Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?

[Precambrian]

When Ponting faced them, he did so also in the trying conditions in Sharjah which I would say is even more a testament to his batting. His batting against Pakistan is not in question like Tendulkar's is.

Tendulkar vs Pakistan pre 2000 with WW and even Imran is 7 matches at 35. A poor record for players of this stature.

Ponting's Ashes record is ordinary because he averages 48 yet Sachin's averages of 35, 42, etc are decent? That's Ponting's worst opponent, he is only 1-2 points off making his English record and his Indian record over 50 - which would mean he averages 50+ against every Test nation in the world. His only blot would be playing in India...nothing else.

It's not really disputable, Ponting has the more complete record.

I actually meant Ponting's Ashes Record IN England. An average of 42 is mediocre as compared to his overall average.

Tendulkar is clearly the more rounded player, as he has shown hardly any weakness in his technique, and equally adept at facing pace and spin. Plus he'd be playing for Australia had he been born in Australia (given his record there), while Punter wouldnt be playing Ranji with had he been born in India. Ponting's basically a home bully. He has made tons of his runs on roadish Australian pitches, as compared to Tendulkar who has made runs basically everywhere.

And one more thing, Tendulkar has played in 50+ grounds as compared to Ponting's 30-odd. And to finish, Tendulkar's runs are more or less evenly distributed all over the World, as his top 5 grounds have contributed around 30% to his overall kitty, while POnting's more than half runs have come from his top 5 grounds, all of them in Australia. So that should pretty sum up who's been the more rounded player.

And this is my final post in Ponting Vs Tendulkar topic. It serves no purpose in a Hayden Vs Gavaskar thread.

 

[Anil]

Also, Tendulkar's non-minnows average is 51. Ponting's is 57. Quite a big difference there really.

Not getting involved in this debate, just pointing that out.

just shows the problem with concentrating on stats while judging a player...

 

[Ikki]

I actually meant Ponting's Ashes Record IN England. An average of 42 is mediocre as compared to his overall average.

If averaging 42 away is mediocre, then there is even more to worry about Tendulkar's away averages.

Tendulkar is clearly the more rounded player, as he has shown hardly any weakness in his technique, and equally adept at facing pace and spin. Plus he'd be playing for Australia had he been born in Australia (given his record there), while Punter wouldnt be playing Ranji with had he been born in India. Ponting's basically a home bully. He has made tons of his runs on roadish Australian pitches, as compared to Tendulkar who has made runs basically everywhere.

Ponting is one of the best players of pace in the world and is frankly, barring playing spinners in India, a very very good player of spin also. To say Tendulkar is more rounded as a batsmen is, as subjective as it is, ridiculous. Ponting scores more runs than Tendulkar by quite a distance, technique or not.

Furthermore, Ponting's away average is about the same as Tendulkar's. How does that make him overly reliant on his home figures? Furthermore, what weighs Ponting's away average down is India. Barring India, meaning everwhere else, his away from home average is 62. Much higher than Tendulkar. Even when I do take Sachin's poor S.Africa out. And if I remove the minnows that gap expands even wider.

In fact, looking at Ponting's home record against his away record (without India) it is the same. The only thing that brings his average down is India.

And one more thing, Tendulkar has played in 50+ grounds as compared to Ponting's 30-odd. And to finish, Tendulkar's runs are more or less evenly distributed all over the World, as his top 5 grounds have contributed around 30% to his overall kitty, while POnting's more than half runs have come from his top 5 grounds, all of them in Australia. So that should pretty sum up who's been the more rounded player.

Ponting can only play where his team goes. And his average is more than indication of how he'd do. His away form is better than Tendulkar. Very easy to grasp. Ponting averages much more than Tendulkar, there is a reason for that.

And this is my final post in Ponting Vs Tendulkar topic. It serves no purpose in a Hayden Vs Gavaskar thread.

You're right, it doesn't. My basic point was, as I addressed in reply to your posts, that there are too many ingrained misconceptions about certain players. Tendulkar and Ponting just another pair. When we use stats to break them down, we can judge much more fairly instead appealing that Bradman said Tendulkar batted like him.

 

[Precambrian]

Naa, being a stats junkie for so many years, i've come to realise that stats are easily the most deceptive thing about players. It is really sad when world class players like Ponting and Tendulkar are reduced to mere numbers, and the actual strokeplay of theirs is hardly appreciated. Where is test cricket as a spectator sport these days? Where are those days when a Trumper or Vishy was regarded in the same vein as Bradman or Gavaskar irrespective of stats?

