Choose two openers for post Packer era World XI

[subshakerz]

Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Donald...?

He never scored anything against Ambrose/Donald, never faced Wasim in a test and only faced Waqar when he was waaay past his prime.

And did the 80s have spinners in the class of Murali/Warne/Kumble/Saqlain? I think not.

I readily admit he's one of the best players of spin this era. It's just express pace that's his glaring weakness. And that weakness would have been more exploited in the 80s than in the last decade.

In those days you had 1 great bowler surrounded by average bowlers.

Now you struggle to even find one great pace bowler in the entire international circuit. And he has a spotty record against the few good ones. Do you sincerely think Hayden would be averaging in the 50s if he played in the 80s? He may have succeeded against England, Sri Lanka and India, but his average would have surely dropped against Pakistan and West Indies.

 

[Ikki]

Now you struggle to even find one great pace bowler in the entire international circuit. And he has a spotty record against the few good ones. Do you sincerely think Hayden would be averaging in the 50s if he played in the 80s? He may have succeeded against England, Sri Lanka and India, but his average would have surely dropped against Pakistan and West Indies.

Yes, I think he could have. He would have had to adapt to the difference but, yes, he would have. He dominated sheffield shield bowlers that were better than most of the bowlers in the 80s and already ended up averaging 50 in an era with bowling as good as the 80s.

Again, Imran and Hadlee apart, who did Greenidge face that was so hard? I can make the counter argument: would he have done well against high-quality spin? He failed against Pakistan and beat NZ - which was Hadlee + left overs.

For every hole you pick from Hayden I can pick as many if not more from Greenidge. The distance between their averages is a bit too large to explain away.

In the end, you can pick Gordan, and I'll pick Hayden.

 

[The Sean]

He never scored anything against Ambrose/Donald, never faced Wasim in a test and only faced Waqar when he was waaay past his prime.

Surely if facing Waqar when Waqar was past his prime counts against Hayden, then facing Ambrose and Donald before his own prime must counterbalance for Hayden to some extent?

People are too quick to say that Hayden dominating bowlers past their best doesn't count, but that him failing before he reached his peak is irrefutable proof that he couldn't cut it. Can't have it both ways IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Surely if facing Waqar when Waqar was past his prime counts against Hayden, then facing Ambrose and Donald before his own prime must counterbalance for Hayden to some extent?

People are too quick to say that Hayden dominating bowlers past their best doesn't count, but that him failing before he reached his peak is irrefutable proof that he couldn't cut it. Can't have it both ways IMO.

I agree. Very insightful Sean.

 

[subshakerz]

Surely if facing Waqar when Waqar was past his prime counts against Hayden, then facing Ambrose and Donald before his own prime must counterbalance for Hayden to some extent?

Why should he get points simply for facing Donald and Ambrose, if he never actually scored anything against them? And you are incorrect, scoring against a Waqar past his prime does not count against Hayden, but it still doesn't provide evidence that he can succeed against express pace bowling.

 

[Ikki]

Why should he get points simply for facing Donald and Ambrose, if he never actually scored anything against them? And you are incorrect, scoring against a Waqar past his prime does not count against Hayden, but it still doesn't provide evidence that he can succeed against express pace bowling.

So why should Greenidge get any points for simply facing Imran?

When Waqar was past his prime Pakistan still had Akhtar on top and Saqlain Mushtaq was one of the best spinners in the world. When Hayden smashed Donald who was at the "end" of his career, Pollock was on top, Ntini was a newbie and Kallis was going through some of the best parts of his career. Where are Greenidge's comparable achievements? The NZ attack with Hadlee in it was weaker than both of the aforementioned sides. And that's pretty much it for the 80s because the other greatest bowlers of the era were in his side.

 

[silentstriker]

Hayden's record when fast bowling has been really good hasn't been that great. He has certainly been the best opener of this decade, but while some view that as an indictment on the state of opening this decade - I don't necessarily agree. I do think Hayden is a good player, and probably a very good player. He isn't a great player though, and wouldn't be anywhere near my all time XI. YMMV of course, as he has certainly done a job for Australia, and was very instrumental in their dominance.

 

[Slifer]

Fair assesment SS. I consider Hayden to be in the very good category of openers but no way near the very top rung like: Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe. He's probably closer to the 2nd rung: Simpson, Lawry, Greenidge, Hunte, Boycott, etc.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Sutcliffe

Probably faced the bluntest new-ball attacks in history on placid doormats - there were some good quickies in the late 20s and early 30s, but they were all English. If Hayden gets denigrated for the era he played in, Sutcliffe surely must.

 

[stephen]

Why should he get points simply for facing Donald and Ambrose, if he never actually scored anything against them? And you are incorrect, scoring against a Waqar past his prime does not count against Hayden, but it still doesn't provide evidence that he can succeed against express pace bowling.

