I've come to the conclusion that the forum in general seems to have the mindset of trying to reinvent the wheel, trying to look at stats and deside what is better rather than looking at what has made team actually successful.
From the South African team of the early 70's, through the West Indies teams of the late 70's and then the 80's, to the strong Australian team of the 2000's to the the South African teams that followed them, all of the great teams had at least one at least potentially aggressive opener who could and would counter attack as required.
It always depends. First thing I must ask, why exactly do you look at things in such a linear and definitive manner? first of all, look at the South African team where Barry Richards played, who was he opening with? Trevor Goddard, the definition of a hard working, defensive opener. The Greatest team of all time was the Invincibles, and it's openers struck in the 40s. Desmond Haynes stuck in mid 40s and Gordon Greenidge in early 51. Smith was a fast opener but Alviro Peterson was decently slow, they also had Amla or Kallis who could graft or attack as wanted.
The point stands, in all of these cases, it's not attacking batsmanship that makes them different, it's versatility and the adaptability. You don't want a team of Boycotts and you certainly don't want a team of Sehwags, you want a team that have both, and a team where the main players could alternate between striking at 35 and 75. Versatility and variety is the requirement.
Now, there is value to batting both ways, for example an opening partnership makes the stand of 140, hit the ball all over the park, make the bowlers and fielders work for it, very nice if they do so in 30 overs instead of 40. But let's say it's England in 2021, cloudy day, duke ball, the openers are dismissed for 40 and Root comes out at 40/2, would you rather have it at the 10th over when the main opening bowlers are in middle of their spell, the ball is relatively new and now you have a fresh Root at the crease facing that, or would you rather have Root walk out at 40/2 after 20 overs, when the main bowlers have either finished up their spell or are finishing up their spell, the ball is decently old and Root has overs to get his eye in from the first change bowlers? the answer is obvious.
Say, your opener is the best batsman of the team, and the middle order is quite weak, let's say your opener makes 30 runs. He makes 30(25) and the bowling attack is into the middle order relatively early with the new ball, or he makes 30(75) and the ball is old and first change bowlers are coming in when the middle order is batting, and there is a much better chance that the middle order manages to score something good with the bat, because the main bowlers were seen off and the ball is old enough that their next spells wouldn't be so threatening.
In the hypothetical where you are not blessed with truly great openers, and your best batsman bats at 3 or 4, IE 99% of Cricket teams within the last 50 years, everyone would pick 40/2 at over 20 over 40/2 at over 10.
Even Hobbs at his peak was an attacking batsman. Not to mention batsmen like Sutcliffe and Barrington being greatly elevated by the spreadsheet generation way above where they were by their peers when they played..
A Boycott is acceptable, but not at both ends, and certainly shouldn't be given extra credit for being limited.
This is probably the most irritating part of this post.
You always repeat this line with Sutcliffe and Barrington, sometimes with Hutton but mainly with these two, it's just so...strange? You have no qualms with consistently bringing up Sutcliffe and Barrington's "ratings" to mock posters over them placing Sutcliffe and Barrington high because of statistics, but when Compton and Trumper are discussed, it's all about how they were "overromanticised", and what is the evidence of that? dismissal of Trumper's era when all the same critics you use to downgrade Sutcliffe would tell you that Trumper's era was the apex of Cricket, what is it with Compton? oh wait, you use blatantly out of context statistics to downgrade him when you critique others for upgrading Barrington based on statistics, Botham becomes a product of the English media hype, Trueman was actually a GTB and failed overseas when he was regarded as a great bowler on all kinds of turfs.
The list goes on and on, basically critics of the old were always smoking crack when rating certain cricketers highly, Trumper to Compton to Gower, one shouldn't listen to them on the matters of these overly romanticised players, but when they downgraded cricketers you don't like such as Sutcliffe, Boycott or Barrington? then they were absolutely right! and we are wrong to not adhere to their judgement decades or a century later. This selective recognition of writer consensus has to go.
Regarding Sutcliffe, He made a hundred in his first game in Australia, followed that up by twin hundreds in a game where if Hobbs in second or the English middle order in either innings performed with the bat, England would've won their first Ashes Test since the end of first world war, was the sole centurion in the game where England won their first Ashes Test since the war. He also saved an Ashes Test on a cracking wicket at Headingley before winning the Test and the series for England at the Oval in 1926, winning the series 1-0 for England on an impossible wicket, the first Ashes England won since the war. He also was a driving force on two victories in South Africa on matting pitches. He also won another test in Australia on an impossible wicket, chasing 332 in Australia which would stand as a record for nearly a century. He made a great century in the 1930 Ashes and was the joint highest scorer in the bodyline series with Hammond, making a big hundred in a winning cause, 194 in a winning game against O'Reilly and Grimmett after Australia made 360. Ofcourse he contributed in other wins and match saves too throughout his career.
But ofcourse, everyone is wrong to rate him highly, we need to adhere to random writers and peers who you would completely disregard if it doesn't fit your narrative. The value of a batsman is in how many games he saves or wins, rest is all hogwash, Sutcliffe is rated highly not only because of statistics but also because he won and saved games, playing some of the most epic Ashes knocks in history, despite what your selective adherence to peer opinion says about him.
