Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[Richard]

Struggling to think who that was TBH. That attack couldn't have played more than, what, 10-15 Tests together...

 

[NZTailender]

Probably the best bowling attack fielded in the last decade, if not more, IMHO.

 

[Richard]

Donald \ de Villiers \ Matthews \ McMillan (sometimes with Symcox thrown in) at least gives it a run for its money.

And TBH, Hoggard-Flintoff-Jones is very possibly superior.

 

[The Masterplan]

Greenidge

 

[Goughy]

Donald \ de Villiers \ Matthews \ McMillan (sometimes with Symcox thrown in) at least gives it a run for its money.

And TBH, Hoggard-Flintoff-Jones is very possibly superior.

Neither would be within a country mile of the attack mentioned.

 

[Richard]

Not as good maybe, but I cannot believe you would seriously suggest that they're not even close.

 

[Goughy]

Not as good maybe, but I cannot believe you would seriously suggest that they're not even close.

They are not even as close. That Aus attack has 2 genuine candidates for an all time XI, another very good bowler and one of the 2 fastest bowlers this side of Thomson as a shock role player.

The attacks you mention, their best bowler wouldnt make the top 2 of the Aus attack. As much as I love Donald, he is behind McGrath and Warne by a distance. Fast Fanie is the 2nd guy on that list and he was a good hard working pro but nothing like a World beater. Matthews, Symcox, Big Mac etc dont compare. As for the England trio, its not worth mentioning

 

[neville cardus]

]Fast[/B] Fannie

Don't scorn the Afrikaans; it has far more flavour. Gimme "Vinnige".

 

[Goughy]

Don't scorn the Afrikaans; it has far more flavour. Gimme "Vinnige".

A BVP watcher eh?

 

[Richard]

They are not even as close. That Aus attack has 2 genuine candidates for an all time XI, another very good bowler and one of the 2 fastest bowlers this side of Thomson as a shock role player.

The attacks you mention, their best bowler wouldnt make the top 2 of the Aus attack. As much as I love Donald, he is behind McGrath and Warne by a distance. Fast Fanie is the 2nd guy on that list and he was a good hard working pro but nothing like a World beater. Matthews, Symcox, Big Mac etc dont compare. As for the England trio, its not worth mentioning

You'd say de Villiers > Gillespie? Have always held them fairly close myself, though my knowledge of PSdeV isn't extensive.

TBH I'd also say Donald > Warne and possibly > McGrath. Have known many to disagree though, so won't go into that again.

Obviously McMillan and Symcox aren't close to McGrath, Gillespie or Warne.

What people tend to forget, however, is that there was never a point where all of McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were at the top of their games concurrantly. As I mentioned, they didn't play together that much. And I find it hard to conceive they ever comfortably outstripped the threat posed by the English trio in 2005.

 

[neville cardus]

A BVP watcher eh?

Yes. Although it necessitates a lot more concentration on my part than does its English similitude, I find it far more natural, lively and colourful. Rhino can be pretty dire, though.

 

[Googenheim]

More interestingly, how exactly did you class a the point at which something went from non-sticky to sticky?

I don't know. How exactly do you class the point at which something went from a chance to a non-chance?

 

[aussie]

Here's the thing: Donald was not at his best, but Donald EVEN on that form was one of the world's best. Donald went into that series with figures, although lower than his career averages, which are better than 95% of all fast bowlers ever. That whole attack, as Goughy points out, was on fire in that time.

No way yo. The Donald that Hayden faced during the 2001/02 unofficial world championship series was clearly past his best. The last time that Donald was at the peak of his power i.e bowling in the early 90 mph bracket & really testing batsmen courage & technique was when ENG toured SA in 99. As we entered this 2000's decade he barely played 2 full series (with a few test vs NZ & SRI in between) vs IND in India & vs WI in WI a series which i saw & Donald even though was bowling accurately & consistently wasn't at his tearaway best of the 90s. So by time the series vs AUS came around Donald wasn't much of a threat on Australian pitches & anymore & if you remember in his last test match was when Gilly smoked that fantastic double i remember him going off injured after about 10 overs or so..

If Goughy said the whole SA attack was on fire before those 2001/02 test series i don't doubt it. But seriously beating IND, NZ, SRI @ home then winning in WI & ZIM away from home at that time wouldn't have made much sense regardless of how well they one going into a test series againts Australia. Plus the attack had its faults with only Pollock really being a top-class performer, Donald in decline, Ntini was still average, Kallis was solid, Hayward, Ngam, Boje, Henderson, Kemp, Terbrugge not much of a scare for Waugh's men at the time..

Now here is another point, even if we consider Donald wasn't at his best, no other (I think apart from Hutton) opener in history dominated an attack that strong in such a way. He averaged 100+. The only time Hobbs or Gavaskar managed such a feat against a side was when that side was a minnow or one of the worst sides of the time.

So how can anyone dismiss that? To me, you'd have to be whacked out of your mind or plainly biased to try to argue or take away from that series.

I don't dismiss it, he batted superbly in that series. I personally though even though he wasn't as prolific rate his performance vs SA in 05/06 much higher for obvious reasons.

