Alastair Cook vs Graeme Smith vs Matthew Hayden vs Virender Sehwag - Test opener of the millennium

[atreus]

My ranking is

1) Hayden
2) Sehwag
3) Greame Smith
4) Alastair Cook

Idk I just stand stand cook, for me he was one of the problems England faced during their dark era.

How so? he singlehandedly led us to the first win in Australia and India since 1980s

 

[kron]

How so? he singlehandedly led us to the first win in Australia and India since 1980s

Contrary to the popular opinion my rating as an Indian fan is ;

Cook 1 actually for me. Best opener. Technically sound. Most complete opener. Had no issues vs spin swing or even pace. Bounce maybe to an extent but overall best with no weaknesses really

Number 2 for me is actually Hayden. Less weaknesses than shewag. Shewag was just absolutely pathetic vs swing in England and SA too.

Number 3 I was about to say smith but I think shewag takes this one.

Smith was a little bit suspect vs good spin and bounce.

 

[kron]

I'll never forget Hayden's performance in the 2001 BGT in India. I've never seen another visiting batsman in India perform as well against spin.

109 in that one series.

30 and 33 in the following 2 tests series in India right after. I am not convinced tbh.

 

[kron]

Cook vs Graeme Smith vs Hayden vs Sehwag

Cook wins this one.

For once SS is right

 

[atreus]

Contrary to the popular opinion my rating as an Indian fan is ;

Cook 1 actually for me. Best opener. Technically sound. Most complete opener. Had no issues vs spin swing or even pace. Bounce maybe to an extent but overall best with no weaknesses really

Number 2 for me is actually Hayden. Less weaknesses than shewag. Shewag was just absolutely pathetic vs swing in England and SA too.

Number 3 I was about to say smith but I think shewag takes this one.

Smith was a little bit suspect vs good spin and bounce.

Yeah, Cook's a bit underrated when compared to other openers (and a bit overrated when compared to other english openers)

All 4 had flaws.

Matthew Hayden — was basically weak against any form of sideways movement, had a flawed technique against sideways movement but had the mental strength to counteract it and make some nice tons in England and South Africa, honestly an Okay player of sideways movement, but his great strength was his ability to easily counteract and overwhelm high bounce and spin, and absolutely slaughter teams on any flat wickets like there is no tommorrow.

Alastair Cook — in the late stages of his career, he wasn't that capable against true pace anymore, declining hand-eye coordination probably, even at peak he had struggles if the opponent was a tall fast bowler who could get inconsistent bounce at high speeds and also seam the ball sith a good zip, like Ishant Sharma and Morne Morkel. One of the best ever white plays of spin, amazing against high pace/bounce, also struggled a bit with sideways movement (seam) but mentally strong enough to hold his ground and beat the shine off of the ball, less of a FTB than Hayden but much more skilled against swing/seam and even tougher. if the conditions suited him and the rest of the team was anywhere near competent (remember, English batting was substantially weaker than South African, Indian and Australian during the careers of these four), he was almost impossible to get out.

Virender Sehwag — had no technique against sideways movement at all, would immediately mentally concede against it even at home, was genuinely a tail ender in England who somehow got to open, if he played in any era other than the super flat 2000s then I don't think he'd have much of a career but he was lucky, however he was an absolute ruthless beast on a flat wicket, and perhaps the greatest batter ever against any form of spin bowling, turned Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan into gully bowlers many times.

