Greatest Opening Batsman of all time?

[aussie_ben91]

I thought we were talking about ODIs.

We are. I'm just saying that by the time Hayden got out of his slump, he had been dumped from the ODI side and he had a decent run after the Ashes.

 

[nightprowler10]

We are. I'm just saying that by the time Hayden got out of his slump, he had been dumped from the ODI side and he had a decent run after the Ashes.

I'm not gonna say that he wouldn't have kicked ass in ODIs as well, but you have to realize that tests are a totally different story. Younis Khan averages almost 50 tests and under 35 in ODIs. They're two different animals, tests and ODIs.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I'm not gonna say that he wouldn't have kicked ass in ODIs as well, but you have to realize that tests are a totally different story. Younis Khan averages almost 50 tests and under 35 in ODIs. They're two different animals, tests and ODIs.

Exactly. Though, I thought his ODI form usually came from his Test form. It's bizarre though how many players are so good in Tests but yet so shitty in ODI's and there not exactly the most defensive players in the world either.

 

[zreh]

I think you've been sadly mistaken mate. My post was more so angled at Test match cricket then ODI.

Let me try and respond to you're post which was, I admit. Very well put out.

You don't think Hayden would've maintained his average? I think he would've with flying colours because if you look at his cumulative batting average (Tendulker's that is) then you'll see that his average is practically the same as Hayden's after the same ammount of matches played by the to. And let's not forget Hayden's average went tremediously down after having piss-poor form during the course of mid 2004 to 2005 and don't start on that topic, I remember you posting in the "5 Best Batsman topic"



For the purpose of my previous paragraph. Here is the stats for Hayden & Tendulker after 115 ODI Batting Innings.

Sachin Tendulker
Match:118 Inns:115 NO:12 Runs:4094 HS:137 Average:39.74 100s: 8 50s:26

Matthew Hayden
Match: 119 Inns: 115 NO:12 Runs:4131 HS:146 Average:40.10 100s:5 50s:26

Pretty similar aren't they? I guess the only difference is that Hayden prior to being dropped from the ODI, used to average as high as 46 in the ODI were as Tendulker has never had an average that high in ODI cricket.

What you see is the same ammount of innings with the matter of a 1 game difference in Hayden's favour (How does that suggest that Hayden's playing in a better team?), same ammount of NO's, Hayden with approximedly a 40 run buffer to his favour, a better higher score, pretty much same average & same ammount of half centuries made and to Tendulkers favour, 3 more centuries then Hayden. I also noticed you mentioned that Tendulker had posted more 90's in ODI cricket then anybody else. Up until the cumulative stats which I have supplied on my post, Tendulker had only made one 90 in his career where as Hayden had made three. I guess that little theory may aswell be put to rest. Don't believe me? Just check these out...

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

The point of this post is to ask the question, if Tendulker can do what his done in ODI's, what's saying Hayden couldn't? Afterall after the same ammount of games played (cumulated into how much Hayden has played in his entire career) says that Hayden matches Tendulker. I guess you could defend the fact that Tendulkers produced more centuries up until that point then what Hayden has, though, Hayden had made more runs and they had the exact same ammount of NO's to 'even it up'. So that's basically saying that Hayden plays better after reaching a milestone of either 50 or 100 or does it mean that Hayden was a tad more consistant?

I dunno what I'm doing though, I agree with you that Tendulker is probably a better ODI BATSMAN then Hayden because initially I was saying that Hayden was a BETTER Test Match batsman but there's no reason why Hayden couldn't of been as great, if not greater then Tendulker in the ODI arena. The difference between me & you is that you're using stats that could possibly predict the future while I'm using stats that have actually happened in the past.

I could go on about Test statistics now and go on why I think Hayden's better then Tendulker in that department, but I think I'll just wait it out for a reply... 'if there is one'.

Oh there will be one, don't worry about that.

I looked at the stats after both had played 115 innings. You see that Tendulkar's average is a tad below 40. Now his average is near 45...Do you understand what that means??? He progressively got better and improved as a batsman, whereas Hayden as you stated when through that slump and got dropped. Do you know how many matches Tendulkar played before he got a century? 17! His career started out very slowly, and what do you expect with a 16 year old kid who has the weight of over a billion people on his shoulders? Have you seen the way Tendulkar performs in tense situations, look at the world cups he's been part of, infact look at the 2003 world cup, he tears apart teams like its nothing, a 5'6 little guy smacking 95mph bouncers for 6...Now tell me, If Hayden was so damn good, why the f*** did he get dropped? HUH? TELL ME! Was it because the selectors thought he was declining as an ODI batsman? I did to....My point is after Tendulkar's rough start (and he started as a no.4 bat in ODI's also) WHEN he started opening in ODI's, thats when he began to perform, and after that, he continiously got better. The fact that Hayden got dropped tells you something...

