Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?

[masterblaster]

Back on topic, I'd be inclined to rank Gavaskar as the better test opener. While Matthew Hayden ranks up there for me as one of the most dominant opening batsman of all time, he still hasn't faced a challenge like the great West Indian fast bowlers of the 70's and 80's like Gavaskar did. Gavaskar not only faced the greats, but dominated them.

 

[Ikki]

How come they apply to Hayden and Gavaskar but not Richards?

Surely Gavaskar is more comparable to Richards than Gavaskar is to Hayden?

Not sure what you are a fishing for. I agree that Richards and Gavaskar are comparable.

I was just stating a case for superiority. I have no qualms about people saying "yes, these batsmen are close, both have their positives but x is better than y for reasons 1, 2 and 3". What I have a problem with are some of the inane responses regarding the question posed in this thread.

You want a silly comparison? Hayden and Hussain.

 

[SJS]

As long as there's always someone around to argue in the alternative (i.e. the runs scored by batsman in the last 6 or 7 years actually count, people who watched cricket in the olden days don't have irrefutable knowledge that all the players then were much better than their modern equivalents, etc) ,my work is done

I am older (another 14 months to go before I am sixty) and I don't think Gavaskar is better than all modern day batsmen.

1. I think Tendulkar and Lara are better batsmen than him.
2. I also think Murali is the greatest off spinner I have seen and I have seen them all since the early 60's.
3. I also think Kapil was better than all the Indian pacers/medium pacers that I saw for 18 years before he came on the scene.
4. I also think Sehwag is the second best Test opener from India in the last fifty years.
5. I also think Mohinder Singh Dhoni is the best wicket keeper batsman from India in the last fifty years.
6. I also think Healy is the best wicket keeper I have seen from Australia and I saw them all since Wally Grout in 1964.
7. I think Dravid and Laxman are the finest slip fielders from India ever.

I hope that settles the point whether I am biased in favour of oldies.

And oh yes, I dont think Hayden belongs on the same page as Sunil Gavaskar as a Test opener. Its an opinion based on what I have seen of the two of them over their entire careers. It has nothing to do with the difference in their averages, their aggregate runs, their Test centuries or any other factor that can be reduced to numbers.

You are also entitled to your opinion but please understand that just because someone older than you favours a particular player it is not because that player is from an earlier generation. Almost all your arguments in favour of any of your opinions can be similarly (and wrongly) answered by saying that you are biased in favour of modern day cricketers. That would be as wrong as your assertiion.

 

[Ikki]

viv richards and mohammad yousuff
sachin tendulkar and mahela jayawardane
greg chappell and sangakkara
hammond and jacques kallis
lara and sehwag
gavaskar and hayden

the stats addicts are really funny....

Apart from issues of longevity and certain other stuff, it'd be dishonest to say some of those are not comparable.

However, some of those issues certainly do not hold for Hayden/Gavaskar and Hammond/Kallis.

I mean, if you can compare Sangakkara with Ponting, why not Chappell? Seems silly. Kumar has a way to go, but if he continues, why bloody not?

 

[Ikki]

It isn't though. 12 years to 4 or 5 is nothing.

Dravid is the only player of those who've scored heavily since 2001/02 who is worthy of comparison with Tendulkar IMO.

BTW why do you pop-up to argue this crap when we've not seen you for months when you could've been talking your usual mixture or sense and moresense?

It depends when you start counting. I start counting from about 2000. From about 2000, Hayden and Gilchrist came into Test cricket big time and overshadowed many many batsmen for a good 5 years.

From about 2000 onwards, Tendulkar barely makes the grade. That is 8 years in a 19 year career. That is a lot. And even when he was good, it wasn't like he was unbeatable. He didn't make runs against everybody. In that period he had more holes in his resume than Ponting does now, for example.

 

[Ikki]

Back on topic, I'd be inclined to rank Gavaskar as the better test opener. While Matthew Hayden ranks up there for me as one of the most dominant opening batsman of all time, he still hasn't faced a challenge like the great West Indian fast bowlers of the 70's and 80's like Gavaskar did. Gavaskar not only faced the greats, but dominated them.

Wrong. He didn't. The great WIndies bowlers weren't the formidable group they're reknown to be until the 80s and he averaged in the 40s against that group IIRC. His dominating of the WIndian quicks is just a fantastic fabrication. He never faced Lillee and Thommo together either - the one series he did face Lillee he failed badly. He averages under 35 against England overall. His true and undeniable feat is against Pakistan. Was average against NZ and smashed the minnows of the time Sri Lanka.

Fact is, if you go through the careers of batsmen across history with a fine tooth comb you are bound to fine weaknesses. Hayden has them, Sunil had them. They've roughly had the same amount of success, regardless if you like Sunil's technique or love Hayden's power. They are comparable, and very much so. The denial of it is unbelievable - almost religious, and I mean that pejoratively.

 

[nightprowler10]

If I understand correctly, that stuff you typed about Sunny's record against WI being a fabrication is from SJS's post from years ago? If so, I remember the point of the post/s being that he never faced them all at once, as in all in the same match, as in the cream of their crop quicks giving him the treatment. No, that didn't happen very often, and if I'm not mistaken whenever it did, Sunny failed. But that doesn't change the fact that Sunny did face them and fend them off, so I feel as if you're taking credit away from him for the sake of the argument. Also, not sure whom you consider WI formidable fast bowlers as, but all of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft played in the seventies if I recall correctly.

SJS to clarify.

 

[duffer]

From about 2000 onwards, Tendulkar barely makes the grade. That is 8 years in a 19 year career. That is a lot. And even when he was good, it wasn't like he was unbeatable. He didn't make runs against everybody. In that period he had more holes in his resume than Ponting does now, for example.

