Salamuddin's All Time Test Match X1

[silentstriker]

Yes, there IS. Which is why I said I consider Sutcliffe a very worthy candidate. That average is also better than Sunil too.

However, knowing what I've seen from Hayden - and not just #s - I can say Hayden at his best was a phenom that was incomparable to any other opener I can think of. So I don't see how it's silly, or even 'ridiculous' as you suggested.

Because most of us realize that though stats are important, they are not the everything. You have to look at them through the lens of the times. Averaging 20 with the ball would be tremendous now, but it was less of an achievement at the turn of the century. To put this in perspective, the following batsmen average 50+ today: Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Hayden, Dravid, Hussey and until recently Sehwag and Smith as well.

How many players were averaging 50+ in the seventies/early eighties when Gavaskar was in his pomp? Two? He might have been the only one for a stretch there.

 

[PhoenixFire]

You are what? 14? How do you know that Hayden isn't better?

I'm much older than you my young friend.

Because, there is a difference between averaging 60, and averaging 60. You are defending the underdog (so to speak), by saying that he is better than Gavaskar because you have seen both ( I assume). I am saying that Gavaskar is better because he had to face a better bowling attack, and worse pitches ect.

 

[Ikki]

Because most of us realize that though stats are important, they are not the everything. You have to look at them through the lens of the times. Averaging 20 with the ball would be tremendous now, but it was less of an achievement at the turn of the century. To put this in perspective, the following batsmen average 50+ today: Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Hayden, Dravid, and until recently Sehwag and Smith as well.

How many players were averaging 50+ in the seventies/early eighties when Gavaskar was in his pomp? Two? He might have been the only one for a stretch there.

Again, no OPENER averages over 50 currently. Not one, or two - NONE. You can open the lens and let in more light, is Tendulkar a better batsmen than Sunil? Do I make Tendulkar open then?

 

[silentstriker]

Again, no OPENER averages over 50 currently. Not one, or two - NONE. You can open the lens and let in more light, is Tendulkar a better batsmen than Sunil? Do I make Tendulkar open then?

So last year, when Sehwag was averaging just as much as Hayden...was Sehwag an all time candidate then? Same question for Smith.

 

[silentstriker]

You can open the lens and let in more light, is Tendulkar a better batsmen than Sunil?

Arguable. It would be close either way.

 

[Ikki]

Because, there is a difference between averaging 60, and averaging 60. You are defending the underdog (so to speak), by saying that he is better than Gavaskar because you have seen both ( I assume). I am saying that Gavaskar is better because he had to face a better bowling attack, and worse pitches ect.

Yes, which is a case for him. The professional aspect of the sport or even the difficulty in gaining a test cap for the Australian side can lean towards Hayden. It's fine, both sway. But in these closer eras (compared to that of Hayden being compared to Sutcliffe) Hayden will overtake Sunil. We don't even know how well Hayden would have done in the 70's or Sunil now. That's just speculative. You can let that thought weigh as much as you like. As I hinted before, having talked to cricket fans - indeed all sport fans from around the world - they really romanticise the past till the point where it becomes surreal.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yes, which is a case for him. The professional aspect of the sport or even the difficulty in gaining a test cap for the Australian side can lean towards Hayden. It's fine, both sway. But in these closer eras (compared to that of Hayden being compared to Sutcliffe) Hayden will overtake Sunil. We don't even know how well Hayden would have done in the 70's or Sunil now. That's just speculative. You can let that thought weigh as much as you like. As I hinted before, having talked to cricket fans - indeed all sport fans from around the world - they really romanticise the past till the point where it becomes surreal.

Well, I can pretty much know that Hayden would have got murdered, because he can't really play the swinging or seaming ball at pace. There was no doubt, grassier and harder pitches in Gavaskar's time, and faster bowlers, so........

 

[silentstriker]

As I hinted before, having talked to cricket fans - indeed all sport fans from around the world - they really romanticise the past till the point where it becomes surreal.

No not really, most of us have players from the last 20 years prominently in our all time XIs. Most have McGrath, Warne, Murali, Marshall, Imran, Tendulkar, Lara, Ambrose, Hadlee etc. If anything, we massively overrate the current players as they are fresh in our memory. I would be very surprised if the last 20 years produced so much talent while the 100 years before that produced just 1-2 guys every couple decades.

 

[Richard]

We are all saying Hayden is the best opener of his generation

Well I for one am certainly not.

 

[Ikki]

So last year, when Sehwag was averaging just as much as Hayden...was Sehwag an all time candidate then? Same question for Smith.

Not for mine. In this era they'd have needed to play much more to compare. I expect their figures to drop, they weren't as impressive as Hayden was thoughout their careers and hadn't made as many centuries or fifties.

 

[silentstriker]

Well I for one am certainly not.

You know someone better in the post-2000 era?

 

[Richard]

Hayden's career isn't exclusively the post-2001 era.

 

[Ikki]

No not really, most of us have players from the last 20 years prominently in our all time XIs. Most have McGrath, Warne, Murali, Marshall, Imran, Tendulkar, Lara, Ambrose, Hadlee etc. If anything, we massively overrate the current players as they are fresh in our memory. I would be very surprised if the last 20 years produced so much talent while the 100 years before that produced just 1-2 guys every couple decades.

I think it's definitely because there really aren't many greats to compare to them - especially bowlers, in which you named 7/9 up there. Tendulkar and Lara are that special, who compares to them and is not in the list already? In the one instance there is actually competition everyone is raving themselves silly and exaggerating. Sorry, for me, Hayden is up there and can compare - it's not that hard to see either.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hayden's career isn't exclusively the post-2001 era.

He only average 44 before 2001.

 

[Ikki]

He only average 44 before 2001.

How many matches did he play? 10?

 

[silentstriker]

Hayden's career isn't exclusively the post-2001 era.

But ever since he became an established starter, he has been the best opener in the world, which is the point I was making.

 

[PhoenixFire]

12. And......


24 innings is plenty enough to make an impression, Ali Cook has played 14 Tests and scored over 1000 @ 43, and he's only 21. Plus he has played in India and Australia, against awesome bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

12. And......


24 innings is plenty enough to make an impression, Ali Cook has played 14 Tests and scored over 1000 @ 43, and he's only 21. Plus he has played in India and Australia, against awesome bowlers.

LOL, when it comes to the English guy...

That's great for Alistair. The thing is that not everybody blasts into test matches and of those who do very few sustain their form. If Cook were to, why wouldn't he be considered a great?

 

[Richard]

But ever since he became an established starter, he has been the best opener in the world, which is the point I was making.

He's become what he always was - very, very proficient at scoring stacks and sacks of runs on flat pitches against rubbish bowling.

Given that in most ages that's not what being an opener takes, I think I'll not remotely consider him until the 15th or 16th XI...

 

[silentstriker]

He's become what he always was - very, very proficient at scoring stacks and sacks of runs on flat pitches against rubbish bowling.

Given that in most ages that's not what being an opener takes, I think I'll not remotely consider him until the 15th or 16th XI...

I claimed he was the best opener of his generation (which is last six years or so). You disagreed, so I am asking who the better opener has been in that period of time.