Your cumulative stats are so bloody irrelevant. Like I told you, Tendulkar started to take off as a great batsman after that 115 innings...But he was still as good as Hayden, even when he sucked as a batsman.

And about test matches, yea Tendulkar did not open, wtf is wrong with that? LOL do you really think he was scared of the new ball? Ofcourse hayden was the better opener in test matches, BECAUSE TENDULKAR DID NOT OPEN!!! As for who was the better batsman in test matches...(and they have played similar amounts of games), It was Tendulkar without a doubt...If you want to argue that, Ill again bring out the RELEVANT stats.

You make me laugh

 

[Afridi no 1]

both great batsman...its hard to choose who is the best...but i must say that Sachin Tendulker is the better than Hayden.... Saeed Anwar was also a gr8 player...

 

[aussie_ben91]

Oh there will be one, don't worry about that.

I looked at the stats after both had played 115 innings. You see that Tendulkar's average is a tad below 40. Now his average is near 45...Do you understand what that means??? He progressively got better and improved as a batsman, whereas Hayden as you stated when through that slump and got dropped. Do you know how many matches Tendulkar played before he got a century? 17! His career started out very slowly, and what do you expect with a 16 year old kid who has the weight of over a billion people on his shoulders? Have you seen the way Tendulkar performs in tense situations, look at the world cups he's been part of, infact look at the 2003 world cup, he tears apart teams like its nothing, a 5'6 little guy smacking 95mph bouncers for 6...Now tell me, If Hayden was so damn good, why the f*** did he get dropped? HUH? TELL ME! Was it because the selectors thought he was declining as an ODI batsman? I did to....My point is after Tendulkar's rough start (and he started as a no.4 bat in ODI's also) WHEN he started opening in ODI's, thats when he began to perform, and after that, he continiously got better. The fact that Hayden got dropped tells you something...

Your cumulative stats are so bloody irrelevant. Like I told you, Tendulkar started to take off as a great batsman after that 115 innings...But he was still as good as Hayden, even when he sucked as a batsman.

And about test matches, yea Tendulkar did not open, wtf is wrong with that? LOL do you really think he was scared of the new ball? Ofcourse hayden was the better opener in test matches, BECAUSE TENDULKAR DID NOT OPEN!!! As for who was the better batsman in test matches...(and they have played similar amounts of games), It was Tendulkar without a doubt...If you want to argue that, Ill again bring out the RELEVANT stats.

You make me laugh

Irrelevant? The fact which you abrupty turned this topic from greatest OPENING batsman to a topic over whose a better-- You know what? **** it.

I clearly stated that Sachin Tendulker is probably the BETTER ODI Batsman. I'm simply going to stop argueing over something, I never believed was true in the first place and the reason I was actually defending Hayden in the ODI department was because you we're making him out to be some fool who isn't as nearly good as what Tendulker is when in my opinion during the course of 2002/03 (Averaged 46), Hayden was actually batting better during that period then Tendulker ever was & it's not like Hayden had the prettiest start to his career either, ya know. Besides, I think it's rather idiotic to try and predict what may of happened if Hayden had've played the same ammount of matches as Tendulker, especially on 'century-rate' when it's highly unlikely he'll play atleast 200+ ODI's.

As for you're point on Tendulker still matching Hayden even when Tendulker was **** at the start of his career, how in the hell is that Irrelevant? Hayden had just been dropped... of course his average is going to go down!

And the reason he got dropped is because he was going through a minor slump. Kinda stupid if you ask me because he still averaged 35 for the series, but oh well everybody goes through a bad patch, don't they?

Now I wouldn't mind seeing these "RELEVANT" Test stats. I'm dying to see them.

 

[cricket_lover]

Hayden has a MUCH better converison rate then Tendulker.



I'm joking? No.