LOL, but why would you have questions over their ability? During Ponting, Kallis, Dravid's time the standard of bowling has been higher. Name every test nation and see if they are better now or in the decades you propose. Some are the same, some are better and I'd say only WIndies/New Zealand are worse. And that depends, because the two aforementioned were only good for one of those decades.

No way yo. There is a big gap in quality between the quality of bowling in this 2000's era than in the 70s 80s & 90s regardless of the misconseption that i sensed on this forum that in those era's it was bowling attacks sent from god & batting was impossible.

West Indies were obviously better back then, Pakistan were pretty similar in the 80's & 90's while Australia were comparable if not slightly better in the recent decade to back then.

I reckon India pace bowling stocks in my time of watching cricket (97 to now) starting from Srinath are better than what was back in the 70's & 80's where only Kapil quality bowler & yet even the great dev wouldn't even be ranked amongst the top 30 fast-bowlers of all-time.

The NZ bowling attack than i've seen i very sure was not better back then where Hadlee was the only quality bowler backed up by mediocre bunch of Chatfield, Morrison, Collinge.

NZ have had propably over the past decade produced the best crop of fast-bowlers in there history in Bond, Allot, Doull, Cairns, O'Connor, Nash but guess what they all have had injury woes.

England with Snow/Willis/Lever/Old/Botham/Underwood for the majority of the 70s & early 80s was the best England have had until the Gough/Caddick partnership lead to recent solid group of English pace bowlers that you are well aware off that lead to Ashes glory.

Here's the crux of the argument: Ponting is in this era now rightly recognised as the best, for his feats in this era. Now why is it that Ponting has no question over his name?

He does in how he would cope with consistent high quality bowling in testing conditions. I personally think he would do pretty well given what i've seen him done in a few innings already most notably his 156 @ OT that i had the great privaledge of viweing right at the ground.

I'm sure you realise that both Hayden and Ponting have faced the same sides? Why is it that Ponting is so easily compared to Tendulkar and Lara but Waugh just misses out? Waugh scored most of his runs in the 90s, better form than Lara!

I don't know about people but i wouldn't say that Ponting is easily compared to Tendy/Lara, Waugh is. Not sure if Waugh was statistically better than Lara during the 90's but without looking @ stats & the drought period Lara had between 96-99 until he smoked Australia in that memorable 99 series i would take Lara over Waugh during the 90s even though Wazza was without doubt a rock again his twin hundreds @ OT (a really special ground you might say) that i saw as a kid in 97 my first ever test started my passion for the game.

 

[aussie]

Would put... well, the names I've mentioned about 10 times... ahead of him TBH. Woodfull, Ponsford, Barnes, Morris, Lawry, Simpson, Redpath, Taylor, Slater. And maybe more.

Richard you are making my hand fall son, Ian Redpath christ yo. Without any disrespect keep your thoughts about Hayden firmly to yourself i can't believe what i'm reading.

 

[Richard]

D'you know how good Ian Redpath was?

Very, very good.

 

[aussie]

What people tend to forget, however, is that there was never a point where all of McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were at the top of their games concurrantly. As I mentioned, they didn't play together that much.

What gives you that idea might i ask? and i'm very sure McGrath/Dizzy/Warne played the most test of as a bowling combination than any in Australia 13 years of world dominance.

And I find it hard to conceive they ever comfortably outstripped the threat posed by the English trio in 2005.

Agreed, the way the English quarter bowled in 05 was easily on par with McGrath/Dizzy/Warne at their best.

 

[Richard]

I don't know. How exactly do you class the point at which something went from a chance to a non-chance?

Whether or not it's (realistically) catchable, purely and simply. There's no hard-and-fast all-encompassing description, but near enough any delivery I could tell you whether or not a ball was realistically catchable given where fielders were upon delivery.

 

[Goughy]

Agreed, the way the English quarter bowled in 05 was easily on par with McGrath/Dizzy/Warne at their best.

Thats interesting, as the 2 best bowlers in that series were McGrath and Warne. And anyway, Richard didnt call it a quartet. He excluded Harmison.

 

[Richard]

What gives you that idea might i ask? and i'm very sure McGrath/Dizzy/Warne played the most test of as a bowling combination than any in Australia 13 years of world dominance.

Overall there were 47, which was a few more than I'd thought actually. But let's look at them...

The first 9 of these were when Gillespie was just starting out, and was never a complete fixture in the side. Still bowled pretty well, though, of course.

The next 7 were during the period when Warne was mostly bowling very poorly.

The next 13 were during a time when Gillespie wasn't actually doing that well - he took 17 at 20 in the first 3, then 26 at 42.46 in the remaining 10.

There were 3 games in The Ashes 2002/03 when the combination was perhaps at the peak of its powers. Then McGrath (and Gillespie briefly) got injured again, then there were another 5 where the combination was often thereabouts but never fully on together. Then there was 5 at home in 2004/05 where they ransacked all before them (along with Michael Kasprowicz in the best comination of the lot).

Then another 5, in New Zealand and England in early 2005, when Gillespie completely went off-the-boil.

