Choose two openers for post Packer era World XI

[stephen]

Went Hayden and Greenidge as they're the best two openers from my lifetime. Never saw Gavaskar play, but he's undoubtedly a legend too.

Only really should have been half a dozen options on this list really :P.

 

[bagapath]

Went Hayden and Greenidge as they're the best two openers from my lifetime. Never saw Gavaskar play, but he's undoubtedly a legend too.

Only really should have been half a dozen options on this list really :P.

i know. but in 30 years, you do end up having a lot of good players. 2000 runs and 40 bat avg is a strong enough stat to define someone as good.

looks like greenidge will lose the race to hayden for sure

 

[Evermind]

Chose Hayden and Sehwag.

Why be 35/0 after 25 when you can be 95/0

 

[Ikki]

Gavaskar and Hayden. A class above the rest. Sunny for his consistency and impenetrable defense. Haydos for his awesome power and aggressive approach.

Sehwag, Anwar and Greenidge unfortunately miss out.

 

[Uppercut]

Graeme Smith and Virender Sehwag could well end up in this team once their career's finish.

As it is, Greenidge and Gavaskar for me I guess.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd be interested in the rationale behind the thinking of the third of voters who believe Gavaskar isn't among the two best openers of the period in question.

 

[funnygirl]

Greenidge and Gavaskar .

 

[Precambrian]

I'd be interested in the rationale behind the thinking of the third of voters who believe Gavaskar isn't among the two best openers of the period in question.

Might have something to do with the fact that Gavaskar could not match up to his average before Packer.

Might have been due to bias.

Might have been due to listening to him nowadays.

Might have been due to ignorance.

 

[Precambrian]

Chose Hayden and Sehwag.

Why be 35/0 after 25 when you can be 95/0

Or 5-2 in swinging conditions.

Edit : the ball.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd be interested in the rationale behind the thinking of the third of voters who believe Gavaskar isn't among the two best openers of the period in question.

Might have something to do with the fact that Gavaskar could not match up to his average before Packer.

Might have been due to bias.

Might have been due to listening to him nowadays.

Might have been due to ignorance.

SJS did an extremely detailed breakdown of his career in a tour thread some months back. He concluded that he really wasn't quite as good a batsman as his legendary status would have you believe. I'd have him in there anyway, because the competition seems surprisingly poor...

 

[Ikki]

Don't get the argument of Greenidge > Hayden. Gordan distinctly inferior to me.

 

[silentstriker]

Chose Hayden and Sehwag.

Why be 35/0 after 25 when you can be 95/0

Because you could also be 0/2.

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's funny that a number of people will laud Hayden yet quickly discount Sehwag of being worth for consideration. Why exactly is Hayden better than Sehwag again? Sehwag has a better overall average, better scoring rate, better away average, scores bigger hundreds more often, and is every bit as destructive.

Not that I rate the two that extremely high anyways. Given that players like Yusuf and Jayawardene can average in the mid-fifties, any relatively good batsman has a shot at being called a great nowadays.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Because you could also be 0/2.

You could be 0/2 no matter who's out there, stupid argument.

 

[silentstriker]

You could be 0/2 no matter who's out there, stupid argument.

Well obviously. But you'd be much more likely to be 0/2 with Hayden/Sehwag than Gavaskar/Boycott.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

When you're picking your side out of fear of what could happen, you know you're doing it wrong.

 

[silentstriker]

When you're picking your side out of fear of what could happen, you know you're doing it wrong.

No, not really - that might be the case if the replacements could not score at all. Obviously, with the number of high scores and centuries that those two have, you can be assured of being safe and being able to score heavily. The only thing you lose out on is being able to score fast, which in Test cricket is a small price to pay for the increased stability and consistency you'd get.

 

[stephen]

I think it's funny that a number of people will laud Hayden yet quickly discount Sehwag of being worth for consideration. Why exactly is Hayden better than Sehwag again? Sehwag has a better overall average, better scoring rate, better away average, scores bigger hundreds more often, and is every bit as destructive.

Not that I rate the two that extremely high anyways. Given that players like Yusuf and Jayawardene can average in the mid-fifties, any relatively good batsman has a shot at being called a great nowadays.

I think it is because Hayden really redefined what openers can do. Just as Gilchrist is rated more highly than Flower, Hayden is rated more highly than Sehwag because he brings that extra "x factor".

Sehwag is a very good batsman and definately should be up there in the poll but there is the perception that the majority of his cricket is played on flat subcontinental wickets. He also hasn't got as many tests to his name as Hayden has (which will change I'm sure - when looking up his stats I didn't realise how young Sehwag was).

I think you are right in suggesting the comparison is closer than people make out, but I, like most others here, think that Hayden was simply a more valuable batsman to the team. Thirty hundreds in 103 tests is such a good conversion rate - unmatched in the modern game.

 

[Burgey]

Well obviously. But you'd be much more likely to be 0/2 with Hayden/Sehwag than Gavaskar/Boycott.

You'd be much closer to a cure for insomnia with the latter combo though

 

[Uppercut]

I think it's just longevity. If Sehwag is still averaging 51 after 100 tests he'll absolutely deserve to be on the same pedestal, and possibly higher, than Hayden.