-
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.
Salamuddin's All Time Test Match X1
- Thread starter Salamuddin
- Start date
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Why? He played all of his tests bar 8 in the post 2000 era. Why wouldn't that be his generation?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Age, not number of games, defines generation. Hayden's generation, for me, is near enough anyone who played between his age of, say, 21-22 and the end of his career.
And there were many, many better openers in the 1990s. Since 2001, the skills of opening have rarely been tested so I don't think we can conclusively say who's best at it.
And there were many, many better openers in the 1990s. Since 2001, the skills of opening have rarely been tested so I don't think we can conclusively say who's best at it.
JBH001
International Regular
Yeah, I know Archie.
That is why I included Miller as the 12th man, so that if necessary he would slot in in the place of one of the spinners - most likely Warnie, with Gilly dropping down to 7.
I chose 5 bowlers because Gilly gives enough batting at 6, and Bradman is almost equivalant to 2 batsmen anyways at 3. Also, in the unlikely event of this team being bowled out for a low score I think a bowling attack of Marshall, Lillee, Barnes, Murali, and Warne would winkle out almost any team for a low score - even if they are another best of.
As I said though, Miller is in as cover for any eventuality, but Miller at 12 is my preferred XI.
JBH001
International Regular
LOL At Kazo putting Haydos into an all-time XI!
The over-rated FTB simply does not compare (Ok that may be a slight exaggeration but you see where I am coming from) to some of the other great openers.
Tbh though, Hayden is a great opener, but he is a level below the all-time bracket.
In terms of my best openers, I would have:
1.Hobbs.
2. Hutton
3. Sutcliffe
4. Gavaskar
(After Hobbs the differences between the 3 are minimal)
As one group. The next level would be
5. Boycott
6. Morris
7. Ponsford
8. Richards
Then the next level
Where Hayden would slot in...
(I have not included Grace because it is difficult to judge him adequately given the constraints of time and conditions. However, in a personal fantasy XI The Champion would walk out with The Master to open the innings. The same, to an extent goes for Trumper, who may have - in any case - been a better middle order bat than an opener)
The over-rated FTB simply does not compare (Ok that may be a slight exaggeration but you see where I am coming from) to some of the other great openers.
Tbh though, Hayden is a great opener, but he is a level below the all-time bracket.
In terms of my best openers, I would have:
1.Hobbs.
2. Hutton
3. Sutcliffe
4. Gavaskar
(After Hobbs the differences between the 3 are minimal)
As one group. The next level would be
5. Boycott
6. Morris
7. Ponsford
8. Richards
Then the next level
Where Hayden would slot in...
(I have not included Grace because it is difficult to judge him adequately given the constraints of time and conditions. However, in a personal fantasy XI The Champion would walk out with The Master to open the innings. The same, to an extent goes for Trumper, who may have - in any case - been a better middle order bat than an opener)
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
I really rate Hayden, but have to agree that, bar from the beginning of his career when due to poor performances and injury he couldn't establish a spot, he hasn't faced many GREAT bowlers. When he did come up against a bowler of the quality of Allan Donald it wasn't pretty.
HOWEVER, I think its unfair when people refuse to consider his achievements after he got back into the team, and especially in places like India, because of his early struggles. He's a long way from the first player to have struggled when making a start in the international arena. Not many have such a long time in which they are asked to go away and improve their game and then so successfully seize their second opportunity. Credit should be given to him for the improvements he made in his game.
Like any good batsman he makes runs when they are there to make, and like 99% of batsmen he finds it more difficult when the conditions are more in the bowlers favour, eg in England in 2005. But its all relative. People here argue that he was "found out" in England in 2005. In reality he entered the series on the crest of a slump, struggled against the movement of Hoggard and an at times inspired attack, before coming good and scoring some runs in the last test. It was not a great series, it was not the stuff that legends are made of, but his series analysis wasn't totally disastrous by most batsmen's standards, and the point is that that was his worst series in a long career. He came away, identified some things he was doing wrong and had a much more successful two years after that - included re-establishing himself in the Aussie ODI team - the mark of a good player.
I'd have him probably in the mix for my 6th, 7th, or 8th XI, which puts him in the best 16 openers of all time in my eyes - a pretty fair achievement. He's done enough to be in the gaggle of around 6 different Aussies for one of the openers' slots in the alltime Aussie XI as well.
HOWEVER, I think its unfair when people refuse to consider his achievements after he got back into the team, and especially in places like India, because of his early struggles. He's a long way from the first player to have struggled when making a start in the international arena. Not many have such a long time in which they are asked to go away and improve their game and then so successfully seize their second opportunity. Credit should be given to him for the improvements he made in his game.
