Best Test opener of the 21st Century?

[subshakerz]

From 2004 onwards (excluding early career here), Smith averaged 33 at home against non minow plus WI (who were **** anyway) for ten years with 3 tons. Probably explains why I always felt the bloke was like a walking wicket at home whenever I saw him.

His away performances were great but being mediocre at home for so long puts him on par at best with Hayden and Sehwag for me

I dont think excluding WI seems right though. If we go that route, you might as well take out SL after Murali, India for some times, NZ without Bond, etc.

And wasn't that early period when he scored like 2 double tons in England?

 

[TheJediBrah]

And wasn't that early period when he scored like 2 double tons in England?

I watched both those innings my dad let me stay up late, good memories

England attack was pretty **** IIRC (edit: looks good on paper, but they must have had an off time of it)

 

[subshakerz]

It wouldn't be fair if Smith didn't get to face attacks like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies at home.

My original point of contention was you saying Hayden wouldn't of even averaged 40 South Africa if he played there as a home batsman. Which to me is asinine, as Hayden proved during the 2000s that he could average 49 in South Africa against above average bowling attacks.

Likewise, Smith averaged 39 as an opener in Australia but had he played for Australia he probably definitely would've averaged ~50 as an opener in Australia.

There is a difference though. Smith averaged 39 for his entire career in Australia whereas Hayden averaged 34 for his career in SA.

Conditions in SA remained largely pace friendly from the 90s to 2000s unlike the rest of the world. You arbitrarily excluding Hayden's failures in the 90s makes him seem better there than he actually was.

Me claiming Hayden wouldnt average 40 there as home opener is not just based on his technique but also what he did in his three series, averaged 12 against a world class attack, 60 against a poor attack and 34 against a decent attack. It's a safe assumption. His style of play would be too risky for the type of dominance he has in other places.

It's like being just excluding Smith's 2005's failures in Australia and claim he truly averaged 50 plus there based on his peak time from 2008 and 2012. It's not the full picture.

 

[subshakerz]

I watched both those innings my dad let me stay up late, good memories

England attack was pretty **** IIRC (edit: looks good on paper, but they must have had an off time of it)

Agreed but he was in pretty good form those early years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Agreed but he was in pretty good form those early years.

Oh I'm not making excuses, they were 2 incredible innings

 

[Gob]

I dont think excluding WI seems right though. If we go that route, you might as well take out SL after Murali, India for some times, NZ without Bond, etc.

And wasn't that early period when he scored like 2 double tons in England?

I think it's right. They are the only team to not to have an international quality bowler in that time period. Take out Murali you've got Herath. NZ had Chris Martin (not the one from Coldplay).India had Zaheer throughout

In England yes. I'm strictly talking about home performances

 

[TheJediBrah]

For the 2000s West Indies were trash, you can't compare them to NZ or SL who were at worst competitive throughout that time

 

[Burgey]

What's your point? I supported Border.

Not referring to you here.

 

[Gob]

There is a difference though. Smith averaged 39 for his entire career in Australia whereas Hayden averaged 34 for his career in SA.

Conditions in SA remained largely pace friendly from the 90s to 2000s unlike the rest of the world. You arbitrarily excluding Hayden's failures in the 90s makes him seem better there than he actually was.

Me claiming Hayden wouldnt average 40 there as home opener is not just based on his technique but also what he did in his three series, averaged 12 against a world class attack, 60 against a poor attack and 34 against a decent attack. It's a safe assumption. His style of play would be too risky for the type of dominance he has in other places.

It's like being just excluding Smith's 2005's failures in Australia and claim he truly averaged 50 plus there based on his peak time from 2008 and 2012. It's not the full picture.

Again mindless stuff. Holding Hayden's record there from 92 to predict any trajectory his career would have taken there is as good as taking Steve Smith's 2010/11 ashes as a negative contribution to playing vs England in a hypothetical situation. Should it count against them when rating overall careers, yes obviously but it shouldn't be a deciding factor for a hypothetical situation where we are considering how peak Hayden would have gone in South Africa because he was a different player

And his style of play is perfectly fine. It's a bit of a myth that Hayden bash bowlers from the get go (if anything it's usually Langer who get off the blocks early). He was capable of attritional cricket when needed and his technique for South Africa is fine. More so than anything though its stupid to assume that someone as talented as Hayden with his work ethics won't eventually adjust to the conditions and perform well in South Africa (country which comes closest to matching Australian conditions)

 

[Gob]

For the 2000s West Indies were trash, you can't compare them to NZ or SL who were at worst competitive throughout that time

Batting was good though. Gayle, Sarwan, Lara, Chandapool. Pretty decent. Bowling had to be terrible for them to win as little as they did and it was

 

[honestbharani]

Batting was good though. Gayle, Sarwan, Lara, Chandapool. Pretty decent. Bowling had to be terrible for them to win as little as they did and it was

They were never really good together though. Sarwan's good period had a brief overlap with Lara and Chanders was always Chanders. Gayle only reached next level towards the end of Lara's career and later.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Batting was good though

It wasn't really

 

[Gob]

Relatively speaking here obvs. Batting atleast looked decent on paper compared to bowling

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah that's the thing. "On paper".