Graeme Smith — an amazing player of swing, his stats in England are a bit exaggerated due to double hundreds on two roads but he was always amazing against swing, but seemed to struggle predicted bounce in South Africa and could never handle high bounce in Australia but played a couple good knocks, not a very good player of spin at all. Very talented at counter attacking side ways movement but not really good enough at home or India and Australia, making runs in England is fine but Newzealand of that era had a nothing bowling bar Shane Bond who was injured half the year, more capable against pace and bounce than Sehwag was against sideways movement though.

at the end of the day, it is a coin toss between Chef and Big Haydos, and Hayden has certainly the argument to be better but opening against dukes in England is probably the hardest thing to do tbh, and Chef did very well in Australia while Hayden always failed to England.

so basically, the two big tours that Chef has, the Australian Ashes and the Indian triumph, combined with the longetivity and having such a harder job than Hayden and Sehwag who faced Kookaburras on Indian/Australian 2000s wickets while having amazing batting lineups to lean on, I'd give it to Chef.

 

[Ab Fan]

Yeah, Cook's a bit underrated when compared to other openers (and a bit overrated when compared to other english openers)

All 4 had flaws.

Matthew Hayden — was basically weak against any form of sideways movement, had a flawed technique against sideways movement but had the mental strength to counteract it and make some nice tons in England and South Africa, honestly an Okay player of sideways movement, but his great strength was his ability to easily counteract and overwhelm high bounce and spin, and absolutely slaughter teams on any flat wickets like there is no tommorrow.

Alastair Cook — in the late stages of his career, he wasn't that capable against true pace anymore, declining hand-eye coordination probably, even at peak he had struggles if the opponent was a tall fast bowler who could get inconsistent bounce at high speeds and also seam the ball sith a good zip, like Ishant Sharma and Morne Morkel. One of the best ever white plays of spin, amazing against high pace/bounce, also struggled a bit with sideways movement (seam) but mentally strong enough to hold his ground and beat the shine off of the ball, less of a FTB than Hayden but much more skilled against swing/seam and even tougher. if the conditions suited him and the rest of the team was anywhere near competent (remember, English batting was substantially weaker than South African, Indian and Australian during the careers of these four), he was almost impossible to get out.

Virender Sehwag — had no technique against sideways movement at all, would immediately mentally concede against it even at home, was genuinely a tail ender in England who somehow got to open, if he played in any era other than the super flat 2000s then I don't think he'd have much of a career but he was lucky, however he was an absolute ruthless beast on a flat wicket, and perhaps the greatest batter ever against any form of spin bowling, turned Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan into gully bowlers many times.

Graeme Smith — an amazing player of swing, his stats in England are a bit exaggerated due to double hundreds on two roads but he was always amazing against swing, but seemed to struggle predicted bounce in South Africa and could never handle high bounce in Australia but played a couple good knocks, not a very good player of spin at all. Very talented at counter attacking side ways movement but not really good enough at home or India and Australia, making runs in England is fine but Newzealand of that era had a nothing bowling bar Shane Bond who was injured half the year, more capable against pace and bounce than Sehwag was against sideways movement though.

at the end of the day, it is a coin toss between Chef and Big Haydos, and Hayden has certainly the argument to be better but opening against dukes in England is probably the hardest thing to do tbh, and Chef did very well in Australia while Hayden always failed to England.

so basically, the two big tours that Chef has, the Australian Ashes and the Indian triumph, combined with the longetivity and having such a harder job than Hayden and Sehwag who faced Kookaburras on Indian/Australian 2000s wickets while having amazing batting lineups to lean on, I'd give it to Chef.

Smith has done well in UAE or Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In India, he actually struggled vs Zak, not necessarily the spinners. He had to handle the pressure of captaincy from start of his career.

 

[atreus]

Smith has done well in UAE or Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In India, he actually struggled vs Zak, not necessarily the spinners. He had to handle the pressure of captaincy from start of his career.

Iirc before Zak tooled him in 2009 series, the spinners packed him up in the 2004 series and in the 2007-8 series he still struggled with the spinners even after getting starts against Sreesanth and RP singh. He averages 44 in SL and Pak iirc and has like 6 tests there combined, his 234 against Ajmal is a great inning though, no doubt, he isn't an awful player of spin but just not in the class of the other three against spin.

 

[Rajdeep]

Cook
Sehwag
Hayden
Smith

in that order.

