Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?

[Sanz]

My second post in this thread still stands. Also it is funny to see the usual suspects are at their old tricks again.

 

[Ikki]

No, but the fact that no thread is safe from you bringing it up and engaging in a paralysis by analysis is ridiculous.

What?

It's apt here. People's preconditions and prejudices have blinded them. I mean you're saying to say Ponting is better than Tendulkar is ridiculous. Would you care to explain why. This is kinda the point...people are that far gone that they don't stop to actually question themselves or the consensus. Ponting has been superior for a long while now. Not by a little bit either, by a lot - when you remove Minnows Tendulkar slides to 51 whilst Ponting is still averages a comfy 57. The guy has scored 3 less centuries in 45 less innings. On what basis are they not comparable?

Similar here, on what basis are they not comparable? So far, I've only heard, "from what I saw/remember...etc". Something tangible, please guys.

 

[Ikki]

My second post in this thread still stands. Also it is funny to see the usual suspects are at their old tricks again.

Yes, the same usual suspects.

We're all tricksters here...

 

[Ikki]

Skeletens are only in closets if people don't take them out.

I do.

No, skeletons come to light, otherwise how would anyone know they're there at all. The implication of trying to hide them is what that phrase is for. You try to hide that you've made some daft statements, heck, you even try to defend them. I'm just saying it's good to see you still doing it, we can all remember how you really are.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I really CBA doing this thing for perhaps the 103,425th time TBH. I know you don't post as often as you should, but... I just don't have the will.

I don't think I'm going to bother reading this thread from now on, and hopefully it'll be closed sooner rather than later. Hayden threads just have no use on CW IMO, they're nought but a recipe for disaster, and also move far too fast for anyone to have much hope of keeping track of the discussion.

Your technique for not bothering with a thread needs a little refinement.

 

[Richard]

I said "I don't think I'm going to bother" - I've had little alternative so far though.

I'm sure I'll leave this wretched thing behind before too long, but not yet.

 

[Richard]

No, skeletons come to light, otherwise how would anyone know they're there at all. The implication of trying to hide them is what that phrase is for. You try to hide that you've made some daft statements, heck, you even try to defend them. I'm just saying it's good to see you still doing it, we can all remember how you really are.

Nah, I don't make daft statements very often, and if I realise daft statements are daft, which I occasionally do, I cease to believe those statements upon deciding they were daft, so people quoting them back is of no consequence.

Saying what I've said this thread isn't daft, though, else I wouldn't have said it, nor would I be continuing to say it. I'm not hiding anything, quite the contrary. You can't hide statements on a public forum, so "skeletons in the closet" is really a rather stupid metaphor to use.

 

[honestbharani]

Have only seen bits of Gavaskar but Gavaskar, for me... Hayden doesn't get the credit he deserves but one thing that gets forgotten about him is that he has had only 8 years of his peak period (his second coming, basically).. GAvaskar may have averaged lesser, but it was an era of more difficult pitches, better bowling and also, he was opening for a team with a very bad bowling attack, which had its own constraints... It is not as easy as Gavaskar only scored so much while Hayden scored so much...

 

[Goughy]

Have only seen bits of Gavaskar but Gavaskar, for me... Hayden doesn't get the credit he deserves but one thing that gets forgotten about him is that he has had only 8 years of his peak period (his second coming, basically).. GAvaskar may have averaged lesser, but it was an era of more difficult pitches, better bowling and also, he was opening for a team with a very bad bowling attack, which had its own constraints... It is not as easy as Gavaskar only scored so much while Hayden scored so much...

Nothing wrong with going for Gavaskar. He is an altime great.

However, Id take a little issue with some of the stated reasons. I dont think he played on more difficult pitches. Gavaskar played on some very friendly batting tracks and probably (Ive not checked) benefited the most from big runs in dull draws.

Also the 70s and 80s were not as strong as the 90s. Some very good bowlers but there was certainly a lack of depth in the 80s. I wouldnt say 2000s are better but just that I dont think there is much difference from now to the 70s/80s

 

[bagapath]

sunny gavaskar never played croft in test cricket.

but he played in 20 test matches against holding, garner, marshall and roberts; scored 7 centuries and 1500+ runs at an average of 49.12.

