Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[steds]

Barry?

Dave.

 

[silentstriker]

A question I will ask, what do you think Hayden would average in the 70s/80s

35-40.

era and how well do you think guys like Holding would do now?

Slightly worse but still very good <25 average, still would easily be the best in the world though.

 

[Ikki]

35-40.

Slightly worse but still very good <25 average, still would easily be the best in the world though.

See, this is very very funny to me. The proportion to which you just decreased a player's, like Hayden's, average is so vast (potentially 20 runs on average) yet the average for which a wicket would cost holding is just small? Hmm, do you not realise these two factors have a relationship here?

Hayden is the best opener of his time, hardly ever been a better one to compare with even in his trough. Holding on the other hand wasn't the clear best in his team let alone the world, yet he would end up being the best bowler in the world currently?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Maybe we should convert Pietersen to an opener so we can compare someone to Hobbs, right?

Nah, maybe the 10-15 other openers that actually are better than Hayden? Pietersen is better than Hayden FTR though

 

[Ikki]

Nah, maybe the 10-15 other openers that actually are better than Hayden? Pietersen is better than Hayden FTR though

Sure they are , and in that case so too is Pietersen .

 

[Sanz]

See, this is very very funny to me. The proportion to which you just decreased a player's, like Hayden's, average is so vast (potentially 20 runs on average) yet the average for which a wicket would cost holding is just small? Hmm, do you not realise these two factors have a relationship here?

Hayden is the best opener of his time, hardly ever been a better one to compare with even in his trough. Holding on the other hand wasn't the clear best in his team let alone the world, yet he would end up being the best bowler in the world currently?

If Hayden is the best opener of his time, it tells the lack of talent at opening position in the world right now, but it doesn't make Hayden any greater batsman by virtue of that ( and this is not a knock on Hayden because he is a very fine opener and gets little credit on this forum).

And on the same note, If Holding, in some people's opinion, wasn't even the best bowler in his team, it doesn't in any way make him any lesser bowler than he actually was. It just tells of the WI bowling riches during his time.

 

[Ikki]

If Hayden is the best opener of his time, it tells the lack of talent at opening position in the world right now, but it doesn't make Hayden any greater batsman by virtue of that ( and this is not a knock on Hayden because he is a very fine opener and gets little credit on this forum).

By the same generalisation: if Hayden is the best batsmen of his time, it means he was too good for the bowlers of the time.

And on the same note, If Holding, in some people's opinion, wasn't even the best bowler in his team, it doesn't in any way make him any lesser bowler than he actually was. It just tells of the WI bowling riches during his time.

Same form again: If Holding was very good in his own team, it had hardly anything to do with the rest of the world.

The fact is, if you are seriously entertaining the thought that Hayden is 20 runs worse and Holding only a few runs more, then guys like Richards and Chappell should be averaging in the 70s, or even 80s and batsmen like Lara and Tendulkar should never ever be mentioned along their names.

 

[Ikki]

i have seen hayden play as well as gavaskar and i have come to a definite conclusion that hayden is not in the same stratosphere as gavaskar as a batsman and as an opener...

You're right. Gavaskar was tighter than a drum. Hayden was nowhere near as defensive or as interested in keeping his wicket, even if that meant scoring runs at the rate of a snail, than Gavaskar.

 

[Sanz]

By the same generalisation: if Hayden is the best batsmen of his time, it means he was too good for the bowlers of the time.

I think that's shifting the goal post, from the best opening batsman to just the best batsman. Hayden is not the best batsman of his time, infact he isn't even the best or second best batsman in his own team at any time.

And I dont know how you can call my post as generalisation. I didnt make any generalisation but just stated the fact about lack of talent in opening position today or wealth of fast bowling talent in Holding's WI team.

Same form again: If Holding was very good in his own team, it had hardly anything to do with the rest of the world.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Holding was very good not only in his team but world over. The fact that he wasn't the best in his team doesn't diminish his greatness as a fast bowler in any way.

The fact is, if you are seriously entertaining the thought that Hayden is 20 runs worse and Holding only a few runs more, then guys like Richards and Chappell should be averaging in the 70s, or even 80s and batsmen like Lara and Tendulkar should never ever be mentioned along their names.

I am not entertaining any such though, SS is. I was merely pointing out that your this particular argument (Hayden is best opener of his time and Holding isn't the best bowler in his own team) doesn't counter his claim in any possible way and kind of unrelated.