Interestingly enough, Greenidge's average against Pakistan was only 31, so surely that means that he was significantly worse against his best fast bowling opposition.

 

[archie mac]

Interestingly enough, Greenidge's average against Pakistan was only 31, so surely that means that he was significantly worse against his best fast bowling opposition.

At his peak Greenidge would have only faced Imran as a great fast bowler, I think that stat is just another reason that I don't rely on them

 

[zaremba]

A good thread, this. Interesting views expressed. Not surprised to see Ikki going for the Australian option for a change! Nothing if not patriotic.

Ikki makes a fair point that Greenidge never had to face the great West Indian bowlers. But he did make runs against some pretty good ones: among the quicks, Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Botham, Kapil, Willis, Alderman, McDermott, Hughes, Reid; and among the spinners Abdul Qadir, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Underwood.

I acknowledge that this is a cherry-picked list and for every Lillee you can also find a Capel (just as with Hayden you can find the odd Blignaut or Gripper). Nonetheless I can't see many bowlers of that sort of quality in the last decade who haven't been playing alongside Hayden in the Australia team.

And like it or not pitches tend to be flatter now than in Greenidge's day.

 

[Ikki]

A good thread, this. Interesting views expressed. Not surprised to see Ikki going for the Australian option for a change! Nothing if not patriotic.

Ikki makes a fair point that Greenidge never had to face the great West Indian bowlers. But he did make runs against some pretty good ones: among the quicks, Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Botham, Kapil, Willis, Alderman, McDermott, Hughes, Reid; and among the spinners Abdul Qadir, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Underwood.

I acknowledge that this is a cherry-picked list and for every Lillee you can also find a Capel (just as with Hayden you can find the odd Blignaut or Gripper). Nonetheless I can't see many bowlers of that sort of quality in the last decade who haven't been playing alongside Hayden in the Australia team.

And like it or not pitches tend to be flatter now than in Greenidge's day.

LOL, well I'm just lucky to be Australian

Well, the other names are not really noteworthy in the sense of "greats". I agree that the 80s had good bowlers. My contention was that it's arguable how much the overall bowling differed between eras. In my mind the bigger differences were the pitches.

As for the greats, Greenidge averaged 24 against Lillee, 31 against Imran and 55 against Hadlee. The rest were in his team, of course. I don't wish to demean Greenidge's record by saying that because he can only face who he can face, but there is too much of a generalisation when people say "x player played in y era so he faced the greats". What does it matter, if they were largely unsuccessful? It seems to make their original point moot.

In the end, I don't see how their circumstances differed that much...and certainly not enough to explain the sizable gap in their career averages.

 

[biased indian]

don't like Hayden much ,but i want my opener s to blaze away and be 100+ before lunch..so went with sehwag and Hayden and a left and right combination as well

 

[zaremba]

In the end, I don't see how their circumstances differed that much...and certainly not enough to explain the sizable gap in their career averages.

Your points are as ever well made.

But my point was simply that there were some very fine bowlers outside the West Indies that he had to face, and probably a higher standard of bowling overall than Hayden's had to face (at least in the productive part of his career ie in the last decade). I know you may disagree with me on this.

As for explaining the differences between their averages, I'd offer the following thoughts:

1. Hayden had the chance to bat against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Greenidge didn't; nor did he play against the minnows of his day, Sri Lanka.

2. The pitches in the 2000s have, as a general rule, been better than they were in the 70s and 80s. It's much less common now that an opening batsman will have to bat on a pitch with real seam movement or pace than it was in Greenidge's day.

3. Bats are significantly better now than before. I'm unable to explain how or why this improvement has happened, but it seems a pretty widely accepted fact.

4. Boundaries are shorter now than they used to be. Many grounds are now smaller than they were to allow for bigger stands. Moreover boundary ropes are placed some distance inside the playing area to allow fielders to slide around without hurting themselves on the pickets / hoardings / spectators.

Points 3 and 4 are particularly significant for players such as Greenidge and Hayden whose method was largely based on hitting the ball hard to the boundary.

For these reasons, as Mike Atherton put it in today's Times, "50 is the new 40".

Oh, and:

5. As a devout Christian Hayden had a hotline to God and therefore an unfair sporting advantage.

Who was the better opener? I wouldn't like to say. I went for Greenidge but largely on the basis of point 5.

 

[Top_Cat]

3. Bats are significantly better now than before. I'm unable to explain how or why this improvement has happened, but it seems a pretty widely accepted fact.

Haha, just had to mention this. Reminded me of a quote from Futurama where Fry was talking about alligators being flushed into sewers being a 'widely believed fact'.