 

[Prince EWS]

Naa, being a stats junkie for so many years, i've come to realise that stats are easily the most deceptive thing about players. It is really sad when world class players like Ponting and Tendulkar are reduced to mere numbers, and the actual strokeplay of theirs is hardly appreciated. Where is test cricket as a spectator sport these days? Where are those days when a Trumper or Vishy was regarded in the same vein as Bradman or Gavaskar irrespective of stats?

People actually started to realise that aesthetics and production are two totally different things.

Player X may have looked like he could conquer all but if he didn't do it, it's immaterial. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population at the time though that Player X was the best of all time - if he didn't actually achieve what Player Y did, he wasn't as good a player. It's a fairly simply concept. This is why Justin Langer was better than Daren Ganga and Michael Hussey will almost definitely end up better than Carl Hooper despite the fact that if you watched each of them score a ton you'd say the exact opposite.

You can delve into the romance and nostalgia of strokeplay and bowling actions and I always enjoy reading posts on here when people do exactly that, but it's a complete separate topic to a player's quality and his achievements throughout his career. Both can contribute to his legacy but only the latter should determine how good a player he actually was.

 

[Precambrian]

People actually started to realise that aesthetics and production are two totally different things.

Player X may have looked like he could conquer all but if he didn't do it, it's immaterial. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population at the time though that Player X was the best of all time - if he didn't actually achieve what Player Y did, he wasn't as good a player. It's a fairly simply concept. This is why Justin Langer was better than Daren Ganga and Michael Hussey will almost definitely end up better than Carl Hooper despite the fact that if you watched each of them score a ton you'd say the exact opposite.

You can delve into the romance and nostalgia of strokeplay and bowling actions and I always enjoy reading posts on here when people do exactly that, but it's a complete separate topic to a player's quality and his achievements throughout his career. Both can contribute to his legacy but only the latter should determine how good a player he actually was.

Agree. But then a Vishy or Trumper hardly classified as those. They combined aesthetics with un-matchable performances. It's only that they didnt get the huge scores which pushes up their average. But they were there when they were needed.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree. But then a Vishy or Trumper hardly classified as those. They combined aesthetics with un-matchable performances. It's only that they didnt get the huge scores which pushes up their average. But they were there when they were needed.

I haven't analysed either in detail, but the stats would show that if it was true (not saying it isn't, particularly with Trumper as I have a semi-decent knowledge of his career). Blanket averages never tell you too much, but if they always stood up when needed then that will show on the scorecard. It probably has in both these instances.

I'd argue that {scoring the runs when required + really going on with the job and getting big scores} > {scoring the runs when required + looking fabulous doing so} in terms of actual production regardless though. When you're comparing greats, they've all stood up when required - that's why they're greats. Going on with it and making huge scores is oft what separates them though.

 

[archie mac]

People actually started to realise that aesthetics and production are two totally different things.

Player X may have looked like he could conquer all but if he didn't do it, it's immaterial. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population at the time though that Player X was the best of all time - if he didn't actually achieve what Player Y did, he wasn't as good a player. It's a fairly simply concept. This is why Justin Langer was better than Daren Ganga and Michael Hussey will almost definitely end up better than Carl Hooper despite the fact that if you watched each of them score a ton you'd say the exact opposite.

You can delve into the romance and nostalgia of strokeplay and bowling actions and I always enjoy reading posts on here when people do exactly that, but it's a complete separate topic to a player's quality and his achievements throughout his career. Both can contribute to his legacy but only the latter should determine how good a player he actually was.

No, that is basically wrong. Why watch the game? Why not just study the score cards and tell us how well player X batted

Someone who looked really good like Hooper or M. Waugh, but both of whom were very frustrating, you will find contemporary viewers and players saying just that, and the average will back that up.

But then you have someone like Viv Richards who destroyed attacks, and was clearly better then the rest, and who did average over 50, but not 60, and when every player and watcher tells/writes he was one of the greats then how do you argue with that?

"His ave. was not as high as Ponting so he was not as good" Please

 

[archie mac]

They aren't stats, they're the number of runs they scored. Runs win cricket matches, not impressing spectators.

When you say he was the best, do you mean he was the best to watch? The most impossible to bowl to when he was on form? The most consistent? The best to have in pressure situations?

If you take good batting to mean scoring lots of runs, which is what i've always felt it should be, then how many runs he scores has to be more important than how he made his fellow players feel.

It is not just spectators, it is every player, every commentator, every writer, I gave five reasons about 6 pages back!!!!

 

[archie mac]

I don't dismiss it. I have never once dismissed it. I simply say that it isn't enough for me to decide he's the second-best batsman of all-time, or even top-ten material.

