Opening batsmen for Post WW2 XI

[Ikki]

Actually he's third, and you can't use the fact that the players he's behind aren't as good as the one's Greenidge is behind as an argument in Hayden's favour.

Nope, he's 1st. Langer was not a better opener than Hayden and nor is Sehwag - well that one has more to be seen. Going by straight averages considering Hayden played past his best is a bit deceiving here.

Greenidge may be behind better opposition, but that doesn't mean that he was as good against his contemporaries as Hayden was - which is what you implied.

 

[Ikki]

It's safe to say Hayden's own team contained the world's best bowlers by a distance too, so there's no use accounting for that. Anyway, since you're not shy of spreadsheets I'll direct you here and here and say that Hayden's average crudely translates to one of 44 in the 80s.

Missed this, how does Hayden's average crudely translate into 44 in the 80s? Hayden is about 14 points higher than the average of his time. Greenidge is 8 points higher than the average of his time.

And you counted all batsmen upto 7. Count openers and the gap between eras closes and the gap between Greenidge and Hayden widens.

 

[Uppercut]

Nope, he's 1st. Langer was not a better opener than Hayden and nor is Sehwag - well that one has more to be seen. Going by straight averages considering Hayden played past his best is a bit deceiving here.

Greenidge may be behind better opposition, but that doesn't mean that he was as good against his contemporaries as Hayden was - which is what you implied.

Greenidge played on past his best much, much, much longer.

What does Haydos have over either of Sehwag and Langer btw?

Missed this, how does Hayden's average crudely translate into 44 in the 80s? Hayden is about 14 points higher than the average of his time. Greenidge is 8 points higher than the average of his time.

And you counted all batsmen upto 7. Count openers and the gap between eras closes and the gap between Greenidge and Hayden widens.

Hayden's average: 48

Greenidge's average: 44

35 runs then=38 runs now. Ratio.

I thought openers was a bit too specific, that's all. It's no major difference.

 

[Ikki]

Greenidge played on past his best much, much, much longer.

Longer, but much much much longer? I'm not sure.

What does Haydos have over either of Sehwag and Langer btw?

Hayden's average: 48

Greenidge's average: 44

35 runs then=38 runs now. Ratio.

I thought openers was a bit too specific, that's all. It's no major difference.

Where did you get Hayden averaging 48? Hayden averages about 51 overall and 53 since Jan 01 - the date you used. Even without minnows, he averages 51 since 2000.

Sehwag is a great rival but is far from the end of his career. If he continues, he will be Hayden's match if not better. His 3rd/4th innings averages are pretty poor compared to Hayden who scored more across all innings. Langer was simply the lesser of the two. Like Sutcliffe was to Hobbs. Hayden got more of the strike and saw off the opening bowlers much more progressively than Langer. Langer more or less stuck in there whilst Hayden aged the ball and tired the bowlers; and then Langer'd get stuck in. Although Langer is pretty underrated I must say.

 

[Uppercut]

Where did you get Hayden averaging 48? Hayden averages about 51 overall and 53 since Jan 01 - the date you used.

Sehwag is a great rival but is far from the end of his career. If he continues, he will be Hayden's match if not better. Langer was simply the lesser of the two. Like Sutcliffe was to Hobbs. Hayden got more of the strike and saw off the opening bowlers much more progressively than Langer. Langer more or less stuck in there whilst Hayden aged the ball and tired the bowlers; and then he'd get stuck in. Although Langer is pretty underrated I must say.

Pretty badly underrated it seems, Langer outscored Hayden for that part of his career. Actually faced slightly more balls per test than Hayden did too, and scored at a similar strike rate. It's funny because i would have thought the same as you initially, but looking at the numbers it's clearly not the case. I guess as a partnership they just gave off that impression, Hayden seeming so much more of a presence. But for the period they played together there was next to nothing to choose between them.

Anyway, all of the stats are, of course, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe excluded. If i use those dates Hayden does indeed average 50, good spot. But if i was to shave off a few of Hayden's poorer performances I'd have to do the same for Greenidge. In any case, it doesn't make any difference, their numbers are very much comparable.

 

[Ikki]

Pretty badly underrated it seems, Langer outscored Hayden for that part of his career. Actually faced slightly more balls per test than Hayden did too, and scored at a similar strike rate. It's funny because i would have thought the same as you initially, but looking at the numbers it's clearly not the case. I guess as a partnership they just gave off that impression, Hayden seeming so much more of a presence. But for the period they played together there was next to nothing to choose between them.

Also has a poorer SR IIRC. He would have to, to average more and face more balls. Not sure it was an impression. Langer started off innings slowly whilst Hayden got busy from the get-go. It's much easier to score when your partner is bludgeoning the bowlers, scaring the daylights out of them and seeing the new ball off. Langer accelerated later on in the innings.

