• 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.

Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?

Precambrian

Banned
I do not care for romanticism. Ponting may have had it better, but that has made him better - if you conceded that - and so he IS better.

And it depends when you start counting. For me Ponting has been the best since 2000. That year he averaged 67. Even now, whilst Hussey has a great average, I would not consider him superior to Ponting and I know few who would.
Who conceded what point? Mate you get to win $ 1 Million if you get me to "concede" that Ponting is better than Sachin? Get a life son, there are far better things in life than trying to play jingles with numbers and coming to conclusions whom other than you none cares.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Beauty of you to include Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe openers in that, not to mention the pathetic Windies openers of 2000s, as compared to the Greenidges and Gavaskars of the 1980s.
Evened out by the brilliant Aussie openers of the 00's and the pathetic Aussie/NZ/SL openers of the 80's, surely?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
No, that is basically wrong. Why watch the game? Why not just study the score cards and tell us how well player X batted8-)
Err.. because watching cricket is about a lot more than determining how successful someone's career was. I enjoy watching the game immensely but it doesn't help me determine how many runs someone scored.

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?
Because once you retire, you're only as good as what you actually did; not what people thought you could have done but you failed to. Richards was definitely a great cricketer and the stats back that up - there's even a very good statistical argument to suggest that he was indeed the best of his time despite his overall average. His legend adds to his legacy as a player but not to his actually quality.

"His ave. was not as high as Ponting so he was not as good" Please8-)
Comments like this really show a complete lack of understanding in my point. It's not just about what their final average was. Examining what they did (not what they looked like) across their career isn't just about opening up their cricinfo page and seeing their average: it's about examining their peaks and troughs, their records against the finest bowlers, their ability to play under pressure, their most important innings etc etc - all these can be seen by what they actually did. It's on the scorecard. How many people thought they looked awesome while they were doing that but failing to do what others did is really not relevant. By all accounts, Richards looked a complete class above when he batted, but that really doesn't matter as his stats (and no, I do NOT mean his final average) make him very comparable to several other batsmen of his time and indeed the likes of Kallis and Ponting. There's a good argument to suggest he was indeed better but the way he looked when he was batting is not part of that.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hardly. To believe Aus openers of 80s = Banga openers is just bollocks.
Never said they were equal. Just think that their ineptness wouldn't bring down the overall average that much because the Aussie openers in the same period have been awesome.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Beauty of you to include Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe openers in that, not to mention the pathetic Windies openers of 2000s, as compared to the Greenidges and Gavaskars of the 1980s.
What about Sri Lanka's openers? Or the pitiful Aussie openers? Or NZ's openers? India's openers except for Gavaskar?

Anyway, even removing them, which frankly I shouldn't do - since I should also remove Sri Lanka from Gavaskar's period - the average is 37.64. Still, hardly a difference, is it?

EDIT: taking away Sri Lanka for Gavaskar: 36.76.

Happy?

Who conceded what point? Mate you get to win $ 1 Million if you get me to "concede" that Ponting is better than Sachin? Get a life son, there are far better things in life than trying to play jingles with numbers and coming to conclusions whom other than you none cares.
I didn't mean to say you conceded it, I meant to say IF you concede that he is better because he had better system or whatever... it still makes him better.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Err.. because watching cricket is about a lot more than determining how successful someone's career was. I enjoy watching the game immensely but it doesn't help me determine how many runs someone scored.
Are you stating the obvious:laugh:



Because once you retire, you're only as good as what you actually did; not what people thought you could have done but you failed to. Richards was definitely a great cricketer and the stats back that up - there's even a very good statistical argument to suggest that he was indeed the best of his time despite his overall average. His legend adds to his legacy as a player but not to his actually quality.
Why is it? I watched him score runs off attacks no one else could, that tells me how great a cricketer he was, his average is OK, but in no way tells anyone for a moment what sort of a player he was.

That sort of silly argument denegrates every player who did not ave. enough has judged by someone with a bell curve


Comments like this really show a complete lack of understanding in my point. It's not just about what their final average was. Examining what they did (not what they looked like) across their career isn't just about opening up their cricinfo page and seeing their average: it's about examining their peaks and troughs, their records against the finest bowlers, their ability to play under pressure, their most important innings etc etc - all these can be seen by what they actually did. It's on the scorecard. How many people thought they looked awesome while they were doing that but failing to do what others did is really not relevant. By all accounts, Richards looked a complete class above when he batted, but that really doesn't matter as his stats (and no, I do NOT mean his final average) make him very comparable to several other batsmen of his time and indeed the likes of Kallis and Ponting. There's a good argument to suggest he was indeed better but the way he looked when he was batting is not part of that.
Why is it not relavant, I understand stats, I have also seen one person rate someone higher then someone else using what the believe to be the more correct formula, gee we even have examples on this thread, of the silly things people use to decide who was the better. If everyone at the time rates Richards the best of his time, then that should be it, not someone comparing this century with others twenty years ago, who did not watch the match and have no idea what Richards batting meant in the context of the overall match.

And I enjoy reading graphs and stats and looking over old score cards as much as most, I don't let them con me into believing the opposite to what contemporary players knew:@
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I wonder why no one rates Sutcliffe (with an average 60.73), higher than Jack Hobbs (56.95).

Or Barrington (58.67) above Tendulkar

Or Kallis (58.11) above Greg Chappell (53.86)

I wonder....
 
Last edited:

archie mac

International Coach
I wonder why no one rates Sutcliffe (with an average 60.73), higher than Jack Hobbs (56.95).

Or Barrington (58.67) above Tendulkar

Or Kallis (58.11) above Greg Chappell (53.86)

I wonder....
Don't worry mate, they can prove that they were8-)
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I wonder why no one rates Sutcliffe (with an average 60.73), higher than Jack Hobbs (56.95).

Or Barrington (58.67) above Tendulkar

Or Kallis (58.11) above Greg Chappell (53.86)

I wonder....
There are many reasons why or why not. But to say they are not comparable, as you seem to suggest, is a joke. Make a point and stick to it for heaven's. In and out, in and out.

Actually, I wonder why Barrington is so underrated?
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Actually, I wonder why Barrington is so underrated?
He was once dropped for taking a day and a half to score a century. Did himself and his team no favours but the 137 looks wonderful to the all important statsguru that calculates his average.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I think it would have been very low 40s or even worse:ph34r:

He had a strange habit of bringing up his ton with a six, about the only time he swung the bat:laugh:
He was one of the most boring top order batsmen to watch. Its okay when batsmen will play defensively in tough situations, or on bad wickets, or against superb bowling, or when they have just come in, or are going through a bad patch. Barrington would bat like that when the team was on top, when the wicket was dead (as were the bowlers), when he had already scored a huge number of runs and was going through a very fruitful patch. He drove you mad when he did that.

It was very admirable when he did it in adversity though.
 

Top