They had their moments. The 2003 Aus tour saw some excellent WI batting (Lara obviously, Sarwan famous sledge, 418 chase, Chanderpaul 100 in 60 balls, Wavell Hinds consecutive 100s in the ODIs) on the flattest wickets I've ever seen there.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

There is a difference though. Smith averaged 39 for his entire career in Australia whereas Hayden averaged 34 for his career in SA.

Conditions in SA remained largely pace friendly from the 90s to 2000s unlike the rest of the world. You arbitrarily excluding Hayden's failures in the 90s makes him seem better there than he actually was.

Me claiming Hayden wouldnt average 40 there as home opener is not just based on his technique but also what he did in his three series, averaged 12 against a world class attack, 60 against a poor attack and 34 against a decent attack. It's a safe assumption. His style of play would be too risky for the type of dominance he has in other places.

It's like being just excluding Smith's 2005's failures in Australia and claim he truly averaged 50 plus there based on his peak time from 2008 and 2012. It's not the full picture.

Yes he did fail against South Africa in the 1990s. I'm not dismissing that.

I'm saying that if he had played the 90%+ of his career between 2000-2009 with South Africa as home ground he still would've averaged over 40 (most likely in the 48-53 range) in SA because he averaged 49 against bowling attacks in South Africa that were BETTER then atleast 70% of the teams who played during that time period.

The only bowling attacks that Smith faced in South Africa that were as good as the 90s South African side was Australia in 2002 and Pakistan in 2007.

 

[Bolo.]

The point isn't to ignore Hayden's failures in the 90s it was to compare Hayden's record in South Africa during the timeline of Smith's career.

Hayden was the most prolific batsmen in the world from 2001-2004. If Herschelle Gibbs could average 50 as an opener in South Africa during the 2000s then Hayden definitely would've averaged 50 there.

Comparing the timeline to Smiths career is a bit pointless, not only because it starts to slice into lol sample sizes, but also cos (with partial exception of Durban, where Hayden only played when the pitches were easing up) the pitches didn't really change- he got better and the bowlers got worse.

I don't mind the assumption that he would have averaged more than 34 playing for RSA against typically weaker visitors than he faced. More than Smith is possible, but a huge assumption- Smith averaged more everywhere the ball moves.

Cherry picking dates notwithstanding, picking a single success story and extrapolating from it a la Gibbs is extremely janky logic. Gillespie averaged 200+ in Bangladesh. I'd expect every decent specialist to average 400 based on this.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Comparing the timeline to Smiths career is a bit pointless, not only because it starts to slice into lol sample sizes, but also cos (with partial exception of Durban, where Hayden only played when the pitches were easing up) the pitches didn't really change- he got better and the bowlers got worse.

I don't mind the assumption that he would have averaged more than 34 playing for RSA against typically weaker visitors than he faced. More than Smith is possible, but a huge assumption- Smith averaged more everywhere the ball moves.

Cherry picking dates notwithstanding, picking a single success story and extrapolating from it a la Gibbs is extremely janky logic. Gillespie averaged 200+ in Bangladesh. I'd expect every decent specialist to average 400 based on this.

The difference with South Africa and Bangladesh is that South Africa is synonymous with being the hardest place to bat and South African players being rated higher because they had to play there. Tamim Iqbal isn't being rated as one of the finest openers of the 21st century.

The Gibbs statistic is apt because it's being suggested that Hayden wouldn't of even averaged 40 at home if he was South African. Gibbs scored those runs during the same time period that Hayden played a good chunk of his Test career and Hayden averaged 49 in South Africa, as an away batsmen, during that time period (first half of the 2000s).

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's right. They are the only team to not to have an international quality bowler in that time period. Take out Murali you've got Herath. NZ had Chris Martin (not the one from Coldplay).India had Zaheer throughout

Grouping WI with minnows is saying they weren't even test quality in that time though. They were bad but not that bad.

 

[Coronis]

Tamim Iqbal isn't being rated as one of the finest openers of the 21st century.

He is one of the finest though, and you know it

 

[subshakerz]

Yes he did fail against South Africa in the 1990s. I'm not dismissing that.

I'm saying that if he had played the 90%+ of his career between 2000-2009 with South Africa as home ground he still would've averaged over 40 (most likely in the 48-53 range) in SA because he averaged 49 against bowling attacks in South Africa that were BETTER then atleast 70% of the teams who played during that time period.

The only bowling attacks that Smith faced in South Africa that were as good as the 90s South African side was Australia in 2002 and Pakistan in 2007.

There is nothing magical about 2000 to 2009 period in SA though so you don't need to limit your period to that just to exclude his 90s failing. You are just picking the best two of his three series in the country to make him seem better. He literally only has one series in SA where he averaged above 40.

Smith faced Johnson in Godlike form in a couple of series as well, worth mentioning.