Of course, Langer also left at the top of his game, unlike Hayden; so 0.9 points doesn't sway me. Just checking his 3rd/4th innings averages also, similar although slightly better than Sehwag's. Not near Hayden class.

Anyway, all of the stats are, of course, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe excluded. If i use those dates Hayden does indeed average 50, good spot. But if i was to shave off a few of Hayden's poorer performances I'd have to do the same for Greenidge. In any case, it doesn't make any difference, their numbers are very much comparable.

Comparable, but behind. Lest we forget, Greenidge was batting in the days where NZ, India and Pakistan of the 70s were not a whole lot better than Zimbabwe of the late 90s/early2000s if at all. The fact that Sarfraz Nawaz was considered a great Pakistani bowler says it all for me.

It's also not about shaving off poor performances. It's about the fact that those tests were in the 90s and have a different standard altogether to the ones in the 80s or 90s. Tougher than both.

 

[Uppercut]

Also has a poorer SR IIRC. He would have to, to average more and face more balls. Not sure it was an impression. Langer started off innings slowly whilst Hayden got busy from the get-go. It's much easier to score when your partner is bludgeoning the bowlers, scaring the daylights out of them and seeing the new ball off. Langer accelerated later on in the innings.

In the period in question, Langer's S/R is 58.9 to Hayden's 59.8.

I'm pretty sure it was an impression. During Hayden's career, Langer=Hayden. Overall, perhaps not.

He faced more balls because not-outs do some minor fidgeting with figures. The difference is fairly negligible, it just shows that Hayden didn't really farm the strike as you implied.

 

[Ikki]

In the period in question, Langer's S/R is 58.9 to Hayden's 59.8.

I'm pretty sure it was an impression. During Hayden's career, Langer=Hayden. Overall, perhaps not.

He faced more balls because not-outs do some minor fidgeting with figures. The difference is fairly negligible, it just shows that Hayden didn't really farm the strike as you implied.

Nope. The stat does not differentiate between the fact that Hayden started off fast and Langer generally got into his innings.

Langer could be 15 runs for 50 balls and then in the next 50 balls score 35 more runs. One period when the ball was new and had fresh/confident bowlers, the other in the period of old-ball and tired/demoralised bowlers. Having watched their entire careers, this I know. It's not going to show up in stats.

This was pretty much their dance as openers. Only until post Ashes did it swap for a bit as Hayden adopted a more battler-approach in search for form.

Also, don't forget the point about innings averages.

 

[Uppercut]

Nope. The stat does not differentiate between the fact that Hayden started off fast and Langer generally got into his innings.

Langer could be 15 runs for 50 balls and then in the next 50 balls score 35 more runs. One period when the ball was new and had fresh/confident bowlers, the other in the period of old-ball and tired/demoralised bowlers. Having watched their entire careers, this I know. It's not going to show up in stats.

This was pretty much their dance as openers. Only until post Ashes did it swap for a bit as Hayden adopted a more battler-approach in search for form.

Also, don't forget the point about innings averages.

Don't think sticking around and feeling his way in before unleashing is detrimental to his ability as a player, especially when he scores just as many runs just as quickly. To answer your point, contrary to popular belief, runs in the second innings do not count double.

How do you think Graeme Smith compares to Haydos?

 

[Ikki]

Don't think sticking around and feeling his way in before unleashing is detrimental to his ability as a player, especially when he scores just as many runs just as quickly.

I don't think it's detrimental in the sense that it hinders him scoring runs. But just that his partner was roughly scoring the same amount of runs pretty much and playing the more risky/dangerous role...which required more talent to do and is more valuable to the side.

How do you think Graeme Smith compares to Haydos?

Looks promising, but long way to go. His home record is pretty crappy. Stocks up a bit heavier on the weaker teams too TBH; WIndies, England . These guys got a while to go, I am not the kind of person that likes to pass judge on a player whilst he is still playing or generalise about them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Its true that Englands attack kept changing but it was never bad. For three of the four Tests they had a very good pace attack

1st Test : Snow, Old, Hendrick
2nd : Snow and Old (Because they brought in an extra specialist spinner in Pocock)
4th : Snow, Willis and Ward.

They had a good spin attack in every game with Underwood playing all five, Pockock two and Miler one.

As for the third Test centuries, the century in the first inings by Greenidge is considered one of the finest innings of that decade.

It was not just scored out of 211, look at what the others did

• Fredricks : 0
• Richards : 4
• K'charan : 0
• C Lloyd : 2
• D Murray : 1

Selvey (replacement for Old or Snow, had a fabulous spell and England were 26 for 4. But for the partnership between Greenidge (134) and King (32) West Indies would have been routed. The other 9 batsmen scored just 32 runs between them.

