• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Tests: Best ever Opening batsman

Who was the best opening batsman ever in tests?


  • Total voters
    55

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Have Strauss and Trescothick they had "half the success" that Langer has had? If you think they haven't, I think that with respect you're kidding yourself.
With the same respect, I think you're kidding yourself. Both players played in 00s, as Richard loves to point out for others, and don't score near enough to compare to Langer. The unfortunate reality is that Langer is underrated here and there is a good case to argue for him being every bit as good as Hayden - in fact, without minnows they average roughly the same as openers. Would you consider the aforementioned two as good as Hayden? I don't think you would, unless you prescribe to the Hussain > Hayden argument Richard loves to trot out. Maybe they have not had literally "half the success" but they are by a comfortable distance off.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
With the same respect, I think you're kidding yourself. Both players played in 00s, as Richard loves to point out for others, and don't score near enough to compare to Langer. The unfortunate reality is that Langer is underrated here and there is a good case to argue for him being every bit as good as Hayden - in fact, without minnows they average roughly the same as openers. Would you consider the aforementioned two as good as Hayden? I don't think you would, unless you prescribe to the Hussain > Hayden argument Richard loves to trot out. Maybe they have not had literally "half the success" but they are by a comfortable distance off.
Nah, not in this life. There's an argument Langer is better than either, but neither are "a comfortable distance off".

& we all know stats can be duked to support the argument of one's preference. As example, which country had the best attack during Trescothick's career? Australia, clearly, for my money. Now, Langer had the advantage of never having to face McWarne et al so one could argue that, in the interests of fairness when comparing the two players, tests against Oz should be expunged from Tres's record. &, when they are, we see he actually averages 46.71 which is (yes!) more than Langer.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Strauss's average is about one lower than Langer's. Who are you kidding?
Nah, not in this life. There's an argument Langer is better than either, but neither are "a comfortable distance off".

& we all know stats can be duked to support the argument of one's preference. As example, which country had the best attack during Trescothick's career? Australia, clearly, for my money. Now, Langer had the advantage of never having to face McWarne et al so one could argue that, in the interests of fairness when comparing the two players, tests against Oz should be expunged from Tres's record. &, when they are, we see he actually averages 46.71 which is (yes!) more than Langer.
Classic case of not knowing the stats or facts; Langer actually averages almost 50 as an opener. In fact, post 2000 (where both English openers played their careers) with B/Z removed he averages above 50.

So yes, in this life-time and a comfortable distance off.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Who would you prefer Brumby (or anyone), Strauss or Tresco?

Most people would say Trescothick in a heartbeat but I'm starting to lean towards Strauss these days.

I would generally agree with your post anyway, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Ikki finds the comparison so offensive is because neither Strauss nor Trescothick is Australian and we all know that that is a key criterion when ranking cricketers.

Langer was a very good Test opener and I'd say the same about my favourite opening pair
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Classic case of not knowing the stats or facts; Langer actually averages almost 50 as an opener. In fact, post 2000 (where both English openers played their careers) with B/Z removed he averages above 50.

So yes, in this life-time and a comfortable distance off.
:laugh:

Way to miss my point.

& why remove the minnows? Oh, because Langer's record against them is poor. How is that not cooking the statistical books?
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Classic case of not knowing the stats or facts; Langer actually averages almost 50 as an opener. In fact, post 2000 (where both English openers played their careers) with B/Z removed he averages above 50.
:lol:

Strauss averages 56 as captain & opener, Trescothick averages 49 in the three years 03, 04, 05. I can play with statsguru too, do I get a medal
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Who would you prefer Brumby (or anyone), Strauss or Tresco?

Most people would say Trescothick in a heartbeat but I'm starting to lean towards Strauss these days.

I would generally agree with your post anyway, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Ikki finds the comparison so offensive is because neither Strauss nor Trescothick is Australian and we all know that that is a key criterion when ranking cricketers.