Like any good batsman he makes runs when they are there to make, and like 99% of batsmen he finds it more difficult when the conditions are more in the bowlers favour, eg in England in 2005. But its all relative. People here argue that he was "found out" in England in 2005. In reality he entered the series on the crest of a slump, struggled against the movement of Hoggard and an at times inspired attack, before coming good and scoring some runs in the last test. It was not a great series, it was not the stuff that legends are made of, but his series analysis wasn't totally disastrous by most batsmen's standards, and the point is that that was his worst series in a long career. He came away, identified some things he was doing wrong and had a much more successful two years after that - included re-establishing himself in the Aussie ODI team - the mark of a good player.
I'd have him probably in the mix for my 6th, 7th, or 8th XI, which puts him in the best 16 openers of all time in my eyes - a pretty fair achievement. He's done enough to be in the gaggle of around 6 different Aussies for one of the openers' slots in the alltime Aussie XI as well.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No-one, ever, is denying that Hayden's a brilliant player of spin - I'd have little hesitation in saying he's probably the best player of spin in the last 10 years at the very least. Yes, better than Dravid, Lara, Tendulkar, Andrew Flower and anyone else you care to name. Incredibly strange, really, for someone who all his young life opened the batting in Queensland. 
However, the thing in question is Hayden's prowess against seam and swing, specifically back into him, and 2005 in England certainly wasn't the only time such a thing saw him worked-out in such a manner - it'd been happening for the last 6 months at least. Kyle Mills, of all people, repeatedly trapped him lbw in 2004 (though only once got the decision), then Shoaib Akhtar took-up the challenge. Hoggard's record against him doesn't come close to doing justice to how he's dominated him in the last 2 series - for every time he's got him out in the book there's at least 1 more where he's had him and not been given the decision (even happened twice in 2 overs at The MCG).
Hayden, all his career, has been vulnerable to the delivery that moves back into his pads, and as such for me it's quite ridiculous to rank him as a top-class opener just because he's incredibly fortunate to have played in an era where (unlike near enough any other) there weren't bowlers with the skill to exploit such a glaring weakness. He's not unfortunate in 2 other regards, either, in that he's had more luck with drops and Umpiring decisions than most, and benefited more than anyone from the refusal to strip Zimbabwe of international status following the 2003 World Cup. Just knock out those 2 "Tests" against Zimbabwe from his record (and Bangladesh, obviously, though that barely makes any difference) and the picture changes a hell of a lot.
However, the thing in question is Hayden's prowess against seam and swing, specifically back into him, and 2005 in England certainly wasn't the only time such a thing saw him worked-out in such a manner - it'd been happening for the last 6 months at least. Kyle Mills, of all people, repeatedly trapped him lbw in 2004 (though only once got the decision), then Shoaib Akhtar took-up the challenge. Hoggard's record against him doesn't come close to doing justice to how he's dominated him in the last 2 series - for every time he's got him out in the book there's at least 1 more where he's had him and not been given the decision (even happened twice in 2 overs at The MCG).
Hayden, all his career, has been vulnerable to the delivery that moves back into his pads, and as such for me it's quite ridiculous to rank him as a top-class opener just because he's incredibly fortunate to have played in an era where (unlike near enough any other) there weren't bowlers with the skill to exploit such a glaring weakness. He's not unfortunate in 2 other regards, either, in that he's had more luck with drops and Umpiring decisions than most, and benefited more than anyone from the refusal to strip Zimbabwe of international status following the 2003 World Cup. Just knock out those 2 "Tests" against Zimbabwe from his record (and Bangladesh, obviously, though that barely makes any difference) and the picture changes a hell of a lot.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
His 2001 tour wasn't all that grand either, was it?Matt79 said:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Andy Flower played spin better than any man I have ever seen. Ever. Not even close for me. Only time I wanted to kill myself while watching cricket was when Andy Flower was batting in INDIA vs our spinners, because I knew there is no way he was going to ever get out unless an umpire intervened or he felt sorry for us.No-one, ever, is denying that Hayden's a brilliant player of spin - I'd have little hesitation in saying he's probably the best player of spin in the last 10 years at the very least. Yes, better than Dravid, Lara, Tendulkar, Andrew Flower and anyone else you care to name. Incredibly strange, really, for someone who all his young life opened the batting in Queensland.
He was so ridiculous. Playing spin in India with confident is something that I don't see very often. People make runs there against spin, obviously, but not like Flower.
In five matches, he had 4 fifties, 3 centuries and one double century (233*). Ganguly, not the one to give easy compliments to opponents, said that no one has ever come to India and played spin better.
Flower >> Lara > Sachin in the spin sweepstakes IMO.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hayden's India tour in 2000\01 wasn't exactly awful, either.
I refuse to believe you felt worse in said Flower incident (which you knew full well was never going to result in India losing) than in that Hayden-Gilchrist stand where Harbhajan got such a ferocious battering.
