What do you consider when picking ATG openers?

[kyear2]

For me it has to the the Master as the best ever, to have faced the bowlers he did, and more critically on the wickets he did was just amazing, and what separates him from Sutcliffe was his rate of scoring. One of the top 5 batsmen ever.
Next on my first team would have to be Hutton, to be able to break Bradman's record with the great man stading at cover couldn't have been easy. He probably faced better bowling that any other opener, in the persons of Lindwall and Miller and Ramadin and Valentine among others. His main downfall was the slow rate of scoring.
In an ideal world Hobbs would be partnered in any all time 11 by Barry Richards who was seen as an equal to his name sake and bettered by none. If not for the fact that he played only four tests he would be a lock for the team and a legitimate challenger for Hobbs.
All great teams have great openers and the All Time XI would be no different,

 

[watson]

There are a few flaws in this.

- scoring rates cannot be taken in to consideration as a straight piece of data when comparing eras, because of a lot of factors.
- quality of partners does not reflect actual player's ability.
- average opening partnerships is likewise no indication of actual player's ability, more an indication of the weakness/strength of his partner/s.

I agree somewhat. But I was trying to make the point that we often forget excellent batsman when we jump on a preconceived band-wagon.

Is there a reason why Sutcliffe, Simpson, Lawry, or Smith cannot be greater than the usual candidates - Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, B.Richards?

Incidently, there is also a problem when making an assessment of Hutton's career. There is pre-WWII Hutton, but then there also the post-WWII Hutton with the shortened arm (fell while training in the army). The shortened arm reduced his range of strokes and as a consequence the older Hutton was more dour. If 'brilliance' and 'fluid stroke-play' are your 'thing' then B.Richards or Hobbs or even Gavaskar are better options.

 

[Dan]

Victor Trumper needs to be mentioned who is one of the greatest ATG openers overlooked often. The thirty year period from 1877 to 1907, batting average was 23.13 across 96 Test matches when bowling was most dominant factor. At that period, Trumper had average of 35.30 which by today's standard increases to 50.68 by conversion rate of 30% by considering batting average from 1981 to 2011. He was a master at every conditions and poor pitches.

Statistically speaking, Trumper was just as, if not more successful in the middle order. His record at 6 is pretty amazing, all things considered.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Valer]

I'd suggest that given the strength of middle order / #3 picks you'd have to consider only taking one opener (and two 3s).

 

[marc71178]

I'd suggest that given the strength of middle order / #3 picks you'd have to consider only taking one opener (and two 3s).

I never get why anyone would ever consider this a valid answer - a world-class 3 who is unproven opening cannot be better than a world-class opener at opening.

 

[kyear2]

I guess that a #3 like Headley who was accostomed to coming in very early could always fill-in in pinch, but it is not ideal and certainly not a long term or first choice solution. Tempting though, especially for an All Time W.I XI.

 

[Dan]

I guess that a #3 like Headley who was accostomed to coming in very early could always fill-in in pinch, but it is not ideal and certainly not a long term or first choice solution. Tempting though, especially for an All Time W.I XI.

Greenidge
Constantine
Headley
Richards
Lara
Worrell
Sobers
Walcott (+)
Marshall
Ambrose
Garner

12th: Weekes

Not ideal, but I'd ask Constantine to open and play that XI. Gives you 4 fast bowlers, Worrell, Richards and Sobers in support. And you'd never have issues setting a target. Only way to get most of the middle order talent in, IMO.

As a side note, that would be one hell of an ODI XI.

 

[kyear2]

You left out Sobers.
Greenidge
Hunte
Headley
Richards
Lara
Sobers
Walcott
Marshall
Ambrose
Holding
Gibbs.
As I had said, tempting to open with Headley and sqeeze in Weekes or Worrel, but best to bat players where they are accostomed.

 

[watson]

I guess that a #3 like Headley who was accostomed to coming in very early could always fill-in in pinch, but it is not ideal and certainly not a long term or first choice solution. Tempting though, especially for an All Time W.I XI.

The way you would test your idea is to look at all the great No.3s and see how they went when they did open the batting.

I've just checked Rohan Kanhai for starters. I probably wouldn't suggest him as a opener based on these initial results;

Opening: 10 innings at 22.31
No.3: 90 innings at 52.68


Vivian Richards is interersting. He only opened the innings twice but scored a century against Australia in 1976.

