ret
International Debutant
Sobers played in the 70s .... he has played an ODI .... and probably is the best batting all-rounder the world has seen
Last edited:
-
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.
Your All Time XI'S test/one day
- Thread starter Outside Edge
- Start date
pasag
RTDAS
Am a huge Hayden fan and I don't like questioning other people's XIs, but Hayden>Gavaskar, Hutton?!
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
We seem to go through this every time I put Hayden there. Yes, I understand he is not a popular choice but to me - and lord knows how many times I've made this argument - he is equal to them and I probably lean more towards him because of his aggressive and domineering style, and also because I have seen much more of him. In fact, if I were to put someone else I am leaning more towards Sutcliffe because not only does he average highest of openers, disregarding the rest of his legacy, but he was Hobbs' partner. I think of all batting pairs the top two need that bond. But I haven't seen him bat as much either and I have seen Hayden bat on tough tracks, against great bowlers and against great spells of bowling and come out on top. The arguments that others put forth to disregard that I do not believe in.
Last edited:
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
All time aussie XI or somethng?
All time test XI
Len Hutton / Herbert Sutcliffe
Jack Hobbs
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Vivian Richards
Gary Sobers / Jacques Kallis
Andrew Flower / Adam Gilchrist
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Wasim Akram
Muralitharan
pasag
RTDAS
Yeah I think he's a great opener as well but he's really not in the same mould as your Gavaskars, Huttons and Sutcliffe.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Yeh, mine is heavily Aussie. Fortunately, there is a lot to back it up and it's not pure bias. Bradman walks in, so does Gilchrist; Warne, Lillee and McGrath are my top 3 bowlers of all time (in that order); Ponting is up there with Tendulkar and Lara (I've also added Hammond too), Tendulkar has gone up in my ratings due to his last series against Australia; and Hayden is really the controversial one which I've argued at length and the threads are there if you wish to look at them.
On the other hand, I see your list...is it anti-Aussie?
Seriously, it's not much of a competition between Gilchrist and Flower for Wk. One is a much much better keeper whilst the other one can claim to be a little better at batting.
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Hmmm:
- Hayden
- Tendulkar
- Bradman
- Richards
- Sobers
- Gilchrist
- Warne
- Ambrose
- Garner
- McGrath
- Murali
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I'd really like an explanation as to why he is not in the same mould as the aforementioned openers.
pasag
RTDAS
They're the greatest of the great, everyone who has watched them will testify to this. All anecdotal evidence backs this up. Hayden, well, he has been tremendous but he's in no way all-time XI material. I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who knows much about cricket pre-2000 to agree either.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
They're the greatest of the great...great explanation. Sunil did awesome against the Windies too. Another great comment.
Unfortunately, Hayden's legacy has been marred by a lot of ignorance regarding his career and about the man himself. I'll end the debate here because I've already discussed it repeatedly. Suffice to say, I am sure his legacy will get greater with each passing year. Thus far, he has achieved more than enough for me to consider him in the same 'mould'.
pasag
RTDAS
Have seen this before, you fight so strongly to get a player recognition that sometimes you begin to overstate his worth. I do it myself (some would say with Trumper in my XI). If you didn't fight with Richard for 50 pages about why Hayden is better than Nasser Hussain would you have him there? I doubt it.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I think Hayden is a very good player. The fact that he got owned in the nineties when there were lots of great bowlers around works against him. Of course, you could argue he was a better player later on, which is a legitimate thing to say.
But then he did badly in really good swinging conditions against top quality bowling in Ashes 2005, averages 28 in New Zealand, averages 34 in South Africa, and averages 34 in England. So he is pegged as a flat track bully. That's a pretty harsh record to have for someone in an all time XI. Personally, thats just not good enough for me. I know you disagree and obviously that's fair enough - but unless he shows me something quite different, I wouldn't put him in the top five openers of all time. In fact, I'd put a couple of Aussie openers ahead of him.
I think since 2000, he has clearly been the best opener in Test cricket, but considering where and when he scores, it raises a lot of questions about him when comparing him to the all time greats.