 

[Ikki]

I think that's shifting the goal post, from the best opening batsman to just the best batsman. Hayden is not the best batsman of his time, infact he isn't even the best or second best batsman in his own team at any time.

I'll tell you why, because the fact is there is no greater opener, and as a batsmen, in his time, he has been ranked at varying points in the top 5. A batsman such as this would not be diminished by playing in a different era, so much so that the likes of McCosker, Redpath and Yallop (who? you may ask?) would be doing better than someone like Hayden.

And I dont know how you can call my post as generalisation. I didnt make any generalisation but just stated the fact about lack of talent in opening position today or wealth of fast bowling talent in Holding's WI team.

Because by the same token I can say that batsmen in that era weren't good enough to compete against the Windies and Batsmen in this era, who're doing much better, are going to increase his average by more than a few points.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Holding was very good not only in his team but world over. The fact that he wasn't the best in his team doesn't diminish his greatness as a fast bowler in any way.

It never should, that's the point. Now just take out Holding's name and put Hayden's in.

I am not entertaining any such though, SS is. I was merely pointing out that your this particular argument (Hayden is best opener of his time and Holding isn't the best bowler in his own team) doesn't counter his claim in any possible way and kind of unrelated.

My point in that comparison was to show that someone who is such a good batsmen in his own era, as good as Holding was for his amongst bowlers, will not possibly shrink to mediocrity. And IF such a thing can be said we can also doubt whether Holding would keep his healthy average at all.

 

[Anil]

You're right. Gavaskar was tighter than a drum. Hayden was nowhere near as defensive or as interested in keeping his wicket, even if that meant scoring runs at the rate of a snail, than Gavaskar.

and that, i guess is the only difference between them as far as you see, right? ...and have you even thought about why they approached batting differently? for that, you need to think about the respective sides each played in as well as the opposition each faced...

 

[Ikki]

and that, i guess is the only difference between them as far as you see, right? ...and have you even thought about why they approached batting differently? for that, you need to think about the respective sides each played in as well as the opposition each faced...

Ahh. Great point Mr. Anil, but that thought goes both ways. Still, apart from Greenidge I don't think there can be a more dominating opener than Hayden, and never a more defensive minded one than Sunil

My point is that, just because Hayden hasn't faced bowlers of the quality of Lillee and Marshall (he's still faced very good bowlers, who've also had the extra burden of trying to do something on flat pitches), it doesn't make him any worse. Because great batsmen, not even just openers, in Hayden's era (like Lara and Tendulkar) have had just as much trouble scoring runs now as they did earlier when pitches were less batsmen friendly and bowlers were of a higher standard. So, it is far from black and white.

And that's where your point comes in: they did what they had to, with what they faced. What makes you sure he wouldn't have adapted and done well? As, SS may suggest, is he no better than an Ian Redpath? For me, that's where it's starting to become ridiculous. Yes, a few runs here and there may switch sides but generally we are talking about the same batsmen and they're still highly comparable.

 

[Sanz]

Because by the same token I can say that batsmen in that era weren't good enough to compete against the Windies and Batsmen in this era, who're doing much better, are going to increase his average by more than a few points..

No, You can not. Because that simply is not true. There were quite a few batsmen who were as good (if not better) as any of today's greats e.g. Sunny Gavaskar, G Viswanath, Greg Chappell, Javed Miandad, Sir Richards to name a few.

 

[Ikki]

No, You can not. Because that simply is not true. There were quite a few batsmen who were as good (if not better) as any of today's greats e.g. Sunny Gavaskar, G Viswanath, Greg Chappell, Javed Miandad, Sir Richards to name a few.

Oh, and Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Waugh, Inzamam etc, weren't good?

 

[Sanz]

I'll tell you why, because the fact is there is no greater opener, and as a batsmen, in his time, he has been ranked at varying points in the top 5. A batsman such as this would not be diminished by playing in a different era, so much so that the likes of McCosker, Redpath and Yallop (who? you may ask?) would be doing better than someone like Hayden.

I dont know that, I have no way of proving and or disapproving that and that's the reason I can't ask that question or answer that question with any certainty. I can make a guess but will never bet on that. And player's ranking in top 5 isn't an indicator of anything.

It never should, that's the point. Now just take out Holding's name and put Hayden's in.

But that would be incorrect and illogical. Because in Hayden's era there is a clear lack of openers who were/are world class whereas in Holding's era there clearly was no such issue inside his team or outside of it.