Only two other batsmen scored more runs against these bowlers:

gooch scored 5 centuries and 2000+ runs in 25 matches at an average of 43
border scored 2 hundreds and 1700 + runs in 26 tests at an average of 40

BTW, I am also of opinion that Gooch and Greenidge - apart from gavaskar - were also superior openers compared to hayden.

before you suspect that i could be too old to appreciate current cricketers - i think mcgrath is superior to holding, garner and roberts (but not marshall or hadlee). lara, sachin and ponting are slightly better than miandad and border (but not richards). warne, murali, gilchrist are superior to their counterparts from the 80s, and probably any other era. lillee, g.chappell, bedi, underwood, chandra and alan knott had retired by the time i started following cricket. so i did not include them.

 

[Ikki]

Gavaskar played against those bowlers either by themselves or at most in pairs. Take a gander at some of the attacks of the 70s, and specficailly the ones he had joy with - not as strong as touted, in a lot of cases not near.

And to compare with other batsmen in that fashion is misleading. They may have actually faced the more stronger WIndies attacks. Border and Gooch not only pretty much played from about the 80s onwards against the Windies bowling (where they were at their best) but continued even into a new generation of Ambrose and Walsh in the 90s.

 

[Precambrian]

Gavaskar played against those bowlers either by themselves or at most in pairs. Take a gander at some of the attacks of the 70s, and specficailly the ones he had joy with - not as strong as touted, in a lot of cases not near.

And to compare with other batsmen in that fashion is misleading. They may have actually faced the more stronger WIndies attacks. Border and Gooch not only pretty much played from about the 80s onwards against the Windies bowling (where they were at their best) but continued even into a new generation of Ambrose and Walsh in the 90s.

Ok pair or no pair, atleast Gavaskar was upto them. Whom were Hayden against? Heath Streak? Irfan Pathan?

 

[Ikki]

Nothing wrong with going for Gavaskar. He is an altime great.

However, Id take a little issue with some of the stated reasons. I dont think he played on more difficult pitches. Gavaskar played on some very friendly batting tracks and probably (Ive not checked) benefited the most from big runs in dull draws.

Also the 70s and 80s were not as strong as the 90s. Some very good bowlers but there was certainly a lack of depth in the 80s. I wouldnt say 2000s are better but just that I dont think there is much difference from now to the 70s/80s

67 matches drawn (from 125), 6039 runs @ 65.64.

Agree with the rest of the post. People have been, to an extent, indoctrinated regarding the past and inadequately compare it's difficulties.

 

[Ikki]

Ok pair or no pair, atleast Gavaskar was upto them. Whom were Hayden against? Heath Streak? Irfan Pathan?

Allan Donald? Shaun Pollock? Shoaib Akhtar? Waqar? Saqlain? Bond? Cairns? Murali? Vaas?

Hasn't been bowled to by bums mate. And frankly, some of these attacks were better than some of the 80s.

 

[archie mac]

Allan Donald? Shaun Pollock? Shoaib Akhtar? Waqar? Saqlain? Bond? Cairns? Murali? Vaas?

Hasn't been bowling to bums mate. And frankly, some of these attacks were better than some of the 80s.

I think Cairns would be impressed with that!

I find it hard to agree that pitches were not better in the 90s then in the 80s, especially in Aust.

Also for a fair part of his career Sunny did not wear a helmet against some of the fastest bowling and no limit on short balls

 

[archie mac]

I feel fairly satisfied that yourself and archie were on the scene immediately to troll and add nothing to the thread. I'm doing something right.

It just amuses me that in your break you seem to have learned nothing new about the giants of the past, and still have the same silly arguments.

Richard cops a lot of crap on here (some of it deserved ), but at least you can see in his posts over time that he has started to read about the great game and learn

 

[Ikki]

I've gone and looked at Sunil's successful WIndies series, his scores and the lineups.

Gavaskar's 1st successful series against WIndies: 774 runs @ 154.8

1st test match: 65, 67*

Bowlers:
VA Holder
GC Shillingford
GS Sobers
JM Noreiga
AG Barrett
CA Davis
CH Lloyd

3rd Test match: 116, 64*

Bowlers:
KD Boyce
GC Shillingford
GS Sobers
LR Gibbs
JM Noreiga
CA Davis
CH Lloyd

4th Test match: 1, 117*

Bowlers:
VA Holder
UG Dowe
JN Shepherd
GS Sobers
Inshan Ali
MLC Foster
CA Davis
CH Lloyd
RC Fredericks
RB Kanhai

5th Test match: 124, 220

Bowlers:
GS Sobers
UG Dowe
JN Shepherd
CA Davis
JM Noreiga
DAJ Holford
MLC Foster
MC Carew

Did you see a good, even decent attack? I didn't.

