Who's the greatest opening batsman of alltime?

[aussie]

Neither.

No Richard, your statement that Kazohic highlighted was total nonsense yo..

 

[Ikki]

Richard is right to a level though twhen Hayden smashed SA in 2001/02 season compared to one he faced in 97 their is big difference Donald was past it without a doubt, Pollock hadn't declined as yet while Kallis was during his peak from my memory.

But yes they are wrong to ignore the 16 match drought which as i just showed you has its twists..

Here's the thing: Donald was not at his best, but Donald EVEN on that form was one of the world's best. Donald went into that series with figures, although lower than his career averages, which are better than 95% of all fast bowlers ever. That whole attack, as Goughy points out, was on fire in that time.

Now here is another point, even if we consider Donald wasn't at his best, no other (I think apart from Hutton) opener in history dominated an attack that strong in such a way. He averaged 100+. The only time Hobbs or Gavaskar managed such a feat against a side was when that side was a minnow or one of the worst sides of the time.

So how can anyone dismiss that? To me, you'd have to be whacked out of your mind or plainly biased to try to argue or take away from that series.

Thats true, but that going into a different argument althogether where by all the dominant batsmen of the 2000's era such as Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Sehwag especially would have questions over their ability to play top-quality fast bowling consistently for me in comparison to batsmen of the 70's, 80's & 90's given the the standard of bowling & pitches that they have faced.

LOL, but why would you have questions over their ability? During Ponting, Kallis, Dravid's time the standard of bowling has been higher. Name every test nation and see if they are better now or in the decades you propose. Some are the same, some are better and I'd say only WIndies/New Zealand are worse. And that depends, because the two aforementioned were only good for one of those decades.

But that doesn't mean they can't play it, they would just take more time to adjust to it. Look at Ponting for example in the 2005 Ashes, since 2001 when he really began establishing himself as the premier batsmen of this era would have never faced bowling of that quality since his debut in 96/97 vs the windies when he wasn't half-the player he was & struggled initially until he played that brilliant knock @ the Oval. That doesn't make him a bad player or should it suggest to us that he can't play the moving ball, its the kind of adjustment all batsmen in this era would have to do but not all would be able to play such an innings under such pressure. Thats why for me Ponting at his current best (looking past his current unlucky run this summer) would score runs in the 70's 80's & 90's.

Here's the crux of the argument: Ponting is in this era now rightly recognised as the best, for his feats in this era. Now why is it that Ponting has no question over his name? I'm sure you realise that both Hayden and Ponting have faced the same sides? Why is it that Ponting is so easily compared to Tendulkar and Lara but Waugh just misses out? Waugh scored most of his runs in the 90s, better form than Lara!

See what I mean mate? The standards are just not equal. Even if you were to assume Hayden 'was' flawed and not good enough, it's a silly thing to say he still is. He is a completely different batsman. How is it that Praveen Kumar makes our batsmen look LOST with his swing yet it is Hayden who scores the best figures for us overall in both matches with 82 and 55? Highest in the 1st and 2nd highest in the 2nd to Hopes' 63?

The logic is just not there my friend. It's no use entertaining this ignorance. They lead you to posts such as Richard's one.

 

[silentstriker]

Here's the crux of the argument: Ponting is in this era now rightly recognised as the best, for his feats in this era. Now why is it that Ponting has no question over his name? I'm sure you realise that both Hayden and Ponting have faced the same sides? Why is it that Ponting is so easily compared to Tendulkar and Lara but Waugh just misses out? Waugh scored most of his runs in the 90s, better form than Lara!

He does actually have questions - I don't put him as good as Lara/Tendulkar yet. Waugh is probably much closer to Tendulkar/Lara - I think he was probably better than Ponting. I'd pick Waugh to bat for my life than Ponting any day.

EDIT: But let's not get into that again.

 

[Manee]

Honest question here...

How do people make judgements on batsmen:
a) They have never seen bat
b) Have come from an era before them

Is there a commonly held judgement that pitches were worse in the uncovered era and so averages are worth 10% more than in the covered era? Furthermore, are eyewitness accounts taken into consideration and is the consideration taken that the style of a batsman in their age may not be so useful now. For example, Jack Hobbs' lunging block would certainly not work against bowlers bowling an excess of 150kph, nor would it likely work against reverse swing (due to the late nature - something which I have only realised is an exclusive in its exact nature to reverse swing, making it distinguishable to the human eye from conventional, but that is completely off topic).

 

[Ikki]

He does actually have questions - I don't put him as good as Lara/Tendulkar yet. Waugh is probably much closer to Tendulkar/Lara - I think he was probably better than Ponting. I'd pick Waugh to bat for my life than Ponting any day.

Give me a break. Hayden would average 35-45 according to you, so even if you do not rate Ponting he isn't going to fair that much better. Guess what? Waugh averaged much worse in the 80s than in the 90s (and the 90s are actually tougher) but that couldn't be because players don't get better. They have to start excellently otherwise it doesn't add up!