My point in that comparison was to show that someone who is such a good batsmen in his own era, as good as Holding was for his amongst bowlers, will not possibly shrink to mediocrity. And IF such a thing can be said we can also doubt whether Holding would keep his healthy average at all.

And my point is there is no way of proving this in order to make any point..

 

[Ikki]

I dont know that, I have no way of proving and or disapproving that and that's the reason I can't ask that question or answer that question with any certainty. I can make a guess but will never bet on that. And player's ranking in top 5 isn't an indicator of anything.

Then by that same standard, there is no clear indicator that Holding was as good as he is being painted out to be too - if being top 5 isn't much to go by.

But that would be incorrect and illogical. Because in Hayden's era there is a clear lack of openers who were/are world class whereas in Holding's era there clearly was no such issue inside his team or outside of it.

So what you've just said is that when one individual excels much more than his peers, it is not deserving of the same praise compared to when the same individual may have many players surrounding him that are just as good as him?

Although I can kind of understand what you're saying, it still doesn't hold so true as there have been plenty of good batsmen in this era.

And my point is there is no way of proving this in order to make any point..

Which is indeed my whole point. Which is why I find denigrating Hayden's record, to almost 20 bloody runs on average, as the silliest thing I've heard. Yet, batsmen in the same era, who've done at times even worse than Hayden, who are supposedly better than him, aren't as harshly judged.

 

[Sanz]

Oh, and Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Waugh, Inzamam etc, weren't good?

And where did I say that ?

Infact it is You, who claimed that "that batsmen in that era weren't good enough to compete against the Windies and Batsmen in this era, who're doing much better", which is quite incorrect and I merely pointed that what you said was incorrect.

 

[Sanz]

Which is indeed my whole point. Which is why I find denigrating Hayden's record, to almost 20 bloody runs on average, is the silliest thing I've heard. Yet, batsmen in the same era who've done at times even worse than Hayden, aren't as harshly judged.

But you asked the question and people, who dont rate Hayden much (atleast not as much as you or I do) for whatever reason, will tell you their honest opinion. Incidently, SS, who answered your question also rates Holding very highly.

As far as I know SS is not deginerating Hayden's batting record, he is merely suggesting that Hayden isn't as skillfull as Gavaskar or some others. If at all you think that He is deginerating Hayden's record, then you are doing pretty much the same thing and making in incorrect claims while doing so.

 

[Ikki]

And where did I say that ?

Infact it is You, who claimed that "that batsmen in that era weren't good enough to compete against the Windies and Batsmen in this era, who're doing much better", which is quite incorrect and I merely pointed that what you said was incorrect.

I'm not saying you said it, I am merely pointing out the same point applies for Hayden.

No, I only made that generalisation, knowing it was false, to mirror other generalisations.

But you asked the question and people, who dont rate Hayden much (atleast not as much as you or I do) for whatever reason, will tell you their honest opinion. Incidently, SS, who answered your question also rates Holding very highly.

As far as I know SS is not deginerating Hayden's batting record, he is merely suggesting that Hayden isn't as skillfull as Gavaskar or some others. If at all you think that He is deginerating Hayden's record, then you are doing pretty much the same thing and making in incorrect claims while doing so.

I guess the issue is further than not rating Hayden and trying to shed a light on all bias. If we are comparing batsmen from this era, and Hayden being amongst the very best, then when we compare other batsmen of this era we should also apply the same principles.

To denigrate his average is to denigrate his record, because 20 whole runs accounts more for than just being skillful. Being skillful in what capacity? Essentially, whatever skill you have or don't have will be reflected in the game and on the scorecard. What, do I say Gavaskar would be a poor batsmen today because he scores runs at a rate slower than most great batsmen in cricket history, and since big scores are ever more needed now, he is poorer for that?

I'm not sure what claims you think I am making are incorrect, but be aware that I've also made statements in this conversation knowing they were false so I could bring up a juxtaposition.

 

[silentstriker]

See, this is very very funny to me. The proportion to which you just decreased a player's, like Hayden's, average is so vast (potentially 20 runs on average) yet the average for which a wicket would cost holding is just small? Hmm, do you not realise these two factors have a relationship here?

Yup, except Holding bowled very well on flat wickets while Hayden has been found wanting often on lively pitches, against quality bowling.

I was actually complimenting him that he would average as high as 40 as an opener facing the full might of the WI pace battery, Botham and England, Khan and Pakistan.