Gavaskar's 2nd successful series against WIndies: 390 @ 55.71

1st test match: 37, 1

Bowlers:
AME Roberts
MA Holding
BD Julien
DAJ Holford
RR Jumadeen
RC Fredericks

2nd test match: 156

Bowlers:
AME Roberts
MA Holding
BD Julien
DAJ Holford
RR Jumadeen
CH Lloyd
IVA Richards

3rd test match: 26, 102

Bowlers:
MA Holding
BD Julien
AL Padmore
Imtiaz Ali
DAJ Holford
RR Jumadeen
CH Lloyd
RC Fredericks

3rd test match: 66, 2

Bowlers:
MA Holding
BD Julien
VA Holder
DAJ Holford
RR Jumadeen
RC Fredericks

Best attack where Roberts and Holding who were only together for 2 of the tests?

Gavaskar's 3rd successful series against WIndies: 732 @ 91.5

1st test match: 205, 73

Bowlers:
N Phillip
ST Clarke
VA Holder
DR Parry
RR Jumadeen
AI Kallicharran
HA Gomes

2nd test match: 0

Bowlers:
N Phillip
ST Clarke
VA Holder
DR Parry
S Shivnarine
MD Marshall

3rd test match: 107, 182*

Bowlers:
N Phillip
ST Clarke
VA Holder
HA Gomes
DR Parry
S Shivnarine
MD Marshall

4th test match: 0, 4

Bowlers:
N Phillip
ST Clarke
VA Holder
HA Gomes
DR Parry
S Shivnarine

5th test match: 120

Bowlers:
N Phillip
ST Clarke
VA Holder
HA Gomes
DR Parry
S Shivnarine

5th test match: 120

Bowlers:
N Phillip
ST Clarke
VA Holder
HA Gomes
DR Parry
S Shivnarine

6th test match: 40

Bowlers:
N Phillip
RR Jumadeen
VA Holder
HA Gomes
DR Parry
M Marshall

As you can see, not yet a strong bowling line-up. I think this was Marshall's debut series as well, and a shocker. What, was he dropped for the 4th and 5th test? Disappeared and recalled for the 6th test.

Gavaskar's 4th successful series against WIndies: 505 @ 50.50

1st test match: 0, 7

Bowlers:
MD Marshall
MA Holding
WW Davis
EAE Baptiste
HA Gomes

2nd test match: 121, 15

Bowlers:
MD Marshall
MA Holding
WW Davis
HA Gomes
WW Daniel
IVA Richards

3rd test match: 90, 1

Bowlers:
MD Marshall
MA Holding
WW Davis
HA Gomes
WW Daniel

4th test match: 12, 3

Bowlers:
MD Marshall
MA Holding
WW Davis
HA Gomes
WW Daniel

5th test match: 0, 20

Bowlers:
MD Marshall
AME Roberts
WW Davis
MA Holding
RA Harper

6th test match: 236*

Bowlers:
MD Marshall
AME Roberts
WW Davis
MA Holding
RA Harper
HA Gomes

Tough line-up faced in the last two test where you really can say there was a great WIndian pace attack.

----

As I've shown, that bar a few tests, this mythology created with regards to Gavaskar is just that...a myth. When he did face "the great WIndian pacemen" this is what happened.

 

[Ikki]

I think Cairns would be impressed with that!

I find it hard to agree that pitches were not better in the 90s then in the 80s, especially in Aust.

Also for a fair part of his career Sunny did not wear a helmet against some of the fastest bowling and no limit on short balls

I thought I'd mention it...considering the fact that in the 80s NZ was just Hadlee.

 

[archie mac]

I thought I'd mention it...considering the fact that in the 80s NZ was just Hadlee.

Fair enough

Have you read the thread by SJS? It is called Hear, hear, Led Me Your Ear

See if you can find it, very funny

 

[duffer]

What?

It's apt here. People's preconditions and prejudices have blinded them. I mean you're saying to say Ponting is better than Tendulkar is ridiculous. Would you care to explain why. This is kinda the point...people are that far gone that they don't stop to actually question themselves or the consensus. Ponting has been superior for a long while now. Not by a little bit either, by a lot - when you remove Minnows Tendulkar slides to 51 whilst Ponting is still averages a comfy 57. The guy has scored 3 less centuries in 45 less innings. On what basis are they not comparable?

Similar here, on what basis are they not comparable? So far, I've only heard, "from what I saw/remember...etc". Something tangible, please guys.

Where did I say the comparison was ridiculous? What's ridiculous is that you seem to find every thread relevant to bringing up that you think Ponting is better than Sachin. Even when the actual thread title has nothing to do with that particular debate.