So as I said - it was a combination that could have done great things, but through various combinations of circumstances, never quite managed it. Still there won't have been a hell of a lot more attacks obviously in or near the same class in recent times. But their own calibre is of times overstated.

 

[Ikki]

No way yo. The Donald that Hayden faced during the 2001/02 unofficial world championship series was clearly past his best. The last time that Donald was at the peak of his power i.e bowling in the early 90 mph bracket & really testing batsmen courage & technique was when ENG toured SA in 99. As we entered this 2000's decade he barely played 2 full series (with a few test vs NZ & SRI in between) vs IND in India & vs WI in WI a series which i saw & Donald even though was bowling accurately & consistently wasn't at his tearaway best of the 90s. So by time the series vs AUS came around Donald wasn't much of a threat on Australian pitches & anymore & if you remember in his last test match was when Gilly smoked that fantastic double i remember him going off injured after about 10 overs or so..

I am not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or agreeing with me. Yes, Donald was past his best but Donald went into that still as one of the best in the world. You say as the 2000s came he drop off, well here are his figures from 2000 till he meets Australia. And here counting the Australia series. As you can see, still figures of one of the world's best.

Even an out of form Donald, with a top-form Pollock and a career best Kallis and a novice Ntini can be considered a very very good attack.

If Goughy said the whole SA attack was on fire before those 2001/02 test series i don't doubt it. But seriously beating IND, NZ, SRI @ home then winning in WI & ZIM away from home at that time wouldn't have made much sense regardless of how well they one going into a test series againts Australia. Plus the attack had its faults with only Pollock really being a top-class performer, Donald in decline, Ntini was still average, Kallis was solid, Hayward, Ngam, Boje, Henderson, Kemp, Terbrugge not much of a scare for Waugh's men at the time..

Pollock was on top form, Ntini was new and Kallis was in the form of his life. But Donald was not poor, he just wasn't as good as his usual self. I guru'd the figures in the part above.

I don't dismiss it, he batted superbly in that series. I personally though even though he wasn't as prolific rate his performance vs SA in 05/06 much higher for obvious reasons.

Sorry mate, that wasn't directed at you .

No way yo. There is a big gap in quality between the quality of bowling in this 2000's era than in the 70s 80s & 90s regardless of the misconseption that i sensed on this forum that in those era's it was bowling attacks sent from god & batting was impossible.

West Indies were obviously better back then, Pakistan were pretty similar in the 80's & 90's while Australia were comparable if not slightly better in the recent decade to back then.

You're wrong my friend. Pakistan and the Windies were only strong in the 80s. Not in the 70s. In the 90s they were still strong (which coincides with the time of the players aforementioned).

I reckon India pace bowling stocks in my time of watching cricket (97 to now) starting from Srinath are better than what was back in the 70's & 80's where only Kapil quality bowler & yet even the great dev wouldn't even be ranked amongst the top 30 fast-bowlers of all-time.

India is much better now, no contest.

The NZ bowling attack than i've seen i very sure was not better back then where Hadlee was the only quality bowler backed up by mediocre bunch of Chatfield, Morrison, Collinge.

Yep, I agree.

NZ have had propably over the past decade produced the best crop of fast-bowlers in there history in Bond, Allot, Doull, Cairns, O'Connor, Nash but guess what they all have had injury woes.

Sure.

England with Snow/Willis/Lever/Old/Botham/Underwood for the majority of the 70s & early 80s was the best England have had until the Gough/Caddick partnership lead to recent solid group of English pace bowlers that you are well aware off that lead to Ashes glory.

I agree, but Gavaskar (sorry for the consistent mention, but these are the players we're comparing) was thoroughly held against England. So whether they were much stronger or not, Gavaskar did not succeed and it is quite a blemish on his record.

Anyway, you just said all the above in favour of Kallis/Ponting/Dravid and co facing tougher attacks?

Add South Africa not even existing in the past and Aussies being much stronger in 90s and even stronger in the 2000s.

So out of non-minnow sides: India, Pakistan, Aussies, S.Africa, Sri Lanka, England are just as good - or probably better - now than in the 90s. New Zealand, although with good talents have been ravaged by injuries. West Indies have fallen apart altogether.

And the 90s was the best decade. So, again, it's a mythical statement, the one about bowling standards declining. And even if you were to still contend it, the difference is so small - it in no way shape or form justifies saying, "yeah, X batsman minus 10 runs on average and he would achieve that in the 70s/80s/90s."

I don't know about people but i wouldn't say that Ponting is easily compared to Tendy/Lara, Waugh is. Not sure if Waugh was statistically better than Lara during the 90's but without looking @ stats & the drought period Lara had between 96-99
until he smoked Australia in that memorable 99 series i would take Lara over Waugh during the 90s even though Wazza was without doubt a rock again his twin hundreds @ OT (a really special ground you might say) that i saw as a kid in 97 my first ever test started my passion for the game.

You're right. Waugh averages 53 to Lara's 51. However, Lara has a much better SR. And Lara was also in a side that was getting weaker as the decade progressed and Waugh in one that got stronger as it progressed. I might have to retract saying Waugh was better. It's certainly an even comparison.