Rank and rate these test openers of last 25 years

[OverratedSanity]

He didn't really struggle against India, just against Zaheer

 

[stephen]

He didn't really struggle against India, just against Zaheer

"He didn't struggle against a team, only their best bowler."

Atherton well be happy to know he didn't struggle against Australia.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I dont think either is a blemish for the purposes of this comparison He is a bar below the truly "great" batsmen just like the others from the list, so him struggling against McWarne or peak Zak are not exactly things that should put him down coz the rest of the list have all got bigger holes on their resumes than he does.

 

[honestbharani]

"He didn't struggle against a team, only their best bowler."

Atherton well be happy to know he didn't struggle against Australia.

Think Athers would have been happier had McGrath had the fitness levels of Zak and been out of the park as much as him.

 

[stephen]

So how do people think Renshaw will end up? My feeling is that he'll be this generation's Cook.

 

[honestbharani]

Loved Katich. A draft favorite of mine here at CW..


I like both KK's and OS's lists. But let me try -



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

Wow, had not realized I had overrated Sehwag hugely here. Honestly not sure how I goofed that up. I have actually argued Hayden Vs Sehwag in favor of Hayden..


Revised list.

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

 

[Victor Ian]

For ODIs they often multiply average x strike rate as if that is a meaningful stat, because speed matters.

Someone earlier said the job of an opener is to hang around and see off the new ball. So length of innings matters instead of speed. So why not do the same 'meaninful stat' using average balls instead of strike rate. Then we get

player	μ runs	μ balls	runs x balls
cook	45	92	4247
hayden	50	77	3956
anwaar	47	82	3872
kirsten	41	92	3859
smith	49	76	3777
langer	48	76	3701
warner	48	60	2965
sehwag	50	58	2906

Because Cook comes out on top, it is obviously a bullcrap stat.... or is it?

 

[SeamUp]

For ODIs they often multiply average x strike rate as if that is a meaningful stat, because speed matters.

Someone earlier said the job of an opener is to hang around and see off the new ball. So length of innings matters instead of speed. So why not do the same 'meaninful stat' using average balls instead of strike rate. Then we get

player	μ runs	μ balls	runs x balls
cook	45	97	4477
hayden	50	84	4281
kirsten	41	100	4197
smith	49	81	4023
langer	48	83	4015
anwaar	47	84	3964
warner	48	62	3067
sehwag	50	60	3013

Because Cook comes out on top, it is obviously a bullcrap stat.... or is it?

It's not the be all and end all but certainly is interesting.

Took the test average and then SR ?

Isn't Gaz 45 off 104 balls ?

 

[Victor Ian]

It's not the be all and end all but certainly is interesting.

Took the test average and then SR ?

Isn't Gaz 45 off 104 balls ?

Oops. I had done average balls = total balls / (innings - not outs). Obviously the not outs is not a factor here, so I adjusted the top list. All these averages were from a filtered list of only innings where the batsmen actually opened.


Perhaps I should look at average score per innings rather than outs as well.

edit: I did that (avg per innings) and it hardly changed anything, though Anwar jumped ahead of Hayden in order - didn't think it worth posting another table

 

[Victor Ian]

wow - I was just having a look at Kirsten. It appears he was moved out of opener in 2002 and then started playing in God mode.

 

[SeamUp]

wow - I was just having a look at Kirsten. It appears he was moved out of opener in 2002 and then started playing in God mode.

Haha yeah its when they brought Smith in and he was opening with Gibbs. Two awesome opening partnerships in a row but Gazza was awesome in the middle order. You couldn't ask for a better finish in New Zealand too with his 76 batting with Smith to get us to the win (it was emotional) - 3rd Test, South Africa tour of New Zealand at Wellington, Mar 26-30 2004 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

Gazza was one of those players who had tough opening attacks to face on tough wickets so often would go through periods of struggle but boy if he got in he made you pay. So amazingly there would always be people putting pressure on him and we would just keep shutting them up.