Tendulkers better then Hayden in every single category? I disagree. Apart from probably cutting the ball, name one part of batting Hayden hasn't matched Tendulker in? Hayden can dominate, he has great techinique and a brilliant Test Match/Century Rate converison. I'd say the only thing standing in the way of Tendulker's century record is that Tendulker has played more matches then Hayden.

And yes, I think Hobbs was a opening batsman.

Care to explain your first point?

Tendulkar has a near perfect technique, stance. I think this discussion is futile. The kind of attack Tendulkar faced, since the mid-90's and the kind Hayden has faced is different.

Tendulkar, for the last decade and more, has been the most successful ODI batsmen, in the opening slot. This ain't OPINION. This is a fact, backed by statistics.

Hayden indeed is a great player, but i always felt Gilchrist was more audacious in his strokes, and has a higher strike-rate, and is far more entertaining.

Up until 2003 Tendulkar was the best "entertainer". Since then, Gilchrist and Sehwag, Afridi, and most recently Pieterson, Dhoni, Hussey have dominated the field.


Regarding Tests, its hard because lot of us haven't seen pre-1970 players. From the players i know, it has to be Gavaskar. Statistically and according to experts. The WI openers were also good, but here they shared the responsibility.

 

[langerrox]

Oh there will be one, don't worry about that.

I looked at the stats after both had played 115 innings. You see that Tendulkar's average is a tad below 40. Now his average is near 45...Do you understand what that means??? He progressively got better and improved as a batsman, whereas Hayden as you stated when through that slump and got dropped. Do you know how many matches Tendulkar played before he got a century? 17! His career started out very slowly, and what do you expect with a 16 year old kid who has the weight of over a billion people on his shoulders? Have you seen the way Tendulkar performs in tense situations, look at the world cups he's been part of, infact look at the 2003 world cup, he tears apart teams like its nothing, a 5'6 little guy smacking 95mph bouncers for 6...Now tell me, If Hayden was so damn good, why the f*** did he get dropped? HUH? TELL ME! Was it because the selectors thought he was declining as an ODI batsman? I did to....My point is after Tendulkar's rough start (and he started as a no.4 bat in ODI's also) WHEN he started opening in ODI's, thats when he began to perform, and after that, he continiously got better. The fact that Hayden got dropped tells you something...

Your cumulative stats are so bloody irrelevant. Like I told you, Tendulkar started to take off as a great batsman after that 115 innings...But he was still as good as Hayden, even when he sucked as a batsman.

And about test matches, yea Tendulkar did not open, wtf is wrong with that? LOL do you really think he was scared of the new ball? Ofcourse hayden was the better opener in test matches, BECAUSE TENDULKAR DID NOT OPEN!!! As for who was the better batsman in test matches...(and they have played similar amounts of games), It was Tendulkar without a doubt...If you want to argue that, Ill again bring out the RELEVANT stats.

You make me laugh

woah, your an idiot, you cant just say "oh... 1993-1995 didnt count because he was young..." you even stated in your first post that tendulkar isnt a full time opening batsman, so he cant be the greatest. YOU ARE WRONG, Tendulkar isn't the greatest opening batsman of all time, neither is he the greatest batsman of all time. Bradman, Sobers and Richards are.

if you wish to be embarassed further, please reply

 

[aussie_ben91]

Care to explain your first point?

Tendulkar has a near perfect technique, stance. I think this discussion is futile. The kind of attack Tendulkar faced, since the mid-90's and the kind Hayden has faced is different.

Tendulkar, for the last decade and more, has been the most successful ODI batsmen, in the opening slot. This ain't OPINION. This is a fact, backed by statistics.

Hayden indeed is a great player, but i always felt Gilchrist was more audacious in his strokes, and has a higher strike-rate, and is far more entertaining.

Up until 2003 Tendulkar was the best "entertainer". Since then, Gilchrist and Sehwag, Afridi, and most recently Pieterson, Dhoni, Hussey have dominated the field.

Regarding Tests, its hard because lot of us haven't seen pre-1970 players. From the players i know, it has to be Gavaskar. Statistically and according to experts. The WI openers were also good, but here they shared the responsibility.

Matthew Hayden has the fourth highest conversion rate (Test centuries scored per Test played) in history, behind only Bradman, George Headley and Clyde Walcott. And what's saying Hayden would've not faired well against a better bowling attack? We're not talking about entertaining, we're talking about quality & consistancy.