It was this innings of Greenidge followed by Holdings 5 for 17 which with Roberts and Daniell bundled England out for just 71 that demoralised England so much that they were so lost in the West Indian second innings, not the weakness of their attack.

I think to run down Greenidge's centuries (particularly the first innings one) is unbelievably unfair.

It's not a question of running it down, just putting some perspective on it. I saw every ball of it and he was fortunate to survive against Selvey early on (in fact hawkeye or the referral system would have had fun with one very plumb looking LBW.) The wicket was very dangerous if genuine pace was being bowled as was shown by Holding, Roberts and Daniel. If Snow and Willis had been playing batting would have been much more difficult and it's unlikely anyone would have made a century.

 

[Pratters]

Hutton and Greenidge.

I consider Hutton a better player than Gavaskar and did not consider Gavaskar for the second spot because that would give two cautious players.

Between Greenidge and Haden (both attacking my instinct) I prefer Greenidge for his superior all round game. He has the far better back foot game which is of prime importance for an opener if he is going to play world class fast bowlers.

Nah, disagree with this. Defensive or not, Gavaskar is a cut above Greenidge. Hutton and Gavaskar win easily where I am concerned.

 

[bagapath]

Nope, he's 1st. Langer was not a better opener than Hayden and nor is Sehwag - well that one has more to be seen. Going by straight averages considering Hayden played past his best is a bit deceiving here.

then what else are you going to consider? every player plays past his best. so did greenidge. see my first post.

remember, sehwag and hayden played in the same era. but sehwag played better bowling attacks, that is hayden never had to play australia. still sehwag averages 53 with a strike rate of 78. hayden averages 48 with a strike rate of 59. it is going to need some very weird number tweaking to prove hayden > sehwag. please dont start with the answer and work the equation towards it.

if you think hayden is better, state the reasons. you cant use numbers alone here. he has a case for being the best opener of the decade, but it cant be built on stats. i dont believe in averages alone determining the relative standard of players. i have always preferred warne to murali, sachin to ponting and greenidge to hayden.

having watched both greenidge and hayden there is no doubt in my mind gordon was a superior opener. to start with, as SJS said, his backfoot play was solid and would always be more reliable against high quality pace bowling that hayden's. he was also better in playing good swing bowling, the english upbringing did help him on that count. greenidge's 4th innings double against england on the last day to chase down 340+ at about 4 RPO is one of the greatest last innings masterpieces of all time. hayden on the other hand was the better player of spin bowling. but he would not have been as effective as a player pf pace bowling, IMO, against the hadlees and imrans.

 

[SJS]

Nah, disagree with this. Defensive or not, Gavaskar is a cut above Greenidge. Hutton and Gavaskar win easily where I am concerned.

Oh yes. I too think Gavaskar was an over all better player than Greenidge but I just felt it would be good to have one of the openers a bit mote aggressive than Hutton and Gavaskar.

Its just a matter of strategy not at all a reflection on their relative merits.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

remember, sehwag and hayden played in the same era. but sehwag played better bowling attacks, that is hayden never had to play australia. still sehwag averages 53 with a strike rate of 78. hayden averages 48 with a strike rate of 59. it is going to need some very weird number tweaking to prove hayden > sehwag. please dont start with the answer and work the equation towards it.

if you think hayden is better, state the reasons. you cant use numbers alone here. he has a case for being the best opener of the decade, but it cant be built on stats. i dont believe in averages alone determining the relative standard of players. i have always preferred warne to murali, sachin to ponting and greenidge to hayden.

What makes Hayden great is not his average (although spectacular) but the amount of centuries he has to his name.

Sehwag only faced McGrath once in Australia on a green GABBA pitch and failed miserably. Apart from that his only faced Australian attacks in Australia when they have been 2nd string and when in a rebuilding phase. I'd hardly say that his faced better bowlers.

Since 2000, South Africa has probably be the hardest place to bat when it comes to analysing pace bowling & pitch quality, with Pollock averaging 24 & Ntini averaging 28. As an Opening Batsman in South Africa since the start of 2000...

Hayden has played 11 innings, scored 540 runs @ 49.09, with 2 hundreds (and 2 ninities)
Sehwag has played 5 innings, scored 49 runs @ 9.33, with a highest score of 33

Sehwag won't get close to Hayden if he plays the similar amount of matches as Hayden. Sehwag relies on hand and eye coodination, not footwork. Sehwag is reaching the similar age that Viv Richards & Gilchrist were at age when they eyes started to fade on them and so did their statistics. Considering, Hayden has scored twice as many 100's as Sehwag - I don't think Sehwag will get close Hayden.

having watched both greenidge and hayden there is no doubt in my mind gordon was a superior opener. to start with, as SJS said, his backfoot play was solid and would always be more reliable against high quality pace bowling that hayden's. he was also better in playing good swing bowling, the english upbringing did help him on that count. greenidge's 4th innings double against england on the last day to chase down 340+ at about 4 RPO is one of the greatest last innings masterpieces of all time. hayden on the other hand was the better player of spin bowling. but he would not have been as effective as a player pf pace bowling, IMO, against the hadlees and imrans.