Langer was a very good Test opener and I'd say the same about my favourite opening pair
Probably still edge towards Tres, but Strauss has really addressed the problems in his game and has a lot more scoring options than he did.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
:lol:

Strauss averages 56 as captain & opener, Trescothick averages 49 in the three years 03, 04, 05. I can play with statsguru too, do I get a medal
You get a cookie for being special...but not the good kind. BTW, recite the thread title.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
:laugh:

Way to miss my point.

& why remove the minnows? Oh, because Langer's record against them is poor. How is that not cooking the statistical books?
Because he played 2 tests against both - in fact only 2 innings against Bangladesh. If he had played more and failed I wouldn't have removed them. Unless you wish to argue that he would have kept that record had he played them more, it is rather non-sensical. Nor does it change the stats much. 0.5 runs on average? Please, get an argument and fast. Or just admit you had no clue that Langer was comfortably better than both english bats as an opener.

If I was interested in cooking books, I would not have included the ICC world XI match. But obviously, my problem is that Tresco and Strauss aren't Aussie :laugh:... but for some reason I voted for Jack Hobbs, hmm.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Because he played 2 tests against both - in fact only 2 innings against Bangladesh. If he had played more and failed I wouldn't have removed them. Unless you wish to argue that he would have kept that record had he played them more, it is rather non-sensical. Nor does it change the stats much. 0.5 runs on average? Please, get an argument and fast. Or just admit you had no clue that Langer was comfortably better than both english bats as an opener.

If I was interested in cooking books, I would not have included the ICC world XI match. But obviously, my problem is that Tresco and Strauss aren't Aussie :laugh:... but for some reason I voted for Jack Hobbs, hmm.
So it's just stats then, yeah? Mitigated stats at that. No other points to support your contention at all.

I'd be prepared to concede Trescothick's foot movement wasn't classical for an opener or that Strauss (until recently) was too reliant on width for his scoring strokes, but all you've added to the debate is something anyone with access to cricinfo could've done.

If Langer is "comfortably better" (a contention based solely on your manipulated stats), why then is not Sutcliffe, a man whose average is higher than Hobbs's by roughly the same amount as Langer's is above Trescothick's, the greatest opener? Just curious.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
So it's just stats then, yeah? Mitigated stats at that. No other points to support your contention at all.

I'd be prepared to concede Trescothick's foot movement wasn't classical for an opener or that Strauss (until recently) was too reliant on width for his scoring strokes, but all you've added to the debate is something anyone with access to cricinfo could've done.

If Langer is "comfortably better" (a contention based solely on your manipulated stats), why then is not Sutcliffe, a man whose average is higher than Hobbs's by roughly the same amount as Langer's is above Trescothick's, the greatest opener? Just curious.
No, the reality that Langer is comfortably better is just proven clearly through stats. What did you want me to argue? That Langer could both take pressure and also come out swinging? Talk about his array of shots, his intelligence and his determination to redefine himself as an opener? How is that going to make it any clearer, if at all?

Langer was almost as good as Hayden for while they opened together, that's the best complement I can give him. I wouldn't say either Tresco or Strauss were at that level - granted Strauss has looked good in the last year or two.

The argument you bring with Hobbs and Sutcliffe is one I've raised myself and people who knew more about it than me gave me their opinions and I accepted them as logically acceptable. Do a search, find it, it'll save me arguing it.

But please, don't be naive enough to think either of those two openers were on Langer's level or that all I did was show stats. In fact, I had only mentioned that he averaged similar to Hayden, before you went and shot yourself in the foot with this:

Nah, not in this life. There's an argument Langer is better than either, but neither are "a comfortable distance off".

& we all know stats can be duked to support the argument of one's preference. As example, which country had the best attack during Trescothick's career? Australia, clearly, for my money. Now, Langer had the advantage of never having to face McWarne et al so one could argue that, in the interests of fairness when comparing the two players, tests against Oz should be expunged from Tres's record. &, when they are, we see he actually averages 46.71 which is (yes!) more than Langer.
imagine if Langer was English and Strauss/Tresco were Aussie...you'd piss yourself laughing if I tried to argue what you're arguing.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
No, the reality that Langer is comfortably better is just proven clearly through stats. What did you want me to argue? That Langer could both take pressure and also come out swinging? Talk about his array of shots, his intelligence and his determination to redefine himself as an opener? How is that going to make it any clearer, if at all?

