• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Nominate your top 15 best ever test opening batsmen - another in my countdown series

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
stephen says that about a lot of players, usually Australian.

Chris Rogers was a likeable guy but he was about as good as Gambhir, basically.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
stephen says that about a lot of players, usually Australian.

Chris Rogers was a likeable guy but he was about as good as Gambhir, basically.
Comparing a guy who played 24 tests after he was 35 (and one when he was 30) and averaged 43 to a guy who played 58 tests in his prime and averaged the same isn't really fair.

Rogers was a gun batsman who couldn't get a game because he was competing against guys who were averaging 50 at test level and then against guys who were being fast tracked with youth policies. By the time he got his second test (the first was injury cover) he was past his prime. He played for 3 years and averaged 43 in test cricket, including averaging almost 50 in England over 10 tests.

The guy made 76 first class hundreds. He was a gun who happened to be in an era of ridiculous depth for Australia.

He and Jaques are both really unlucky not to have played a lot more tests. And both are the last couple of players to be in that category for Australia. Love, Law, Bevan etc... were the early victims of the super strong Australian domestic competition. Rogers was the last.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
I'm going to include players who haven't had an impact in Tests because that's what we normally do.

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. WG Grace
.
4. Herbert Sutcliffe
5. Barry Richards
6. Sunil Gavaskar
.
.
.
7. Bob Simpson
8. Geoffrey Boycott
9. Arthur Morris
10. Bill Lawry
11. Victor Trumper
12. Graeme Smith
13. Virender Sehwag
14. Matthew Hayden
15. Bill Ponsford

Valuing longevity highly here. 4-5-6 all very close.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
stephen says that about a lot of players, usually Australian.
tbf he's usually right

If Graeme Smith is not already in, I would like to nominate him. And Gary Kirsten.
Gary Kirsten is a much better choice than Gibbs

Comparing a guy who played 24 tests after he was 35 (and one when he was 30) and averaged 43 to a guy who played 58 tests in his prime and averaged the same isn't really fair.

Rogers was a gun batsman who couldn't get a game because he was competing against guys who were averaging 50 at test level and then against guys who were being fast tracked with youth policies. By the time he got his second test (the first was injury cover) he was past his prime. He played for 3 years and averaged 43 in test cricket, including averaging almost 50 in England over 10 tests.

The guy made 76 first class hundreds. He was a gun who happened to be in an era of ridiculous depth for Australia.

He and Jaques are both really unlucky not to have played a lot more tests. And both are the last couple of players to be in that category for Australia. Love, Law, Bevan etc... were the early victims of the super strong Australian domestic competition. Rogers was the last.
Always forget about that guy, and how good he was. Peaked late though. He's one guy who you probably couldn't say "if he wasn't Australian blah blah blah" because he wasn't much good until a year or 2 before he was picked then his career ended because he was unfit for cricket
 
Last edited:

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Sunil Gavaskar
Herbert Sutcliffe
Graeme Smith
Mathew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
One who's grandmother was a cricketer
Bob Simpson
Bill Lawry
Vijay Merchant
Victor Trumper
Alastair Cook
Gordon Greenidge
Graham Gooch

Vijay Merchant is unlikely to end up with many votes here, but he was a truly great cricketer and deserves at least a vote.
 

Malcolm

U19 Vice-Captain
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Sunil Gavaskar
Victor Trumper
Herbert Sutcliffe
Geoffrey Boycott
Bill Ponsford
Arthur Morris
Bob Simpson
Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Graeme Smith
Alastair Cook
Bill Lawry
Gordon Greenidge
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Always forget about that guy, and how good he was. Peaked late though. He's one guy who you probably couldn't say "if he wasn't Australian blah blah blah" because he wasn't much good until a year or 2 before he was picked then his career ended because he was unfit for cricket
Ehhh, wouldn't say he was a late bloomer. If anything he peaked too early - his career was effectively done by the time he turned 30.

But yeah he probably would've only played 20 more Tests than what he actually did if he wasn't Australian.

Regarding Rogers, I wouldn't go quite as far as saying he'd play 100 Tests for another country, but there's no doubt he would've played more than one Test before he turned 35 for someone else. Even those with good batting lineups (India, South Africa) struggled to find reliable partners for Sehwag or Smith.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
tbf he's usually right



Gary Kirsten is a much better choice than Gibbs



Always forget about that guy, and how good he was. Peaked late though. He's one guy who you probably couldn't say "if he wasn't Australian blah blah blah" because he wasn't much good until a year or 2 before he was picked then his career ended because he was unfit for cricket
Jaques was good enough pretty early on tbf.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ehhh, wouldn't say he was a late bloomer. If anything he peaked too early - his career was effectively done by the time he turned 30.

But yeah he probably would've only played 20 more Tests than what he actually did if he wasn't Australian.
He had a very short window though. He burst on to the first-class scene and then was around about the Aussie side within a couple of years.

Basically the opposite of Rogers or Hussey who were first-class stars for like 15 years
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He had a very short window though. He burst on to the first-class scene and then was around about the Aussie side within a couple of years.

Basically the opposite of Rogers or Hussey who were first-class stars for like 15 years
He was demanding a limited overs spot from as early as 05 though when he scored 4 limited overs hundreds and averaged 90+ in the season (and was averaging over 50 in fc cricket too at that point).

You're right though that he didn't wait as long as some.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He was demanding a limited overs spot from as early as 05 though when he scored 4 limited overs hundreds and averaged 90+ in the season (and was averaging over 50 in fc cricket too at that point).

You're right though that he didn't wait as long as some.
you say "early" as '05, but then he played his last test in '08.

He was only really on the scene for like 3-4 years
 

Top