Hayden didn't exactly do poorly in his 1 tour of Sri Lanka, either.
I refuse to believe you felt worse in said Flower incident (which you knew full well was never going to result in India losing) than in that Hayden-Gilchrist stand where Harbhajan got such a ferocious battering.
Hayden didn't exactly do poorly in his 1 tour of Sri Lanka, either.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I was not dissapointed in the result, but was so dumbfounded on how someone could play spin so well. It seemed he could pick off the bowlers with one tied behind his back. Flower owned both.
And that is taking nothing away from Hayden, but Kumble didn't play on that 2000/01 tour. Averaging 63 in India is great, but it didn't compare to Flower IMO.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Just my opinion obviously, but he averaged 117 in India and he looked like he averaged a lot more than that. He was that good.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
As well as Andy Flower plays spin, I still don't think he is a spot on Lara when it comes to playing spin. Lara has so much more options (inspite of the lack of reverse sweep) while Andy Flower, while he does have a number of options, to me always looked a little too "sweep happy". When it comes to being consistently dominant against spin and make spinners look like they have no clue where to bowl, Lara beats everyone I have seen, to be honest.
Andy Flower ground us out well and looked more unlikely to get out, but as many experts and fans have mentioned worldwide, Lara is easily the toughest guy a spinner can bowl at. His play against Kumble in the Chennai ODI was the best exhibition of controlled aggression against a spinner of that calibre I have seen in a long long time. Andy Flower has his areas where he can score at, but Lara combines power, pluckiness, panache and a lot of skill against spin. AS I said, I have NOT seen a better player of spin in my time of watching cricket. And I did watch almost every ball of Andy Flower's knocks (and Jimmy Adams' for that matter) against us.
Lara >>> Flower, Sachin etc, for me. Hayden is very good too but he lacks the late cuts of Lara, which are an excellen option against finger spinners' quicker ones. And I have seen him being troubled for significant periods by both Kumble and Harbhajan.
And I dont know what Sachin has done wrong against spin to put him below Andy Flower. He looks just as much at ease as Flower does against them. It is not his fault that he is born in India and so he can't play against Kumbles and Harbhajans at the world stage.
archie mac
International Coach
Okay, well thought out, I am always tempted to choose Jack Iverson in my all time XI
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
All quite true and I guess it just demonstrates that it's not easy at all to say for certain which of these fantastic players of spin is the best.
I will say one thing, though - I'm always a bit wary of putting someone ahead of someone else because he is a dominant player. Undoubtedly, Lara has that facet against spin, but it doesn't automatically make him a better player of it than a more measured player like Flower - it just means he goes about the job differently.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Gotta agree with SS on the Flower and spin issue. When watching Flower play some of these quality spinners, he just made it look so easy, there was no way he was going to get out, if he was playing normally. I can't really imagine anyone ever playing it better in the history of the game, because at times, he was near faultless.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The reason me (and a lot of others, including experts) put the trait to be dominant above most other things is that it is a trait that can win you games. By being able to score runs quickly, you give yourself more time to bowl ppl out. That is why I would always take Lara over someone like Adams (at his peak, BTW), simply because while Adams (like Andy Flower) never looked like getting out to a spinner, he wouldn't do enough for you to win a match. Lara, the way he plays spin, the ONLY way he would ever get out to a spinner is by making a mistake himself (and he very seldom does that too).
Plus, it is easy to tell which player the spinners fear more. As I said, with blokes like Hayden, Flower, Adams and even Sachin, there were areas where a spinner can bowl and KNOW that he wont be scored off that much and even have a chance of getting the batsman out. With Lara, I have never seen any spinner ever look like having a clue of how to get him out. They have their plans but he just tears them apart. He can hit them out and dent their morale early, then play them out and milk them and then suddenly explode again to just make the domination complete. Bob Woolmer wrote an excellent piece about what makes Lara tower over all other batsmen of his generation when it comes to playing spin. He mentioned about 5 ways to tackle a spinner and I can easily say with confidence that Lara is the only one who is an expert at EVERY one of them. Others are experts in 3 or 4, but not all 5.
The reasons are simple enough: Lara has a fantastic eye, judges the length and flight of the ball earlier than most (probably all), has amazingly quick footwork, can play the power shots, the diff. varieties of the sweep, can cut, pull, drive, flick, late cut, back cut..... He just has so many scoring options against the spinner that I feel sometimes the only reason he gets out to one is because he had more than one shot for that ball. Supple wrists and reading the ball of the spinners' hands.... He is just the ultimate player against spin, for me. As one of the cricinfo writers once remarked, can't see any spinner troubling him except may be champions of the past era on uncovered tracks. NOW that would have been a challenge for Lara.