Simple reason for more spring in the bats is that they aren't rolled any more. Rolling made them less likely to split in the days when batsmen were more apt to want to hang onto a decent stick but the process compromised power. Nothing more. Weight and balance play their part but this is the biggest contributor to bat power.

For these reasons, as Mike Atherton put it in today's Times, "50 is the new 40".

Fair point. Greenidge averaged just over 40, Haydos averaged just over 50. Ergo, they're at least as good as each other.

 

[weldone]

Though I voted for Greenidge, I won't mind if Hayden wins this poll....unlike the fast bowlers' poll where I voted for Hadlee and want him to win over McGrath...though I am almost a die-hard fan of McGrath, and I think all of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim and McGrath are very worthy candidates...I wouldn't have cared about the fast bowlers' poll had Murali won the spinner's poll, then I would have been happy to vote for Hadlee for the 4th bowler option over Warne...But if Hadlee and Murali fight for the 4th bowler option, it'll be so hard for me to choose one since I want both of them to be in the playing XI so badly...

 

[zaremba]

Haha, just had to mention this. Reminded me of a quote from Futurama where Fry was talking about alligators being flushed into sewers being a 'widely believed fact'.

Simple reason for more spring in the bats is that they aren't rolled any more. Rolling made them less likely to split in the days when batsmen were more apt to want to hang onto a decent stick but the process compromised power. Nothing more. Weight and balance play their part but this is the biggest contributor to bat power.

I've always taken the reported improvement in bats with a bit of a pinch of salt but it is just so, well, widely believed...

Anyway thanks for the explanation, I hadn't realised that it was to do with rolling. So it seems that the perceived improvement in the power of bats is real.

Greenidge averaged just over 40, Haydos averaged just over 50. Ergo, they're at least as good as each other.

44 v 51 (49 excluding minnows)...

 

[stephen]

Simple reason for more spring in the bats is that they aren't rolled any more. Rolling made them less likely to split in the days when batsmen were more apt to want to hang onto a decent stick but the process compromised power. Nothing more. Weight and balance play their part but this is the biggest contributor to bat power.

Not entirely true. They still knock in the bats - if you don't the bat will crack and knock itself in the first time you hit a ball. What they do though is prepare the wood better (the best players get the best wood - no knots in it) and balance the bats better.

I don't know if you've ever tried it or not, but my first bat was not knocked in properly and the second I used it in a game the surface cracked and ruined the bat.

Shorter boundaries these days also makes it appear that the ball has traveled further than it used to. Flatter pitches mean that misqueues are hitting closer to the center of the bat. All of these combine to make it look as though bats hit much further than they used to.

 

[Ikki]

Your points are as ever well made.

But my point was simply that there were some very fine bowlers outside the West Indies that he had to face, and probably a higher standard of bowling overall than Hayden's had to face (at least in the productive part of his career ie in the last decade). I know you may disagree with me on this.

As for explaining the differences between their averages, I'd offer the following thoughts:

1. Hayden had the chance to bat against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Greenidge didn't; nor did he play against the minnows of his day, Sri Lanka.

2. The pitches in the 2000s have, as a general rule, been better than they were in the 70s and 80s. It's much less common now that an opening batsman will have to bat on a pitch with real seam movement or pace than it was in Greenidge's day.

3. Bats are significantly better now than before. I'm unable to explain how or why this improvement has happened, but it seems a pretty widely accepted fact.

4. Boundaries are shorter now than they used to be. Many grounds are now smaller than they were to allow for bigger stands. Moreover boundary ropes are placed some distance inside the playing area to allow fielders to slide around without hurting themselves on the pickets / hoardings / spectators.

Points 3 and 4 are particularly significant for players such as Greenidge and Hayden whose method was largely based on hitting the ball hard to the boundary.

For these reasons, as Mike Atherton put it in today's Times, "50 is the new 40".

Oh, and:

5. As a devout Christian Hayden had a hotline to God and therefore an unfair sporting advantage.

Who was the better opener? I wouldn't like to say. I went for Greenidge but largely on the basis of point 5.

Thanks for your reply mate, I'll continue:

1) Even without Minnows Hayden is still superior to Greenidge.

2) The difference between batting averages now and in decades before is not much 3 or so points at most. As well as pitches, there are generally more teams with better batsmen now.

3) I am not sure how to calculate how much those bats helped out so I'll leave that well alone.

4) But Hayden scores most of his runs at home in Australia where there are bigger fields AFAIK.

And Mike Atherton would love to believe 40 is the new 50 - since he only averaged about 37.

5) LOL

In the end, to each their own; but to reiterate my initial complaint: I don't understand the the Greenidge > Hayden argument . I don't think it has enough merit.