Incredible, has nothing to do with the thread but you found a way to say Ponting>Tendulkar.

 

[Richard]

It depends when you start counting. I start counting from about 2000. From about 2000, Hayden and Gilchrist came into Test cricket big time and overshadowed many many batsmen for a good 5 years.

From about 2000 onwards, Tendulkar barely makes the grade. That is 8 years in a 19 year career. That is a lot. And even when he was good, it wasn't like he was unbeatable. He didn't make runs against everybody. In that period he had more holes in his resume than Ponting does now, for example.

Utter rubbish, Tendulkar was extremely obviously better than Hayden and anyone else in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

 

[Richard]

You want a silly comparison? Hayden and Hussain.

Hayden against any good Test batsman between 1900 and 2001 is a silly comparison - Hayden isn't as good as any of them and never has been.

 

[SJS]

If I understand correctly, that stuff you typed about Sunny's record against WI being a fabrication is from SJS's post from years ago? If so, I remember the point of the post/s being that he never faced them all at once, as in all in the same match, as in the cream of their crop quicks giving him the treatment. No, that didn't happen very often, and if I'm not mistaken whenever it did, Sunny failed. But that doesn't change the fact that Sunny did face them and fend them off, so I feel as if you're taking credit away from him for the sake of the argument. Also, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft all played in the seventies if I recall correctly.

SJS to clarify.

Yes I remember that and I said then and still maintain that Gavaskar is not good enough to be the second opener (along with Jack Hobbs) for an all time World XI. It was in that context that this analysis was done by me. Many were claiming that Gavaskar faced during his entire career in series after series the most hostile bowling ever assembled in any single era. I was just tryin to show that this was not 100% accurate and analysed his career series by series along with the attacks that he faced in each series.

To say that Gavaskar is not the best opener of all time since Jack Hobbs is very different from saying he is far superior to Hayden. There is no contradiction here.

PS: You will find it difficult to catch me on the wrong foot like this since my opinions are what I sincerely feel and are not based on the instant reference to statistics that suit the argument of the day .

Yes you can catch me to be differing with myself in the final spots of all time XI's because as I invariably mention is such cases - its very difficult to chose between legends. The only constants in my all time world XI are Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and Barnes. Almost all other positions have at least two (if not more) candidates. But that does not mean any Tom, Dick or Mathew is a candidate - kidding.

 

[Ikki]

Incredible, has nothing to do with the thread but you found a way to say Ponting>Tendulkar.

And that sounds ridiculous to you does it? Ponting has an enormous case to be superior to Tendulkar.

LOL, do the others see what I was saying? Absolutely ridiculous.

Utter rubbish, Tendulkar was extremely obviously better than Hayden and anyone else in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Hayden against any good Test batsman between 1900 and 2001 is a silly comparison - Hayden isn't as good as any of them and never has been.

Richard, I just love reading those whoppers. Everybody gets to see you for what you really are.

 

[Richard]

Nah, everyone sees me for what I am every day, which is someone who talks far less biased, simplistic (and at times plain ill-informed) rubbish than you. IE, I talk none of it, you talk it in 60-70% of your posts.

 

[Ikki]

If I understand correctly, that stuff you typed about Sunny's record against WI being a fabrication is from SJS's post from years ago? If so, I remember the point of the post/s being that he never faced them all at once, as in all in the same match, as in the cream of their crop quicks giving him the treatment. No, that didn't happen very often, and if I'm not mistaken whenever it did, Sunny failed. But that doesn't change the fact that Sunny did face them and fend them off, so I feel as if you're taking credit away from him for the sake of the argument. Also, not sure whom you consider WI formidable fast bowlers as, but all of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft played in the seventies if I recall correctly.

SJS to clarify.

No, he never dominated the "great" WIndies pace attack of the 80s. They themselves weren't in the same side "all at once". The best attack Gavaskar faced and succeeded against had Holding and Marshall, and not even for the whole series IIRC.

He faced some of them, but go look at the series where he was a success. The way his feats are talked about against them are not real - they do not exist. When he succeeded against a WI side it was either depleted or just not that good.

 

[nightprowler10]

Will have to look that up when I have time but surely an attack consisting of Marshall and Holding is a formidable one!

 

[Ikki]

PS: You will find it difficult to catch me on the wrong foot like this since my opinions are what I sincerely feel and are not based on the instant reference to statistics that suit the argument of the day .

LOL, you mean the same way you weren't found wrong in the Sobers thread? Wouldn't reply directly to a question then kept on and embellished the truth.

The fact is, statistics are what are unbiased and statistics are timeless. These other highly subjective ratings are the judgements that wane and can be unreliable. Having said that, I can appreciate that statistics in many cases just sour the truth - incoincidently, those seem to be the most elaborately constructed ones. We are talking about simple numbers and very easily verifiable standards of each time.

Some of these same people would have us believe Greenidge to be superior to Hayden - and I say that because I have heard their ratings and arguments. Unbelievable.

 

[Ikki]

Will have to look that up when I have time but surely an attack consisting of Marshall and Holding is a formidable one!

How does facing them a few times translate into dominating them? Gavaskar is a great, but the truth is being embellished unbelievably - to an extent where two openers of similar average and success can't be compared from the get-go. This is not right.

 

[duffer]

And that sounds ridiculous to you does it?
.

No, but the fact that no thread is safe from you bringing it up and engaging in a paralysis by analysis is ridiculous.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, everyone sees me for what I am every day, which is someone who talks far less biased, simplistic rubbish than you.

Sure you are; you haven't changed a bit. Let me think of another whopper..."Lillee can't compare with Ambrose, Ambrose is in a different class"...isn't that what you said more or less? Please, someone with as many skeletons in the closet as you should learn to talk less, not more.

 

[Richard]

Skeletens are only in closets if people don't take them out.

I do.