Graeme Smith is bit over-hyped probably due to his personality and captaincy. Purely as a batsman he wasn't as good as other three.

 

[Buffet]

Funny thing about this comparison is that some one can make a strong case about all 4 of them due to various reasons.

I will go with combo opener of Cook/Hayden but then other combo of Smith/Sehwag can kill you as well due to Sehwag simply being unstoppable in Asia and Smith having so many gun performance in away series.

I will have a slight preference for Cook/Hayden combo. More traditional combo and most bases will be covered. But then some other days I may pick a different combo because all 4 of them brought something special.

I rate Cook actually very high. If Root does not have any big series in tough tours and retires, I will rate Cook above Root among Eng batsmen. Another opener from Atherton, not same class as Cook, is underrated a bit. He had misfortune to face McGrath/Warne/Ambrose/Walsh so frequently otherwise he wold have been having a mid 40 avg. I remember him going big in series with 2 tons in WI against Ambrose, Walsh and Benjamin. Couple of tons in SA against Pollokl and Donald as well.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Total random comparison. Sehwag would be an outlier in any era.

 

[atreus]

Total random comparison. Sehwag would be an outlier in any era.

Nah, these are the four big openers, I'd take the 70s/80s opener over them even subtracting Gavaskar but In this millenium this is the top 4.

 

[atreus]

Another opener from Atherton, not same class as Cook, is underrated a bit. He had misfortune to face McGrath/Warne/Ambrose/Walsh so frequently otherwise he wold have been having a mid 40 avg. I remember him going big in series with 2 tons in WI against Ambrose, Walsh and Benjamin. Couple of tons in SA against Pollokl and Donald as well.

England have a very good line of openers, Barring the Big three of Hobbs/Hutton/Sutcliffe, Gooch was also an amazing batsmen, even better than Cook to me, Athers was great for a guy who legit couldn't even duck, Stewart was ever better, Trescothick was a beast too

 

[jnaveen1980]

Nah, these are the four big openers, I'd take the 70s/80s opener over them even subtracting Gavaskar but In this millenium this is the top 4.

No..He had high risk approach. Others could be aggressive..But not quiet like sehwag. He is one of a kind in cricketing history. Alistair cook is the typical opener you see in almost all the eras. Very traditional. They are poles apart.

 

[Buffet]

No..He had high risk approach. Others could be aggressive..But not quiet like sehwag. He is one of a kind in cricketing history. Alistair cook is the typical opener you see in almost all the eras. Very traditional. They are poles apart.

I don't think he is saying that Sehwag won't be an outlier in any era due to his approach. I think most posple are picking them as the 4 best openers in the last 25 years.

 

[Buffet]

England have a very good line of openers, Barring the Big three of Hobbs/Hutton/Sutcliffe, Gooch was also an amazing batsmen, even better than Cook to me, Athers was great for a guy who legit couldn't even duck, Stewart was ever better, Trescothick was a beast too

I find it hard to rate that era to be honest due to not having watched them and limited coutries playing so plain avg is not really comparable to modern era. For Bradman I make exception because he was that far ahead of his peers.

Now Gooch, yah. I saw him play. A top class batsman. I saw few years in early 90s.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

I'll go with Sehwag. I know about his weakness in England, New Zealand and South Africa. But I can't look past a strike rate of almost 83 in Tests. But then again, it's just me.

u cant really trust sehwag.. on seaming tracks he wont perform.

 

[Hitman]

u cant really trust sehwag.. on seaming tracks he wont perform.

Of course you can't trust a batsman who scores at an SR of 83 in Tests. But on song, there was no one more destructive than him. With Sehwag, it was always a gamble in SENA.

 

[ElRaja]

hayden and sehwag for me, love cook, technical genius, but if im making an world xi across some era i have more than enough confidence in my middle order to bail me out if openers go early, but hayden and sehwag on form demoralised opposition bowlers, you could watch their confidence ebb away every few overs.

both their records fell away as age caught up with their maverick playing styles, but peak hayden and sehwag is not even an argument, they are arguably the two most impactful openers in history.