It's simplistic naivety and, pardon me, it shows that some of us haven't played a sport at a sufficiently high level. Which isn't to say we should all have the same feelings on matters, even if we were all semi-pro players - because even pros disagree - but, as I said, some posts just scream a gap in knowledge.

The notion that the two best batsmen of the best batsmen in the era aren't capable and have 'questions' over them yet Tendulkar and Lara, who have been more than disappointing at times (even in this 'easy' era), is laughable.

Using this logic Waugh, we can assume, is a better batsman than Lara. For A) he scored more runs and at a better rate than Lara in the 90s and B) Lara's record is doubtful because he played so much more than Waugh post 2000.

The way you guys make it sound, scoring runs is so easy now I should go and pad up again.

 

[silentstriker]

It's simplistic naivety and, pardon me, it shows that some of us haven't played a sport at a sufficiently high level. Which isn't to say we should all have the same feelings on matters, even if we were all semi-pro players - because even pros disagree - but, as I said, some posts just scream a gap in knowledge.

Maybe, or maybe people do have a gap in opinions. Look at lists by all the commentators and people who've played at 'semi-pro' levels, and you'll see them making ludicrous lists. Didn't Chappell say he'd rather have Taylor over Hayden? I suppose he hasn't played at a high level either. I don't agree with him, but it has nothing to do with whether you've played at a 'semi-pro' level. Knowledge of the sport at a macro level is quite different from knowledge on how to properly practice the night before a Test (which very few get to experience).

The notion that the two best batsmen of the best batsmen in the era aren't capable and have 'questions' over them yet Tendulkar and Lara, who have been more than disappointing at times (even in this 'easy' era), is laughable.

Who said they are incapable? They have questions, when compared with the best of all time. Not questions regarding their ability to play cricket a high level. There is an ocean of difference between the two positions.

The way you guys make it sound, scoring runs is so easy now I should go and pad up again.

??

 

[neville cardus]

a complete reasoning as stated above will NOT be gone into again) as below:
Hayden was found-out by high-calibre seam-bowling between 1993/94 and 2001 and did poorly (excluding one series in India, where seam was not prevalent but spin was, and his ability against spin is exceptional) in this time. This was due to technical flaws, most notable against the inswinger but also apparent against the outswinger. These technical flaws have never gone away, but mostly between 2001/02 and now have not been exploited because bowlers haven't been good enough, pitches have mostly offered no seam and cricket-balls have often been of poor quality and haven't swung as they should. Despite being poor against good seam-bowling on non-seaming pitches, Hayden is brilliant against poor seam-bowling (and spin of all kinds), and can cash-in on it to levels beyond most batsmen.
Those who insist that the sole reason for Hayden's prolific increase in scoring as of 2001/02 is improvement in his game are completely wrong, IMO.

You quite like your hyphens, don't you, Richie? Never before have I seen eight in one paragraph.

 

[pasag]

KaZoH0lic, with respect, your posting style is woeful. I hope your real life social skills aren't as poor as this.

 

[Ikki]

KaZoH0lic, with respect, your posting style is woeful. I hope your real life social skills aren't as poor as this.

I am generally a person who will not allow himself to get frustrated with respect to such things in cricket. But the double-standards here are so appalling there are no other synonyms to use.

It's like having a 20 page debate arguing that the world is round. Because, yes, some things ARE that simple and ARE that blatantly ignorant. You can't say Hayden faced poor bowling when for most of Gavaskar's career he was facing much worse. The only time he started facing good attacks was in the 80s, and his average is not all-time class there. How can I point this out 20 times in the same thread for people to say: "Yes, but Hayden faced weaker bowling". I mean, it is getting beyond ridiculous.

Anyway, don't worry for my social manners .

 

[pasag]

I agree there are things here that are very frustrating, Hayden-bashing, for me is one of them as well, and I am by no means perfect myself in this regard, but I always find the discussion is of much higher quality and much more enjoyable when people aren't getting called ignorant, laughed at for their opinions etc. You clearly know your stuff and don't have to resort to any of it by any stretch of the imagniation. Just my two cents.

 

[Ikki]

Maybe, or maybe people do have a gap in opinions. Look at lists by all the commentators and people who've played at 'semi-pro' levels, and you'll see them making ludicrous lists. Didn't Chappell say he'd rather have Taylor over Hayden? I suppose he hasn't played at a high level either. I don't agree with him, but it has nothing to do with whether you've played at a 'semi-pro' level. Knowledge of the sport at a macro level is quite different from knowledge on how to properly practice the night before a Test (which very few get to experience).

It would really depend on his reasoning, which is my whole point, with the point I made. The reasonings show the gap.

Who said they are incapable? They have questions, when compared with the best of all time. Not questions regarding their ability to play cricket a high level. There is an ocean of difference between the two positions.