Langer was almost as good as Hayden for while they opened together, that's the best complement I can give him. I wouldn't say either Tresco or Strauss were at that level - granted Strauss has looked good in the last year or two.

The argument you bring with Hobbs and Sutcliffe is one I've raised myself and people who knew more about it than me gave me their opinions and I accepted them as logically acceptable. Do a search, find it, it'll save me arguing it.

But please, don't be naive enough to think either of those two openers were on Langer's level or that all I did was show stats. In fact, I had only mentioned that he averaged similar to Hayden, before you went and shot yourself in the foot with this:



imagine if Langer was English and Strauss/Tresco were Aussie...you'd piss yourself laughing if I tried to argue what you're arguing.
Wow. I mean, wow.

Sometimes I think you just try too hard, but others it seems you really are that dim.

I wasn't suggesting Trescothick was better based on him averaging more than Langer when Australia tests are removed, rather using it as an example of how statistics can be manipulated. How did you not get that?
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Wow. I mean, wow.

Sometimes I think you just try too hard, but others it seems you really are that dim.

I wasn't suggesting Trescothick was better based on him averaging more than Langer when Australia tests are removed, rather using it as an example of how statistics can be manipulated. How did you not get that?
Calm down, have a laugh and lighten up ;). How can you even begin to equate what I did with what you did in terms of manipulating stats? Yeah, I know stats can be manipulated, but what is your point? Did I manipulate anything beyond comprehension or relevance? I talked about them as openers, because the thread just happens to be about openers. I removed B/Z merely because he had not played them enough and had he done so, and had a good record, I would have removed them anyway. But even that doesn't distort anything really as the difference is minuscule. So what is your bloody point? I know stats can be manipulated...thanks?

Did you think I meant you shot yourself in the foot merely because you argued Tresco's Average > Langer's? You seemed oblivious to the fact that Langer actually has a considerably higher average as an opener.

This debate was silly enough, you just took it to a new level. Stats can be manipulated, and Santa doesn't exist. Thanks. I guess we've saved everybody from this discussion re: stats in the threads that talk about the best batsmen/bowlers in the 00s and 90s...when people start using the dates in statsguru as they relate to the read. :laugh:
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Calm down, have a laugh and lighten up ;). How can you even begin to equate what I did with what you did in terms of manipulating stats? Yeah, I know stats can be manipulated, but what is your point? Did I manipulate anything beyond comprehension or relevance? I talked about them as openers, because the thread just happens to be about openers. I removed B/Z merely because he had not played them enough and had he done so, and had a good record, I would have removed them anyway. But even that doesn't distort anything really as the difference is minuscule. So what is your bloody point? I know stats can be manipulated...thanks?

Did you think I meant you shot yourself in the foot merely because you argued Tresco's Average > Langer's? You seemed oblivious to the fact that Langer actually has a considerably higher average as an opener.

This debate was silly enough, you just took it to a new level. Stats can be manipulated, and Santa doesn't exist. Thanks. I guess we've saved everybody from this discussion re: stats in the threads that talk about the best batsmen/bowlers in the 00s and 90s...when people start using the dates in statsguru as they relate to the read. :laugh:
Ironically enough, I am having a laugh just now. Can't imagine I'm alone either.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Ironically enough, I am having a laugh just now. Can't imagine I'm alone either.
Something tells me it's conveniently the two that made twits of themselves.

"Langer is only 1 point above Strauss and Tresco's average of 46.71 is better than Langer's!"

:laugh:, you'd think admitting that you were wrong wouldn't be so hard to do. I guess not. :happy: Oh well.
 
Last edited:

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Ikki, I think you may have misunderstood the point that I was making.