He was also so good around the world. Didn't he get twin hundreds at (Eden Gardens ) 2nd Test, South Africa tour of India at Kolkata, Nov 27-Dec 1 1996 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

He was so good in Pakistan too & got 96 in 1st test, 50-odd in 2nd and a 100 in the 3rd 3rd Test, South Africa tour of Pakistan at Faisalabad, Oct 24-27 1997 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

 

[Victor Ian]

....
27 test hundreds of which he never lost a test when making hundred. ...

That is an impressive stat. Is it standalone impressive, in that no one else compares - perhaps with >20 centuries as qualifier.

I have a Smith crush and this just enhances it.

 

[subshakerz]

Wow, had not realized I had overrated Sehwag hugely here. Honestly not sure how I goofed that up. I have actually argued Hayden Vs Sehwag in favor of Hayden..


Revised list.

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

To me, Sehwag was a great batsmen but not a great opener. He was a luxury in a strong batting lineup but was out of his element against the new ball when there was a bit of swing with his lack of footwork.

 

[honestbharani]

That is an impressive stat. Is it standalone impressive, in that no one else compares - perhaps with >20 centuries as qualifier.

I have a Smith crush and this just enhances it.

You can probably say he is the Allan Border of this generation.

 

[Victor Ian]

yes, you could. But you'd be wrong.

 

[Victor Ian]

There are too many people who have scored more than 20 centuries. Above 25 Smith is unique in being the only one to have not lost a match while tonning up. Hammond and Boycott also never lost a match they scored a century in, but from less than 25 centuries. There may be others, but 1) I got bored looking and 2) who cares, because the limit is 25, or it is too easy.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There are too many people who have scored more than 20 centuries. Above 25 Smith is unique in being the only one to have not lost a match while tonning up. Hammond and Boycott also never lost a match they scored a century in, but from less than 25 centuries. There may be others, but 1) I got bored looking and 2) who cares, because the limit is 25, or it is too easy.

It's a funny stat because you could also look at it from a negative point of view, ie. they never scored a hundred when their team lost a match, where it could be said that their team may have needed them to and they let them down.

Clearly it would be disingenuous to look at it solely from that point of view, for obvious reasons, but it's not unambiguously an out and out "positive" stat when you think about it.

 

[Victor Ian]

Nah.

He made many of those hundreds in Draws. So he was not a fail, like others, whose hundred was not enough. Whatever his hundred was, it was enough to secure the draw.

Though, in truth you are right. The stat means nothing at all. It is just a nice conversation piece to throw out there when you need to start proving your player is the best and you need to have the last stat.

 

[Stefan9]

1. Smith - very close with hayden but his 4 innings mastery puts him ahead
2. Hayden
3.Kirsten
4.Anwar
5.Cook
6.Warner
7.Sehwag

 

[stephen]

I don't know why people rate 4th innings runs so highly. 4th innings runs are not as crucial as first, second and third innings runs because in the 4th innings, you're either chasing a chasable target, in which case you usually don't need as many runs or you're chasing an unchasable target, in which case your runs don't matter. 4th innings runs are almost incidental to achieving test match victories.

The first three innings are far more important because they're what sets up the final innings. Runs in the first three innings help your side build a lead and press for a win. Getting a first innings lead is so important on so many pitches. Particularly turning pitches, which will only get more difficult to bat on as the game progresses.

An opener making a hundred in the first innings is better than an opener making a hundred in the second innings because wearing out the new ball and the bowlers in the first innings sets up the middle and lower orders to cash in and make huge runs. In the second innings, even if the top order make big runs, it's usually almost certain that the middle order and tail will fold quickly. It's much more rare that the lower order will be able to cash in on a good start in the fourth innings. 3/300 in the first innings is likely to turn into 8/525 dec. In the second innings 3/300 is likely to turn into 400 AO.

This is incidentally why I don't rate Warner very highly as a test match opener. His hundreds have largely come in the second innings where they have less impact. I would wager that he has made more hundreds in losses than most other openers, simply because his hundreds have largely been in the second innings.

Part of the reason that I rate Hayden so highly was his ability to grind the opposition into the dust by setting Australia up for huge totals in the first innings.