Considering Hayden hammered a similar bowler in Shaun Pollock, who averaged similar to Imran & Hadlee despite playing in a batsman dominated era, I think that Hayden facing Hadlee & Imran wouldn't of been too different. Hayden's almost as good as Ponting and Greenidge isn't close to Ponting, so Hayden's the better bat.

 

[bagapath]

i understand your point of view. but i want to disagree with you on bunching pollock with hadlee and imran. he was not in the same league, certainly not after 2000.

also sehwag's 195 against lee and gillespie was no child's play. triple centuries against pak and SA are not jokes. plus where is sehwag's debut century in SA in your post?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

i understand your point of view. but i want to disagree with you on bunching pollock with hadlee and imran. he was not in the same league, certainly not after 2000.

also sehwag's 195 against lee and gillespie was no child's play. triple centuries against pak and SA are not jokes. plus where is sehwag's debut century in SA in your post?

If Pollock was not in the same league as Imran & Hadlee then by your logic Greenidge isn't in the same league as Hayden?

You say a batting average of 44 in Greenidge's era is equal to an average of 48 in the modern era, so what does that mean for bowlers like Pollock? A bowling average of 23 in the modern era is like an average of 19 in Hadlee's & Imran's (both averaged 22) era? I fail to see where you are coming from. Either Hayden's way better then Greenidge or Pollock is way better then Imran & Hadlee? You can't have it both ways.

Also, Sehwag batted at 6 when he scored his debut century in SA - Not opener. Hayden always opened the batting in every single Test innings he played. Both of Sehwag's triple centuries were in the subcontient on incrediably slow flat wickets with no movement, which offered nothing for pace bowlers and both Tests were run-flooded draws by both teams. The conditions may of offered something for spin but South Africa didn't have a capable spinner and Saqlain was far past it by 2004. In 2003/04, Lee was useless, going for over 200 runs in an innings. Gillespie was still a formidable bowler, yes, but the rest were all struggling at the time.

 

[Ikki]

then what else are you going to consider? every player plays past his best. so did greenidge. see my first post.

remember, sehwag and hayden played in the same era. but sehwag played better bowling attacks, that is hayden never had to play australia. still sehwag averages 53 with a strike rate of 78. hayden averages 48 with a strike rate of 59. it is going to need some very weird number tweaking to prove hayden > sehwag. please dont start with the answer and work the equation towards it.

if you think hayden is better, state the reasons. you cant use numbers alone here. he has a case for being the best opener of the decade, but it cant be built on stats. i dont believe in averages alone determining the relative standard of players. i have always preferred warne to murali, sachin to ponting and greenidge to hayden.

having watched both greenidge and hayden there is no doubt in my mind gordon was a superior opener. to start with, as SJS said, his backfoot play was solid and would always be more reliable against high quality pace bowling that hayden's. he was also better in playing good swing bowling, the english upbringing did help him on that count. greenidge's 4th innings double against england on the last day to chase down 340+ at about 4 RPO is one of the greatest last innings masterpieces of all time. hayden on the other hand was the better player of spin bowling. but he would not have been as effective as a player pf pace bowling, IMO, against the hadlees and imrans.

Erm, you picked out my post out of context to reply. The reason you can't use straight averages, where I mentioned them for Hayden v Langer v Sehwag were mentioned. Sehwag is still far from the end of his career and has poor 3rd/4th inning averages. Langer is at the end, has the same innings issue as Sehwag, and also was the lesser party of the 2 for the reasons I then went on explained.

I know Greenidge played past his best too; that's why the post is not about him.

 

[Ikki]

You say a batting average of 44 in Greenidge's era is equal to an average of 48 in the modern era, so what does that mean for bowlers like Pollock? A bowling average of 23 in the modern era is like an average of 19 in Hadlee's & Imran's (both averaged 22) era? I fail to see where you are coming from. Either Hayden's way better then Greenidge or Pollock is way better then Imran & Hadlee? You can't have it both ways.

That's actually a very good point.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You say a batting average of 44 in Greenidge's era is equal to an average of 48 in the modern era, so what does that mean for bowlers like Pollock? A bowling average of 23 in the modern era is like an average of 19 in Hadlee's & Imran's (both averaged 22) era? I fail to see where you are coming from. Either Hayden's way better then Greenidge or Pollock is way better then Imran & Hadlee? You can't have it both ways.

It could be that the batsman were much poorer than the wickets were flatter so the greater degree of skill needed by Pollock on the flatter wickets is negated by the level of inferiority of the batsman.