My central point, which in fairness I think was clear enough from my original post, was that Streetwise was misunderstanding the position when he said that Richard was doing Langer down through a sense of sour grapes because of a lack of English players of comparable quality in Langer's era. Richard has many straunchly-held idiosyncratic theories, but they are as likely to work against English players (Trescothick was an average player at best who was absurdly lucky; Vaughan was never a good Test opener even at the time of his stellar performance in that role in 2002 and 2002/3; Strauss became a poorer player because he started trying to play drives etc) as they are to work in English players' favour, or against players from other countries.

Now, I also ventured the opinion that it was absurd for Streetwise to suggest that there weren't any English batsmen of comparable quality to Langer in his era. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that KP, Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss, and one might add Thorpe or Stewart, were better than JL, merely that they are/were of broadly comparable quality. It was perhaps predictable that you would take this as an attack on the supremacy of one of your team's players, and I don't expect you to back down, and life is too short for another endless bout of "well if you exclude Ban/Zim and take the square root of runs scored in the 2000s and divide by the number of Tests played away from home in conditions above 50% humidity", so I will simply applaud your patriotic tenacity and move on.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Ikki, I think you may have misunderstood the point that I was making.

My central point, which in fairness I think was clear enough from my original post, was that Streetwise was misunderstanding the position when he said that Richard was doing Langer down through a sense of sour grapes because of a lack of English players of comparable quality in Langer's era. Richard has many straunchly-held idiosyncratic theories, but they are as likely to work against English players (Trescothick was an average player at best who was absurdly lucky; Vaughan was never a good Test opener even at the time of his stellar performance in that role in 2002 and 2003/4; Strauss became a poorer player because he started trying to play drives etc) as they are to work in English players' favour, or against players from other countries.

Now, I also ventured the opinion that it was absurd for Streetwise to suggest that there weren't any English batsmen of comparable quality to Langer in his era. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that KP, Vaughan, Trescothick, Strauss, and one might add Thorpe or Stewart, were better than JL, merely that they are/were of broadly comparable quality. It was perhaps predictable that you would take this as an attack on the supremacy of one of your team's players, and I don't expect you to back down, and life is too short for another endless bout of "well if you exclude Ban/Zim and take the square root of runs scored in the 2000s and divide by the number of Tests played away from home in conditions above 50% humidity", so I will simply applaud your patriotic tenacity and move on.
You had me until the last parts of the last paragraph where you descended into GIMH-type non-sense.

I know what you said about Richard, and frankly whether he is biased or not doesn't concern me a whole lot. TBF, I don't care if someone is biased as long as the opinion they hold is not totally ridiculous a la Hussain v Hayden. But moving on...

I took Streetwise's post to mean openers. In fact, when you replied and said that Streetwise mentioned batsmen and not specifically openers, I let it go. I still took issue with the comparison between Strauss and Trescothick with Langer. And it has nothing to do with national bias...they're just not good enough as openers to compare; it's that simple. When I said they are comfortably behind him, I didn't say they were ****...but it really should not even be an argument who was better. That is what is for me, "comfortably ahead".

Furthermore, if I DIDN'T restrict Langer's record to him as an opener, it would in fact distort the view of him as an opener and this is highlighted by the two who went ass-backwards into this debate not knowing how sizeable that gap is between Langer's record as an opener and otherwise.

The removal of B/Z is something I do always and for all batsmen so it shouldn't even be controversial if you've ever seen me analyse a player's record. As I exemplified, I kept the ICC test which has a negative affect on his record as well because I think he faced bowlers that he had before, in familiar environment and that the "one-off" argument isn't too great. As much as cricket is a team sport, it is one full of individual duels. So it's not about me tweaking the stats and the suggestion is a little insulting. And ANYWAY, it affects him very little as it is only a handful of innings worth.

So don't give me that non-sense about me using square root or other preposterous equations. What I did was very fair and, really, the only way you can look at Langer's record. It's about as stupid as complaining to someone that they only looked at a player's record in the 90s...when the thread only concerns the performances of said player in the 90s.
 
Last edited:

Top