 

[cricket_lover]

Tendulkar has been the example of consistency, for 15 years. He's been plagued of injuries for the last two and has never played enough test matches, on the trot.

Can you guys care to explain why Richards is considered a great player, statistically? I'm not worried about how much an entertainer he is.

Tendulkar has played test cricket, at a consistent rate and with quality. He has faced the best of attacks, and fared quite well. I'm not saying that Hayden may not do well, he might do really well, for such a good player he is.

But to say Hayden is better than Tendulkar, overall is an over-statement. Hayden has played lot of his cricket from 2000 and above, and give me examples of good attack's he faced.

I think Ponting would be a better person to debate about. Ponting, for the last two-three years, has been the best batsmen. Statistically, he's up with the top 20 all-time. may be Hayden as well, but definitely not in the league of Tendulkar or Ponting, or Lara.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Tendulkar has been the example of consistency, for 15 years. He's been plagued of injuries for the last two and has never played enough test matches, on the trot.

Can you guys care to explain why Richards is considered a great player, statistically? I'm not worried about how much an entertainer he is.

Tendulkar has played test cricket, at a consistent rate and with quality. He has faced the best of attacks, and fared quite well. I'm not saying that Hayden may not do well, he might do really well, for such a good player he is.

But to say Hayden is better than Tendulkar, overall is an over-statement. Hayden has played lot of his cricket from 2000 and above, and give me examples of good attack's he faced.

I think Ponting would be a better person to debate about. Ponting, for the last two-three years, has been the best batsmen. Statistically, he's up with the top 20 all-time. may be Hayden as well, but definitely not in the league of Tendulkar or Ponting, or Lara.

Pontings a prime example of what Hayden was at just three or so years ago. I just think Ponting gets more noticement because his the captain and all and to say Hayden is better then Tendulker isn't an over-statement... Hayden is perhaps one of the most under-rated batsman in the history of the game.

 

[andyptl18]

the fact is simple Tendulkar is far ahead of Hayden and his stats speak for that.
Tendulkar and Hayden both opened in ODIs so you can compare those and easily Tendulkar wins there. In Tests Tendulkar doesnt open so cannot even name him in that category duhhh!!
Also Tendulkar is maybe the greatest batsman of all-time, like it or not so comparing Hayden to Tendulkar is a little bit wayward.

 

[langerrox]

Tendulkar has been the example of consistency, for 15 years. He's been plagued of injuries for the last two and has never played enough test matches, on the trot.

Can you guys care to explain why Richards is considered a great player, statistically? I'm not worried about how much an entertainer he is.

Tendulkar has played test cricket, at a consistent rate and with quality. He has faced the best of attacks, and fared quite well. I'm not saying that Hayden may not do well, he might do really well, for such a good player he is.

But to say Hayden is better than Tendulkar, overall is an over-statement. Hayden has played lot of his cricket from 2000 and above, and give me examples of good attack's he faced.

I think Ponting would be a better person to debate about. Ponting, for the last two-three years, has been the best batsmen. Statistically, he's up with the top 20 all-time. may be Hayden as well, but definitely not in the league of Tendulkar or Ponting, or Lara.

we are talking opening batsman, ponting nor tendulkar are opening batsman.

 

[zreh]

woah, your an idiot, you cant just say "oh... 1993-1995 didnt count because he was young..." you even stated in your first post that tendulkar isnt a full time opening batsman, so he cant be the greatest. YOU ARE WRONG, Tendulkar isn't the greatest opening batsman of all time, neither is he the greatest batsman of all time. Bradman, Sobers and Richards are.

if you wish to be embarassed further, please reply

embarassed furthur? Are YOU A MORON?

Listen up, and read carefully kid, Tendulkar was a full time opening batsman for ODI's. For the first 30-40 innings, he went at no.4 and did not fair to well, only after opening, he became the great he is now. I never once stated that Tendulkar was an oening test batsman, in fact I said he was not.
My previous posts have concerned only ODI...DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

SO WHO is the greatest opening batsman all time...IN ODI's? You keep saying he's not, but I want to know who is...Tell me, and again i will get cold stats to shut your trap.

Kid your argument is so bloody weak its not even funny

Have a nice day

 

[andrew_nixon]

Calm down please people. Swearing and calling people morons is not the way mature people handle a discussion. If you want to behave like little kids, don't spoil the forum for the rest of us.