc.

 

[Francis]

Wow this thread has moved along from my arguments so I'll quickly state why Langer, for me, isn't a contender.

I can understand why people think Langer should be in there, because he looked so good in the Ashes. Many Aussie batsmen looked uncertain and went out. Langer looked resolved, but went out. Either way he went out and never pushed on, except at The Oval.
Langer's average is also closer to 45. Since his return around 1999 he's been great, no doubt. But his rate of centuries, though impressive, is below. I mean I think he's a fantastic opener, it's just that in many areas I think he's a small cut below everyone, be it average, centery rate etc.

 

[Francis]

I couldn't help but see this:

Lara's technique is flawed

Zuh? Lara's a picture of footwork, power, balance... in short... he's everything when he's on song. Perfect! I do agree that technique is overrated though. Graeme Pollock himself felt that people are too weird when it comes to technique. He just felt if you get your eye in, pick the line, watch the ball, your on balance and your head is still... what's the problem?

 

[C_C]

I couldn't help but see this:

Lara's technique is flawed

Zuh? Lara's a picture of footwork, power, balance... in short... he's everything when he's on song. Perfect! I do agree that technique is overrated though. Graeme Pollock himself felt that people are too weird when it comes to technique. He just felt if you get your eye in, pick the line, watch the ball, your on balance and your head is still... what's the problem?

Actually Lara's technique is still flawed and until 2001 or so, it had glaring flaws.
Lara's backlift is too hight and in the last two years or so, Lara's standard move against pace bowlers is to 'take a huge stride forward and then jump to the backfoot'.
Until sobers worked with him 3-4 years ago, his bat didnt come down straight either - it came down from 3rd slip region rather than 'straight down'.

 

[UncleTheOne]

Actually Lara's technique is still flawed and until 2001 or so, it had glaring flaws.
Lara's backlift is too hight and in the last two years or so, Lara's standard move against pace bowlers is to 'take a huge stride forward and then jump to the backfoot'.
Until sobers worked with him 3-4 years ago, his bat didnt come down straight either - it came down from 3rd slip region rather than 'straight down'.

Indeed, you always feel you could get him early when he's jumping across his stumps.

 

[ryan563]

i would say gayle,sehwag,trescothick then hayden

 

[Tom Halsey]

Lara's technique is massively flawed, he just makes up for it with eye.

And Gayle on top?!

 

[Armadillo]

Lara's technique is massively flawed, he just makes up for it with eye.

And Gayle on top?!

I wouldn't say that it is massively flawed, just unorthodox. No matter how good your eye is, you can't make that many runs with a flawed technique.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I wouldn't say that it is massively flawed, just unorthodox. No matter how good your eye is, you can't make that many runs with a flawed technique.

Several players have, but you do need a very good eye. Lara's eye is possibly the best I've seen.

No player with a backlift that high, a stride across the stumps that large and who jumps on the backfoot whatever can IMO be said to have a good technique.