 

[Dan]

You left out Sobers.

****. I thought I put him in there. My mistake.

 

[Red]

Greenidge
Constantine
Headley
Richards
Lara
Worrell
Sobers
Walcott (+)
Marshall
Ambrose
Garner

12th: Weekes

Not ideal, but I'd ask Constantine to open and play that XI. Gives you 4 fast bowlers, Worrell, Richards and Sobers in support. And you'd never have issues setting a target. Only way to get most of the middle order talent in, IMO.

As a side note, that would be one hell of an ODI XI.

Sobers will do as well as the main spinner as Gibbs, Ramahdin or Valentine would. I'd go for...

G. Greenidge
C. Hunte
G. Headley
V. Richards
B. Lara
G. Sobers
J. Dujon +
M. Marshall
M. Holding
C. Ambrose


Only named ten there, as I'm not sure what I'd go for next. Maybe Worrell to bat after Sobers, or Hall/Roberts as an extra quick.

 

[kyear2]

Has to be Gibbs, Sobers was a much better fast bolwer than spinner and Gibbs is an under rated ATG spinner, not in the Warne, Murali, O'Reilly catergory, but right below. Also Walcott over Dujon. Spoke to at least 4 persons who saw him keep and they all said he was a very good, safe keeper who didn't make mistakes. Good enough for me.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, you can't really go with Sobers as the main spinner. He's there as support to the main guy if the pitch warrants it, or if you need someone to break up a partnership from time to time, but that's about all. Most of the time, he'd be bowling pace (though TBF, considering WI pace bowling, that wouldn't be all that often either).

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh, the opening partnership is more important for me than the individuals. Shoving Hobbs and Sunil together sounds good in theory but without the understanding that, say, Hayden and Langer had I don't believe that a good start is guaranteed. A few solid words from a bloke you trust when faced with the unique situation that is the first session of a match is incredibly important.

 

[kyear2]

S basically the best combination for an All Time XI would be Hobbs and Sutcliffe, some thing that I have considered, and Sutcliffe is supposedly rather close to Hutton technically anyway.
I have a similar theory when it comes to spinner/wk keeper as well which is why Gilly is solidly my first team keeper, probably would be anyway though.

 

[Jager]

S basically the best combination for an All Time XI would be Hobbs and Sutcliffe, some thing that I have considered, and Sutcliffe is supposedly rather close to Hutton technically anyway.
I have a similar theory when it comes to spinner/wk keeper as well which is why Gilly is solidly my first team keeper, probably would be anyway though.

It's strange that you place so much importance on the strength of a great slips cordon and then pick Gilchrist as your wicketkeeper.

 

[Red]

tbh, the opening partnership is more important for me than the individuals. Shoving Hobbs and Sunil together sounds good in theory but without the understanding that, say, Hayden and Langer had I don't believe that a good start is guaranteed. A few solid words from a bloke you trust when faced with the unique situation that is the first session of a match is incredibly important.

It's not really a consideration when you're speculating on an ATG team though.

Sort of like saying an ATG team's middle order should contain Sangakkara and Jayawardene or Dravid and Tendulkar, because they made a lot of runs together.

 

[Jager]

It's not really a consideration when you're speculating on an ATG team though.

Sort of like saying an ATG team's middle order should contain Sangakkara and Jayawardene or Dravid and Tendulkar, because they made a lot of runs together.

The latter in particular isn't a bad idea at all - Dravid made the world D XI and Tendulkar the world XI as individuals

 

[Red]

The latter in particular isn't a bad idea at all - Dravid made the world D XI and Tendulkar the world XI as individuals

But for an ATG greatest XI, you'll have the Don at 3, then Sachin/Viv/Lara/Hammond etc at 4 and 5, then probably Sobers at six. Not really room for Dravid amongst that.

 

[kyear2]

It's strange that you place so much importance on the strength of a great slips cordon and then pick Gilchrist as your wicketkeeper.

Why is this, Gilchrist kept exceptionally well to Warne, He wasn't quite as good as Knott, but he also would't be expected to be keeping to Underwood on a wet pitch either. At the time of his retirement he held the record for dismissals for a keeper. Not too shabby, also took some great grabs from Warne in the process. To me he is under rated as a pure keeper.