Rank and rate these test openers of last 25 years

[SeamUp]

Graeme Smith is a favourite of mine so bias will undoubtedly come in. Some of the knocks he played were just unbelievable like Edgbaston to seal the series. Despite what he did and opening in SA he had an uncanny way of scoring at 60% SR. But I agree with those before - used to love Hayden in full flow. Probably struggled most against us but played enough decent knocks to remember them too. Tough to differentiate.


Defo Saeed Anwar for aesthetics like ORS says.

 

[stephen]

Defo Saeed Anwar for aesthetics like ORS says.

Undoubtedly. It's strange that nearly every batsman on that list was somewhat ugly and at least somewhat unorthodox in their technique except Anwar. Even the technically orthodox guys in that list weren't pretty to watch. Cook is probably the most technically correct out of the rest of them.

Still, it was fun watching Hayden bludgeon bowlers back down the ground.

 

[OverratedSanity]

To put Smith at the same level as Hayden is high praise but I think unwarranted. Smith was good but Hayden totally demolished attacks. Smith was perhaps more consistent but Hayden was easily better overall.

I feel like this is a reputation Hayden has more due to how his batting looked rather than the actual pace of his innings. Not like he was a Sehwag or Gilchrist in terms of getting huge scores in no time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I feel like this is a reputation Hayden has more due to how his batting looked rather than the actual pace of his innings. Not like he was a Sehwag or Gilchrist in terms of getting huge scores in no time.

This is true and I've said it a few times before. He played plenty of slow knocks and left more balls outside off stump than many other players. Thing is he could switch to domination mode exactly when you needed him to to push for a victory. When you needed to move the scoring along to get the opposition in, he was your guy.

 

[Gob]

This is the average >45 crew

Don't see why it should be like that

Any way Matty Hayden easily

 

[Red]

Langer was a better opener than Hayden overall.

 

[superkingdave]

I f***ing hated Graeme Smith as a player ever since Nasser dropped that dolly at point off Anderson in 2003, but I would still take him over Hayden.

 

[Red]

Anwar
Smith
Langer
Cook
Warner
Hayden
Sehwag
Kirsten

 

[stephen]

Langer was a better opener than Hayden overall.

I honestly don't know how anyone can believe this. Hayden was clearly the better of the two. His average was 5 runs lower, he made 7 less hundreds. He made less runs in more tests.

Langer was better in England and New Zealand.
Hayden was better in Australia, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies.

About the best you can say is that Langer was better in swinging conditions.

 

[honestbharani]

I said it before, I will say it again - Smith is MILES ahead of Hayden as an opener.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I said it before, I will say it again - Smith is MILES ahead of Hayden as an opener.

What do you think saying it again will achieve?

 

[honestbharani]

A response from you.

 

[subshakerz]

Gary Kirsten
Saed Anwar
Justin Langer
Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Graeme Smith
Alastair Cook
David Warner

I would say:

Smith - just so tough, plenty of match-winning innings and great in a variety of conditions.

Hayden - Flawed against true pace, but dominant for a prolonged period in most conditions.

Anwar - Yes, Im biased, but between 94 - 2000 when bowling attacks were at their peak, he was the best opener around. I will admit he lacks cause he didnt play as long, but was class.

Kirtsten - Just behind Anwar, consistent but only a less threatening.

Warner - Most dangerous on this list and just needs to keep the good form for a few years to rank higher.

Cook - Does well but his record in this batting era should be more outstanding to justify ranking higher.

Sehwag - I know there will be howls of protest. Sehwag was a better batsman than most on the list but not a better opener. No.1 job of an opener is to see off the new ball, and Sehwag was just ill-equipped for that, as his record in NZ, Eng and SA shows.

Langer - Good but not on the same level as the others.

 

[J_C]

I would say:

Smith - just so tough, plenty of match-winning innings and great in a variety of conditions.

Hayden - Flawed against true pace, but dominant for a prolonged period in most conditions.

Anwar - Yes, Im biased, but between 94 - 2000 when bowling attacks were at their peak, he was the best opener around. I will admit he lacks cause he didnt play as long, but was class.

Kirtsten - Just behind Anwar, consistent but only a less threatening.

Warner - Most dangerous on this list and just needs to keep the good form for a few years to rank higher.

Cook - Does well but his record in this batting era should be more outstanding to justify ranking higher.

Sehwag - I know there will be howls of protest. Sehwag was a better batsman than most on the list but not a better opener. No.1 job of an opener is to see off the new ball, and Sehwag was just ill-equipped for that, as his record in NZ, Eng and SA shows.

Langer - Good but not on the same level as the others.

Hard to rate Anwar as the best opener when he had a tailender-like record against 2 of the best attacks of his era.

 

[stephen]

This thread has shown me two things. 1) that people have rated Smith more highly since his retirement than they did while he played; and 2) that people underrate Hayden considerably.

 

[watson]

1. Hayden
2. Sehwag
3. Smith
4. Cook
5. Langer
6. Anwar
7. Kirsten
8. Warner.

I expect Warner to overtake most of the modern era openers before he's done.

 

[honestbharani]

You seem to have a type, Watson.

 

[Himannv]

1. Hayden
2. Sehwag
3. Smith
4. Cook
5. Langer
6. Anwar
7. Kirsten
8. Warner.

I expect Warner to overtake most of the modern era openers before he's done.

Agree with this list.

 

[SeamUp]

This thread has shown me two things. 1) that people have rated Smith more highly since his retirement than they did while he played; and 2) that people underrate Hayden considerably.

I certainly never under-rated Smith when he played. He got into the team at 21 and stayed there. Test captain at 22.

27 test hundreds of which he never lost a test when making hundred. The number of important hundreds in there are easily remembered. That to go with his style of scoring runs (in your face determination and leading from the front that knocked opponents) + the rate he scored them & the fact that opening in SAF or tests in general in SAF have provided the bowler with less runs for wickets overall is pretty damn good. It has been the reason our batsman average more away generally.

4th innings master.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/572883.html

 

[watson]

I certainly never under-rated Smith when he played. He got into the team at 21 and stayed there. Test captain at 22.

27 test hundreds of which he never lost a test when making hundred. The number of important hundreds in there are easily remembered. That to go with his style of scoring runs (in your face determination and leading from the front that knocked opponents) + the rate he scored them & the fact that opening in SAF or tests in general in SAF have provided the bowler with less runs for wickets overall is pretty damn good. It has been the reason our batsman average more away generally.

4th innings master.

Graeme Smith's 100 Tests - stats analysis | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Graeme Smith's only real blemish as far as I can tell - 15 Tests against India and no centuries to speak of.

He also played 21 Tests against Australia and averaged 32.57. That's not bad, but nothing to get excited about.