Best Test opener of the 21st Century?

[Coronis]

He played his last Test in the same series that Smith debuted in.

Again, they never played a test together, Donald’s career was over prior to Smith’s beginning.

 

[Bolo.]

I feel like there is a lot of conflation of ODIS and tests on the go here. Hall was great in ODIs, and I don't care that his stats ony show him to.be decent... ODI stats are extremely hard to read.

Total dogshit in tests though.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

My point is that Hayden's record against SA is somewhat similar to Smith's against Australia, in that they cashed in when their respective attacks were weaker. Just giving a raw average when they played against each other doesnt really tell the story.

The greater point was that watching Smith and Hayden in real time during their playing careers was that Hayden was better. And that the stats in head-to-head proved it.

You didn't even take into account the World XI Test in 2005 in a low scoring Test on a green track where Hayden scored a ton and 77 and Smith failed in both innings.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hayden probably was better when their careers overlapped, but Smith did a lot of good work afterwards

I feel like there is a lot of conflation of ODIS and tests on the go here. Hall was great in ODIs, and I don't care that his stats ony show him to.be decent... ODI stats are extremely hard to read.

Total dog**** in tests though.

I know as well as anyone that Hall was a genuine no-rounder in Test cricket. Was mostly just tongue in cheek bringing up that 1 innings

 

[Prince EWS]

Hall was great in ODIs, and I don't care that his stats ony show him to.be decent... ODI stats are extremely hard to read.

Nah his bowling stats actually show him to be really good at them in the context of the era he played in (early-mid 2000s) IMO, especially since he usually bowled a lot at the death. Scoring rates had started going up right as he started playing and he averaged 26 and went at 4.5. Far better than the mean at the time.

 

[Jayro]

The best thing about Andrew Hall was how he bowled a magnificent last over to salvage an ODI for RSA against SA and then was keeping the next game and was brilliant at it, all the while also being good enough to be a dogged opener and also a late order biffer when needed.

Perhaps THE most versatile cricketer I have ever seen.

I remember watching that match Andrew Hall with an expressionless face chewing gum, looked cool as cucumber sending down medium pace balls all at the toes of batsmen one after another great bowling that was at the death.

 

[ankitj]

It isn't that difficult. Change the narrative depending on whoever one wants to put it on top.

Literally anything can be argued by his approach. For instance, when talking about bowlers, rate bowlers with better SR higher because of their destructive ability. On the other hand, he could also argue that a bowler with better economy rate is better because he is more consistent and less of a spray gun compared to the higher SR guy.

Yeah, all this hair splitting on this forum often gets pointless. We still somehow do it all the time and read others do it lol.

 

[Bolo.]

Nah his bowling stats actually show him to be really good at them in the context of the era he played in (early-mid 2000s) IMO, especially since he usually bowled a lot at the death. Scoring rates had started going up right as he started playing and he averaged 26 and went at 4.5. Far better than the mean at the time.

I cant say I have ever really looked at ODI stats that closely, but at the time, I kinda got the impression that his stats were simply pretty good by RSA frontline bowler standards, but from watching him bowl, I thought his contributions were great.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If I had to choose one skill that I would pick Andrew Hall to do it would be ODI bowling

 

[subshakerz]

The greater point was that watching Smith and Hayden in real time during their playing careers was that Hayden was better. And that the stats in head-to-head proved it.

You didn't even take into account the World XI Test in 2005 in a low scoring Test on a green track where Hayden scored a ton and 77 and Smith failed in both innings.

I did watch them both in real time. Hayden was somewhat of a fairweather batsman who was at his best dominating when conditions were in his favor, whereas Smith was quite the opposite, at his best when things were going against him and SA.

Head to head is pointless since they both faced varying attacks and Smith's peak came later on.

The World XI was largely a joke test. Look how Hayden did earlier in the Ashes 2005 which was probably the first time he faced sustained pressure from pacemen since his early days and he crumbled. Shoaib also owned him in Australia in 2004. Having said that, no doubt Smith failed against the ATG Australia attack and that is clearly a mark against him too. But Smith was just a better player under pressure.

In the end, this goes to how you judge openers. For me, I prefer an opener who has success against the new ball in different conditions versus the bully type who will crush opponents when things are good.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The World XI was largely a joke test.

It definitely wasn't

 

[subshakerz]

It definitely wasn't

Based on reports in the dressing room, a lot of the World XI weren't taking it seriously. Their whole body language lacked intensity.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Based on reports in the dressing room, a lot of the World XI weren't taking it seriously. Their whole body language lacked intensity.

"I don't care. I wasn't even trying to win"

 

[subshakerz]

"I don't care. I wasn't even trying to win"

Apparently there may have been a rift between Smith and Flintoff. Shoaib was treating the whole thing like a fun vacation. Smith admitted that the players weren't giving the same effort they would if they were a real team.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

I did watch them both in real time. Hayden was somewhat of a fairweather batsman who was at his best dominating when conditions were in his favor, whereas Smith was quite the opposite, at his best when things were going against him and SA.

But Smith was just a better player under pressure.