I fully understand the reasons people have for thinking Richards the second-best batsman of all-time; I simply disagree with the line of reasoning.

You do dismiss it, otherwise you would agree! Find me one person who watched played with or against who is not of that opinion??

So their reasoning is wrong? What part?

 

[Sanz]

No, that is basically wrong. Why watch the game? Why not just study the score cards and tell us how well player X batted

Someone who looked really good like Hooper or M. Waugh, but both of whom were very frustrating, you will find contemporary viewers and players saying just that, and the average will back that up.

But then you have someone like Viv Richards who destroyed attacks, and was clearly better then the rest, and who did average over 50, but not 60, and when every player and watcher tells/writes he was one of the greats then how do you argue with that?

"His ave. was not as high as Ponting so he was not as good" Please

I hear you.

 

[archie mac]

I hear you.

When the two of us agree on something Sanz, we must be right

 

[Precambrian]

No, that is basically wrong. Why watch the game? Why not just study the score cards and tell us how well player X batted

Someone who looked really good like Hooper or M. Waugh, but both of whom were very frustrating, you will find contemporary viewers and players saying just that, and the average will back that up.

But then you have someone like Viv Richards who destroyed attacks, and was clearly better then the rest, and who did average over 50, but not 60, and when every player and watcher tells/writes he was one of the greats then how do you argue with that?

"His ave. was not as high as Ponting so he was not as good" Please

AWTA completely. It is injustice meted out to Tendulkar's class when he is regarded as "The most prolific batsman" or "Highest Runs scorer" than "One of the most watchable batsmen". Sad when he's reduced to being called "Playing for the records", "Selfish" etc.

BTW, Gambhir's ton was exceptional. I think he can be a player like Justin Langer was for Australia. Same attributes, short and compact and can play with ease on both sides of the wicket. I'll be happy if he develops on his temperament, and the pull/hook,

 

[archie mac]

AWTA completely. It is injustice meted out to Tendulkar's class when he is regarded as "The most prolific batsman" or "Highest Runs scorer" than "One of the most watchable batsmen". Sad when he's reduced to being called "Playing for the records", "Selfish" etc.

BTW, Gambhir's ton was exceptional. I think he can be a player like Justin Langer was for Australia. Same attributes, short and compact and can play with ease on both sides of the wicket. I'll be happy if he develops on his temperament, and the pull/hook,

Looks good, but I will reserve judgement until I seem him on a pace wicket

Lets hope he does not get hit in the head as often as Langer

 

[PhoenixFire]

No, that is basically wrong. Why watch the game? Why not just study the score cards and tell us how well player X batted

Someone who looked really good like Hooper or M. Waugh, but both of whom were very frustrating, you will find contemporary viewers and players saying just that, and the average will back that up.

But then you have someone like Viv Richards who destroyed attacks, and was clearly better then the rest, and who did average over 50, but not 60, and when every player and watcher tells/writes he was one of the greats then how do you argue with that?

"His ave. was not as high as Ponting so he was not as good" Please

Pretty much agree with this.

 

[Precambrian]

Looks good, but I will reserve judgement until I seem him on a pace wicket

Lets hope he does not get hit in the head as often as Langer

Gambhir was top scorer in the CB series Down Under? I know his true test will come only when he open in tests there, but that ODI series gave him so much confidence.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No, you make your mind up about Hayden because you watched him, but you dismiss what everyone says about Richards because you did not see him

I don't dismiss it. I have never once dismissed it. I simply say that it isn't enough for me to decide he's the second-best batsman of all-time, or even top-ten material.

Shame on you Archie for saying that Richard has ever been dismissive of Viv Richards.

 

[Precambrian]

Coming back to the topic, I believe had Gavaskar been in Hayden's place, he'd have simply shut stop and ensured that the team didnt lose early wickets, unlike Hayden who was so atrociously tried to "bully" the Indian bowlers.

 

[Perm]

Certainly have no problem with Hammond/Kallis or Hayden/Gavaskar, and I think Sanga is fit for comparison with anyone.

As superb as he is, Jacques Kallis is miles away from the league of Wally Hammond. Remember, this is the guy who was second only to Bradman during his career and one of the finest ever Test batsmen.

 

[weldone]

As superb as he is, Jacques Kallis is miles away from the league of Wally Hammond. Remember, this is the guy who was second only to Bradman during his career and one of the finest ever Test batsmen.

Absolutely true...Don't you feel that he doesn't get discussed too much these days on CW? Shouldn't we open a new thread as a tribute to Hammond? What you say?