But Tendulkar must also have questions still over him. For in the 90s he completely failed against 2/4 of the best seam/swing bowling attacks - Pakistan/S.Africa. In fact, you could also question him over Australia as well because until the 97 series he hadn't done well, and when he did McGrath wasn't there and it was a depleted Aussie seam attack - check for yourself. He has 2 tests against McGrath in 99 and, admittedly, he does very well in one. However, I am sure you will agree that is not a large sample.

So you see my friend, even Tendulkar has these questions over him. The fact that he faced these attacks isn't enough, because he wasn't largely successful against them.

And when the same people try to make the same arguments against Hayden, disregarding the fact that a widely acknowledged legend like Tendulkar has the same flaws, you can see why it sounds absolutely silly to me.

 

[Richard]

You quite like your hyphens, don't you, Richie? Never before have I seen eight in one paragraph.

Indeed I do. Some things just look so much better when it's emphasised that they're part of the same thing.

 

[Engle]

Kudos to Kaz for tenacity. However, remember that, beyond all of the technical details, (which most will forget with the passage of time), if you have to argue so strongly for greatness, then perhaps that is not an honor to be forced upon a player. It should be bestowed naturally.
I dont recall any debate of Gavaskar's greatness during his time. It came naturally and was generally accepted/acknowledged by all.

 

[Ikki]

Kudos to Kaz for tenacity. However, remember that, beyond all of the technical details, (which most will forget with the passage of time), if you have to argue so strongly for greatness, then perhaps that is not an honor to be forced upon a player. It should be bestowed naturally.
I dont recall any debate of Gavaskar's greatness during his time. It came naturally and was generally accepted/acknowledged by all.

Thanks Engle. But I think it's one thing to argue the above when two players in the past played in the same era: i.e. Richards and Chappell. I think when comparing players of different eras it is much different and I also think arguing about a player who is still playing even more difficult.

Gavaskar was a great in his time, and Hayden is in his. There is no disputing that. The dispute seems to arise from the mention that Gavaskar played in a much more difficult era, which is something you can argue for pitches really, but not the bowlers he faced and the quality of the opposition. I'll stop, because I've already made the comparison 3-4 times in this thread.

Suffice to say, I do not enjoy belittling other opener's records, but I've argued to give some perspective. As I've said before, expect Hayden to be lauded extensively in the years coming.

 

[silentstriker]

It would really depend on his reasoning, which is my whole point, with the point I made. The reasonings show the gap.



But Tendulkar must also have questions still over him. For in the 90s he completely failed against 2/4 of the best seam/swing bowling attacks - Pakistan/S.Africa. In fact, you could also question him over Australia as well because until the 97 series he hadn't done well, and when he did McGrath wasn't there and it was a depleted Aussie seam attack - check for yourself. He has 2 tests against McGrath in 99 and, admittedly, he does very well in one. However, I am sure you will agree that is not a large sample.

So you see my friend, even Tendulkar has these questions over him. The fact that he faced these attacks isn't enough, because he wasn't largely successful against them.

Of course he does. Even Bradman had questions about him regarding his ability on the sticky wickets...

The question is whether the questions that are still over them are enough to stop them being in that all time status. For Bradman, they clearly are not. Others, like Sobers, Hobbs (maybe Sutcliffe and a couple others too arguably) are on the second level. Guys like Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, etc are on the next level.

Ponting is probably one-two levels below that. And Hayden, to me, is a couple levels below that, and is about the 11-15th best opening bat of all time.

 

[Ikki]

Of course he does. Even Bradman had questions about him regarding his ability on the sticky wickets...

The question is whether the questions that are still over them are enough to stop them being in that all time status. For Bradman, they clearly are not. Others, like Sobers, Hobbs (maybe Sutcliffe and a couple others too arguably) are on the second level. Guys like Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, etc are on the next level.

Ponting is probably one-two levels below that. And Hayden, to me, is a couple levels below that, and is about the 11-15th best opening bat of all time.

My head boggles reading your post Manan. Usually, you're very knowledgeable and you shy away from extreme statements. It's one thing to say all batsmen have questions on them, it is another different thing to value the questionable aspects of said batsmens' legacy so unevenly. I am sure in time you will realise how extreme that statement actually is. Once you see a couple generations of great cricketers come and go you will measure much more accurately. In summation, I disagree vehemently, although respectfully.

 

[silentstriker]

Sure. Ten years from now, something could go off in my head and I could rate him high. I'm willing to be convinced. I don't see it yet for either of them though.

Ponting is very close for me, and in the next year or two I'll know whether he will meet or even exceed Tendulkar/Lara. Right now in the post-was non-Bradman batting list, I have Chappell > Waugh > Ponting.

 

[cover drive man]

What I saw of Hobbs was beautiful.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What I saw of Hobbs was beautiful.

 

[JBH001]

Ponting is probably one-two levels below that. And Hayden, to me, is a couple levels below that, and is about the 11-15th best opening bat of all time.

I dont know if I would go as far as that. I certainly dont think Hayden is top 5 material, but I can see a place for him in the 7 - 12 category of opening batsman. He would certainly be one of the top 5 Australian opening batsmen without a doubt (perhaps even top 3 material, though this may be questionable).