Best Test opener of the 21st Century?

[BazBall21]

I don't judge batsmen based on their raw fourth innings numbers as it's too general. But I do think objectively there is more pressure, pre-Bazball, in larger fourth innings chases.

My point is that Smith has several high pressure innings in which he delivered, including the four tons in larger chases.

Smith was certainly very good under pressure.

 

[shortpitched713]

Trying to follow multiple conversations about two different blokes named Smith in this thread is doing my head in, especially given I have no clue why one of them entered into a thread about openers, but ah well.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Trying to follow multiple conversations about two different blokes named Smith in this thread is doing my head in, especially given I have no clue why one of them entered into a thread about openers, but ah well.

Devon Smith
Graeme Smith

 

[shortpitched713]

Devon Smith

Embarrassment he wasn't included in the poll.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Devon Smith
Graeme Smith

Dwayne Smith

probably only opened in limited overs though

 

[honestbharani]

Dwayne Smith

probably only opened in limited overs though

Odeon Smith


The One Smith to rule 'em all...

 

[Jayro]

I voted for Sehwaag because of the impact he used to have on matches, when he fired India would naturally come in the driver seat of the match because of the sheer rate he used to score runs, he was a type of player who would change the course of a test match in a session or two

 

[Daemon]

Odeon Smith


The One Smith to rule 'em all...

The neckless menace

 

[TheJediBrah]

I voted for Sehwaag because of the impact he used to have on matches, when he fired India would naturally come in the driver seat of the match because of the sheer rate he used to score runs, he was a type of player who would change the course of a test match in a session or two

A stodgy opener can bat for a 2 sessions and when you get him out you're still in the game. If Sehwag bats for 2 sessions you're ****ed, your bowlers all want to quit and fielders want to go home.

 

[subshakerz]

A stodgy opener can bat for a 2 sessions and when you get him out you're still in the game. If Sehwag bats for 2 sessions you're ****ed, your bowlers all want to quit and fielders want to go home.

Even though I generally support higher than lower SRs, I dont think Sehwag's unusually high SR was the big advantage it is made out to be versus someone like Hayden who had a very good but not abnormal SR.

Sehwag would often dramatically outpace his batting partners and even when he got out for a good score, his score would be like 80% of the total. It sometimes felt that once Sehwag was out, the momentum seemed to dramatically switch back to the bowlers and they still had enough room to dismiss India for a moderate score. Of course, on the flipside, he had a few more bigger tons than the other openers being discussed so he often did do a one-man job.

Whereas Hayden batted aggressively but also at a pace amenable for big partnerships with Langer, Ponting, etc. that would take the opposition out of the game by the time Australia were two down. In actual test cricket, I think the ability to build these large partnerships matters a lot.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Always felt Hayden and Langer's games lifted because of the supremely confident side they played in. Obviously they were important cogs in that wheel but they were far less imposing at the start of their careers, went away while the side built momentum, and made their very successful reentry into what was comfortably the best side in the world.

 

[Gob]

Check Cook's record in the subcontinent

 

[shortpitched713]

Even though I generally support higher than lower SRs, I dont think Sehwag's unusually high SR was the big advantage it is made out to be versus someone like Hayden who had a very good but not abnormal SR.

Sehwag would often dramatically outpace his batting partners and even when he got out for a good score, his score would be like 80% of the total. It sometimes felt that once Sehwag was out, the momentum seemed to dramatically switch back to the bowlers and they still had enough room to dismiss India for a moderate score. Of course, on the flipside, he had a few more bigger tons than the other openers being discussed so he often did do a one-man job.

Whereas Hayden batted aggressively but also at a pace amenable for big partnerships with Langer, Ponting, etc. that would take the opposition out of the game by the time Australia were two down. In actual test cricket, I think the ability to build these large partnerships matters a lot.

Why is this analysis an inconsistent reversal of literally everything you've ever said about the value of higher strike rates in batting?

 

[h_hurricane]

Why is this analysis an inconsistent reversal of literally everything you've ever said about the value of higher strike rates in batting?

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.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Always felt Hayden and Langer's games lifted because of the supremely confident side they played in. Obviously they were important cogs in that wheel but they were far less imposing at the start of their careers, went away while the side built momentum, and made their very successful reentry into what was comfortably the best side in the world.

Nice theory but I don't think so. Hayden was a waaaay better player when he came back in 2000. Langer matured and expanded his game as well at a similar time. It wasn't the team, they were just better.

There might be something to say that Langer benefited from having Hayden there backing him up, but that's about it.

 

[subshakerz]

Why is this analysis an inconsistent reversal of literally everything you've ever said about the value of higher strike rates in batting?

It isn't. Even in the SR discussion I made this point about SR ideally being on the better side of 50 plus.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

I have consistently argued the latter, actually.

 

[subshakerz]

Nice theory but I don't think so. Hayden was a waaaay better player when he came back in 2000. Langer matured and expanded his game as well at a similar time. It wasn't the team, they were just better.

There might be something to say that Langer benefited from having Hayden there backing him up, but that's about it.

Hayden was better, the team was better, the pitches were flatter and the bowlers less menacing. All worked in his favor.

 

[shortpitched713]

It isn't. Even in the SR discussion I made this point about SR ideally being on the better side of 50 plus.

So this ****'s like Goldilock's ****ing porridge then? I can't take that seriously dude.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Even though I generally support higher than lower SRs, I dont think Sehwag's unusually high SR was the big advantage it is made out to be versus someone like Hayden who had a very good but not abnormal SR.

Sehwag would often dramatically outpace his batting partners and even when he got out for a good score, his score would be like 80% of the total. It sometimes felt that once Sehwag was out, the momentum seemed to dramatically switch back to the bowlers and they still had enough room to dismiss India for a moderate score. Of course, on the flipside, he had a few more bigger tons than the other openers being discussed so he often did do a one-man job.

Whereas Hayden batted aggressively but also at a pace amenable for big partnerships with Langer, Ponting, etc. that would take the opposition out of the game by the time Australia were two down. In actual test cricket, I think the ability to build these large partnerships matters a lot.

What the **** are you on about you utter dullard…