Tests: Best ever Opening batsman

[Richard]

I dont think I have read anything as stupid as this before.

Many people have tried that line, and it's been as nonsensical in most to all of them as there. Langer was a number-three who was manufactured into an opener - no-one had remotely considered him as a Test opener until the Fifth Test of the 2001 Ashes. And he did score all the runs as an opener starting from the exact same time that a large number of others experienced an explosion in scoring. Until then he'd been nothing more than a decent, solid, middle-of-the-road Test number-three.

 

[Richard]

I went with Jack Hobbs. Followed by Hutton-Gavaskar-Trumper-Sutcliffe in that order IMO, though there's very little between them.

I'm certainly not a Trumper-hater, but what exactly makes you consider him superior to Sutcliffe?

I've always thought Sutcliffe would probably be thought of so much more highly had he not been overshadowed for so much of his career by Hobbs.

 

[Ikki]

Who cares if he was originally a #3? Langer > Gooch, and a few other names up there as well.

 

[The Sean]

I'm certainly not a Trumper-hater, but what exactly makes you consider him superior to Sutcliffe?

I've always thought Sutcliffe would probably be thought of so much more highly had he not been overshadowed for so much of his career by Hobbs.

Ha ha yeah I figured that would be the most contentious part of my post. I've gone on at length about Trumper in a couple of previous posts down the years so I won't bore everyone too much here, suffice it to say that I'm something of a romantic and that Trumper's inherent unquantifiable genius, and his ability to take attacks apart on pitches where other batsmen could barely lay bat on ball, has always been a major factor in my rating of him.

I'll freely concede that there is no statistical justification for him being ranked ahead of Sutcliffe - even allowing for the massively improved batting conditions that spiked averages after WWI, Sutcliffe was still comfortably a relatively more successful runscorer than Trumper over his career. And to be honest Trumper wasn't even statistically at his best as an opener! A number of factors contributed to this - poor health, his lack of interest in averages or making runs for the sake of it, his downright diabolical form in certain series' - but these aren't excuses, Sutcliffe made more runs more often than Trumper did and so I've got no problem if someone thinks that's more than enough reason to rank them so.

It's just one of those things where I'm of the belief that the numbers don't always tell the full story, and I think Trumper is a player for whom this is particularly the case. He was a bona fide genius with the bat, and anyone who can produce the kind of performances he did (even if not with remorseless consistency) usually gets a fair bit of statistical leeway in my books.

 

[The Sean]

Who cares if he was originally a #3? Langer > Gooch, and a few other names up there as well.

Which names mate? I want to see how Smith's career plays out before I call him better than Langer (I wouldn't yet) but other than that I'm more than happy with all the names on this list being ranked ahead of JL.

In fact, there are quite a few blokes not listed above who I'd put ahead of Langer as well.

 

[JBH001]

Len Hutton for me

Hobbs and Sutcliffe are tempting but neither faced Gregory and MacDonald in 1921 - of course it's not their fault they never faced a top class pace attack in Tests but Sir Len undoubtedly did and by all accounts dealt with it wonderfully well

You sure, fred?

From recollection Hobbs did face Gregory and Kellaway in Australia in 20/21, and later in the series, Gregory and Kellaway and Mailey and McDonald. He scored 2 hundreds in that series. He later faced Gregory and Kelleway and Mailey in 24/25 and scored 3 hundreds. Two sets of high class attack. I take your point though - Hutton faced some wonderful bowlers after the war, when he was supposedly past his best and did wonderfully well. For me it is a hard choice between Hobbs and Hutton - ideally, of course, both would walk through the gates first.

 

[fredfertang]

You sure, fred?

From recollection Hobbs did face Gregory and Kellaway in Australia in 20/21, and later in the series, Gregory and Kellaway and Mailey and McDonald. He scored 2 hundreds in that series. He later faced Gregory and Kelleway and Mailey in 24/25 and scored 3 hundreds. Two sets of high class attack. I take your point though - Hutton faced some wonderful bowlers after the war, when he was supposedly past his best and did wonderfully well. For me it is a hard choice between Hobbs and Hutton - ideally, of course, both would walk through the gates first.

I could have been more precise - I meant the 1921 series here where MacDonald was lethal as opposed to, as he had been in 20/21, distinctly ordinary

 

[NZTailender]

andy with voting behaviour unbecoming of a mod for mine. Give himself 7 IMO.

 

[The Sean]

For me it is a hard choice between Hobbs and Hutton - ideally, of course, both would walk through the gates first.

It would be a wonderful combination, but I'm just not sure the Doctor would allow it.

 

[Richard]

Who cares if he was originally a #3? Langer > Gooch, and a few other names up there as well.

Langer's calibre as an opener is not even close to Gooch's, because Langer never even faced bowling of the calibre Gooch massacred 1990-1993, never mind had a hope in hell of scoring as well as Gooch did against it.