But then he did badly in really good swinging conditions against top quality bowling in Ashes 2005, averages 28 in New Zealand, averages 34 in South Africa, and averages 34 in England. So he is pegged as a flat track bully. That's a pretty harsh record to have for someone in an all time XI. Personally, thats just not good enough for me. I know you disagree and obviously that's fair enough - but unless he shows me something quite different, I wouldn't put him in the top five openers of all time. In fact, I'd put a couple of Aussie openers ahead of him.
I think since 2000, he has clearly been the best opener in Test cricket, but considering where and when he scores, it raises a lot of questions about him when comparing him to the all time greats.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Hobbs only played in 3 countries - not his fault, but fact, only 3 countries. He did not have to face the quality of bowlers that Hayden has either, especially not the quality in spin. Sobers has a pitiful record in New Zealand too, bad in Pakistan also - and these were much poorer sides then than now, so factor that in with it. Gavaskar was poor in England and scored his runs against much weaker Windies bowlers.
You can go on and on. Most of these batsmen come with myths. Bowling even in Hayden's era was much better than what it was in Gavaskar's. We've gone through this before picking the bowlers and the bowling attacks of each team.. Also Hayden scores probably close to 20 points in SR quicker than Gavaskar. Add to the fact that Hayden will probably score more centuries than Gavaskar did in less tests.
This is the key thing here... if you argue the quality of Hayden's knocks, it would only affect his average slightly and his scores slightly. Scoring centuries is still extremely difficult and he does it like no other opener ever.
Oh, and if you are arguing that Hayden is a different batsmen from 2000 onwards, then you have to look at things like his average since he got back in the side against S.Africa in S.Africa is 49. It was his failing years in the 90s that brings that down.
And please don't make me laugh about the high quality swing/bowling. Every batsman in the history of cricket has had trouble in those kinds of conditions. But did you watch the last test series vs. India? Was there not swing? Was there not high quality bowling? Remind me, how did he do?
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Actually, the only reason I would argue with Richard in that thread was because a) it is absolutely inane to even compare and b) because I would put Hayden in an All-time XI that I'd argue that much about it.
IMO, people will have to seriously reevaluate Hayden soon. The facts/stats just don't back the skewed way some people think about him.
As aforesaid, you can put who you like but to make comments like "Hayden isn't in the same mould" is just frustrating.
Last edited:
pasag
RTDAS
Are you saying that if someone doesn't hold Hayden is the second greatest opener ever, like you, they have a warped view of things? Correct me if I'm wrong but I said Hayden is a great but not one of the greatest, so the implications of your post seem to be that that view is 'skewed'.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Haha, what? No. I am saying to imply that Hayden is not comparable (not in the same mould) is to have a 'warped view of things'. Hayden is as comparable to Gavaskar as Gavaskar is to Hutton and Hutton is to Hobbs.
pasag
RTDAS
OK, so just to clarify so there are no misunderstandings, if you hold Hayden is a great opening batsman, but not in the same echelon as all-time greats such as Hobbs, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe and Hutton, then you have a warped view of things? Yes/no?
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
No, I wouldn't say that. Nor did I mention "warp" as it was you who did. I said, it is frustrating to hear that Hayden is not comparable to these guys. It's tripe. He has done just as much if not more but is not in the same 'mould'? It's starting to sound like a bad joke. You fail to realise that guys like Hutton may have scored consistently against everyone, but ignore that the field of bowlers and opposition was in fact much poorer to what Hayden's was. Did India, Pakistan, West Indies, NZ have anything even near what they have now? Not even close.
Last edited:
pasag
RTDAS
He's not though. All you have to do is watch him play. You can roll off any statistic you want but there's no way that he's the one of the very greatest opening batsman ever. Excellent player, excellent career but you have to do that little more to get in the most exclusive of clubs. I guess you'll take this as a slight on Hayden or depreciating his worth somewhat, but I reckon I rate him one of the highest on this forum but to start going on about he's in the same league as those few is the result of either as I said before, defending him so much that you start doing it when it's unwarranted or extreme bias. Judging by the tone of your posts including the condescending nature and how strung up you've got about a simple question it, I'd say both.