There's plenty examples of Hayden scoring runs "under pressure" when things weren't going his way just like Smith did:

2001 series in India. A series which Australia lost and Australian batsmen struggled. His 100 in the first Test was match winning. Without his runs in the other 2 Tests Australia get blown out. Australia hadn't won in India for decades prior to that series. Clearly a pressure series. Had he failed in that series his career was probably over.

2002 South Africa, Australia were set 330 to win. Hayden scored 96 and Australia chased down the total. Had Australia not chased down the total they would've been 1-1 going into the 3rd Test as opposed to clinching the series 2-0.

Galle 2004, Australia gets knocked over for 220 in the first innings. Sri Lanka put on 380 and Australia were 160 behind going into the second innings. Hayden scores 130 against prime Muralidaran and Australia put on 500. Australia go onto win and go 1-0 up. Australia lost their previous Test series against Sri Lanka in 1999 IIRC.

The Oval 2005 vs England. Hayden scored a career saving hundred in the final Test which Australia needed to win. Probably would've scored a double hundred had Australia not decided to bat in the dark to advance the game.

2006 South Africa, Hayden scored a 90 in the first Test and hundred in the second Test which led to wins in a pretty low scoring series. Hayden failed in the dead rubber which brought his averages down.

The World XI was largely a joke test.

The world XI players were coming out in the pre-match saying how they were going to belt Australia for their respective nations. You don't get to talk trash like that and then say you didn't care after you get smashed.

 

[subshakerz]

There's plenty examples of Hayden scoring runs "under pressure" when things weren't going his way just like Smith did:

2001 series in India. A series which Australia lost and Australian batsmen struggled. His 100 in the first Test was match winning. Without his runs in the other 2 Tests Australia get blown out. Australia hadn't won in India for decades prior to that series. Clearly a pressure series. Had he failed in that series his career was probably over.

2002 South Africa, Australia were set 330 to win. Hayden scored 96 and Australia chased down the total. Had Australia not chased down the total they would've been 1-1 going into the 3rd Test as opposed to clinching the series 2-0.

Galle 2004, Australia gets knocked over for 220 in the first innings. Sri Lanka put on 380 and Australia were 160 behind going into the second innings. Hayden scores 130 against prime Muralidaran and Australia put on 500. Australia go onto win and go 1-0 up. Australia lost their previous Test series against Sri Lanka in 1999 IIRC.

The Oval 2005 vs England. Hayden scored a career saving hundred in the final Test which Australia needed to win. Probably would've scored a double hundred had Australia not decided to bat in the dark to advance the game.

2006 South Africa, Hayden scored a 90 in the first Test and hundred in the second Test which led to wins in a pretty low scoring series. Hayden failed in the dead rubber which brought his averages down.


The world XI players were coming out in the pre-match saying how they were going to belt Australia for their respective nations. You don't get to talk trash like that and then say you didn't care after you get smashed.

In India 2001, all good knocks but 1st innings with less pressure. Even the 1st test, it was Gilchrist who stole the show after India were shot out for a low score.

SA 2002, good knock again but arguably the worst SA attack ever and had some nice support.

Gall 2004, yup a very fine knock under pressure, I agree.

Oval 2005, this is a strange example since this knock is used to criticize him. It was a good batting pitch but he batted unusually slowly to save his career, and he and Langer strangely took the light after tea on the second day which killed time in the game.

2006 SA, good knock again but was this really a pressure situation? SA were shot out cheaply and not a particularly great attack.

Anyways, the point is not that Hayden never batted under pressure, but that his best usually came in dominating the opposition relentlessly, which is still great. I would say that Langer, though not as good an opener overall, was a better pressure player than Hayden.

Whereas with Smith, you had several knocks where if he didnt score in those situations, SA would almost certainly have lost.

 

[subshakerz]

The world XI players were coming out in the pre-match saying how they were going to belt Australia for their respective nations. You don't get to talk trash like that and then say you didn't care after you get smashed.

Yeah but after the series plenty of interviews admitted they weren't particularly getting along or even playing as a unit or putting that extra in it. Point is that test should be treated with a *.

 

[Xuhaib]

Was Sehwag really useless away?

I know he got worse later on as he got even more gung but I remember making some big scores away 2001-2008ish that 7-8 years of good output

 

[BazBall21]

Partly because of opener tax, Smith and Hayden both had their issues against quality pace.

Smith obviously struggled on the whole against Australia, wasn't prolific against the strongest England attack he faced which came at home in 2004/05, Mohammed Asif for Pakistan sorted him out at home a couple of years later and other solid individual seamers such as Chris Martin and Zaheer Khan had very good records against him. It must be said though that his record in England as an opener is truly incredible.

Hayden struggled against ATG bowlers in the 90s, like I think the rest of the quartet in question probably would also if they were there instead. He was outstanding against South Africa in the early 2000s who still had a good attack, but he again came unstuck against pace in the mid-2000s against Shoaib at home and then England's 2005 Ashes pace quartet, having struggled on the 2001 England tour also. He bounced back again briefly though.

Sehwag was possibly better than both against fast bowling but definitely weaker against swing and seam.

 

[BazBall21]

Against top six opponents, the other three bowling attacks being minnow-level for most of Smith's career, he averaged 34.2 at home and 51.5 away. Would probably have a better record against pace if he played his home Tests in most other places.