Seriously, the idea of Langer being a better Test opener than Gooch is about as ludicrous a suggestion as can be made, right up with Chris Martin being a better batsman than Ashley Giles.

 

[andyc]

andy with voting behaviour unbecoming of a mod for mine. Give himself 7 IMO.

Have already given myself a stern warning, if I do it once more I'm afraid I'll be forced to take more serious action.

 

[andyc]

Many people have tried that line, and it's been as nonsensical in most to all of them as there. Langer was a number-three who was manufactured into an opener - no-one had remotely considered him as a Test opener until the Fifth Test of the 2001 Ashes. And he did score all the runs as an opener starting from the exact same time that a large number of others experienced an explosion in scoring. Until then he'd been nothing more than a decent, solid, middle-of-the-road Test number-three.

Richard, it doesn't matter that he started out as a number three batsman. The poll is asking about openers, and Justin Langer clearly played the majority of his Test cricket as opener. If you ask any cricket fan, they'll tell you Justin Langer played for Australia as an opening batsman. It's like saying that Kevin Pietersen started his career as an off-spinner, so he can't count as being a proper batsman.

 

[NZTailender]

Have already given myself a stern warning, if I do it once more I'm afraid I'll be forced to take more serious action.

 

[NZTailender]

Can't consider Gooch for the opening spot IMO. Made his debut at 5 and didn't start opening the batting for England until 3 years later. Clearly not an opener.

 

[JBH001]

It would be a wonderful combination, but I'm just not sure the Doctor would allow it.

Surely his disdain was for lesser mortals? I believe he would recognise the worth of this opening pair in embodying the qualities and attributes he himself possessed to the most pre-eminent degree. Besides, I back Hutton to say "nuts to you" to the good doctor, if it came right down to it.

 

[The Sean]

Surely his disdain was for lesser mortals? I believe he would recognise the worth of this opening pair in embodying the qualities and attributes he himself possessed to the most pre-eminent degree. Besides, I back Hutton to say "nuts to you" to the good doctor, if it came right down to it.

Indeed, though Sir Jack was such a gentleman he probably would have stepped aside. My own All Time England XI actually commits this very sacrilege, opening with Hobbs and Hutton with Grace at first drop.

 

[aussie]

has to be hobbs. scored tons of runs either side of the big war on different surfaces facing different bowlers playing completely different games (front foot and attacking/ backfoot and pragmatic). went on and on for three decades in both FC and tests as the no.1 batsman in the world. would have maintained a 50+ avg against the windies pace battery of the 70s. and that is the highest praise i could think of.

Bit of a stretch that..

 

[JBH001]

Indeed, though Sir Jack was such a gentleman he probably would have stepped aside. My own All Time England XI actually commits this very sacrilege, opening with Hobbs and Hutton with Grace at first drop.

Haha, yes. And Sir Jack did come from a different era where you did tug the forelock to the Gentlemen and Amateurs.

In my AT Eng XI, the good doctor is the manager, with Jardine as coach and Hutton as captain.

That is one tough no nonsense group.

 

[zaremba]

Gooch shouldn't get in an all-time world (or England) XI, obviously, but he's getting some quite harsh treatment here from some of our Australian correspondents. Their relative disregard for him is perhaps unsurprising since he had some well-publicised failures against Australia.

But his record against West Indies, about whose fast bowling nothing really needs to be said, was pretty outstanding: he averaged a shade under 45 in 26 Tests between 1980 and 1991. Topped off by that unbelievable 154* against Ambrose, Marshall, Walsh and Patterson on a very difficult Headingley pitch.

No disrespect to Taylor and Langer, both of whom were very fine players indeed, but I don't agree that Gooch was inferior to either of them. If I remember rightly, SJS makes a pretty interesting case for saying that Gooch (certainly in the latter part of his career) was the finest opening batsman of the modern era, above even Gavaskar.

 

[Richard]

Richard, it doesn't matter that he started out as a number three batsman. The poll is asking about openers, and Justin Langer clearly played the majority of his Test cricket as opener. If you ask any cricket fan, they'll tell you Justin Langer played for Australia as an opening batsman. It's like saying that Kevin Pietersen started his career as an off-spinner, so he can't count as being a proper batsman.

Pietersen did nothing of the sort FTR, he was always a batsman who (not unlike one or two other batsmen who had hinted at outstanding talent in South Africa) was being used as a spinner early in his First-Class career. Either way... Langer certainly did notplay the majority of his Test career as an opening batsman. IIRR he played 30-odd Tests 1998/99-2000/01 as a number-three and had plenty of success there. He became an opener by complete chance - as I say, had Michael Slater made a half-century at Headingley and thus clung on to his place for one more Test Langer would almost certainly never have opened in Test cricket. An opener has to be an opener for some reason other than pure coincidence in my book.