 

[mb3407]

Sehwag. Made test worth watching. The progenitor of bazball

 

[Mobashir]

Very close between Hayden and Smith.
But it is the gadest to open in the first session in SA, so Maybe Smith.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I don't think he is saying that Sehwag won't be an outlier in any era due to his approach. I think most posple are picking them as the 4 best openers in the last 25 years.

Yea statistically definitely he is up there. Someone like him is expected to average in late 30s or early 40s. But close to 50s is mighty impressive

 

[atreus]

No..He had high risk approach. Others could be aggressive..But not quiet like sehwag. He is one of a kind in cricketing history. Alistair cook is the typical opener you see in almost all the eras. Very traditional. They are poles apart.

The comparision is clearly based upon quality rather than styles? Regardless, I don't really think batting SR means anything in test cricket, a lot of the times openers are preferred to be slow and steady as they usually beat the sign off of the ball and counteract the early swing + there is a lot of time in test cricket, 60-0 (30 overs) is a lot more demoralising than 100-2 (30 overs for example).

I find it hard to rate that era to be honest due to not having watched them and limited coutries playing so plain avg is not really comparable to modern era. For Bradman I make exception because he was that far ahead of his peers.

Now Gooch, yah. I saw him play. A top class batsman. I saw few years in early 90s.

from what I've read and seem, Hobbs was an absolute master on wet and difficult wickets, before the war Cricket was extremely difficult and the gold standard for batting were guys like Victor Trumper and Clementine Hill, who averaged 40 odd...Hobbs averaged 60, on top he averaged while playing in England while Australian wickets were better for batters since the turn of the century. bowling wise, I don't think he ever faced true fast bowling, 120-130 clicks at most but the spin and swing of that age seems exaggerated considering tampering and chucking were free game those days, the Duke ball was ruthless and the pitches were often uncovered that led to exaggerated spin and uneven and completely random bounce. Reckon Hobbs is one of the GOATs against spin and medium pace, unproven against true pace.

Sutcliffe and Hammond by all means debuted in a batting friendly era, but Sutcliffe is reported to score heavily on difficult wickets, from what I see their batsmenship seems quite competent, both have big 4 hundreds tours to Australia, both scoredd heavily against spinners like Grimmett, Ironmonger and O Reilly.

Hutton is the most interesting because I reckon he is the only one who actually faced pacers Harwood inspired like Miller and Lindwall, he is the one with the most complete record, from obliterating O Reilly at Lords as a youngun to taming the Greatest bowling lineup of all time (in my opinion) on extremely difficult 50s Australian and English wickets, to destroying mystery spinners like Alfred Valentine and Ramadhin in the slow west Indies wickets.

I reckon Hutton has the most complete record as he faced all types of bowling, batted in the batter friendly era as well as the bowler friendly era, faced pace/spin all alike and so forth. Hobbs and Sutcliffe are unproven against true pace but ATG and potential GOATs against what they faced (spin/medium fast).

 

[Buffet]

The comparision is clearly based upon quality rather than styles? Regardless, I don't really think batting SR means anything in test cricket, a lot of the times openers are preferred to be slow and steady as they usually beat the sign off of the ball and counteract the early swing + there is a lot of time in test cricket, 60-0 (30 overs) is a lot more demoralising than 100-2 (30 overs for example).


from what I've read and seem, Hobbs was an absolute master on wet and difficult wickets, before the war Cricket was extremely difficult and the gold standard for batting were guys like Victor Trumper and Clementine Hill, who averaged 40 odd...Hobbs averaged 60, on top he averaged while playing in England while Australian wickets were better for batters since the turn of the century. bowling wise, I don't think he ever faced true fast bowling, 120-130 clicks at most but the spin and swing of that age seems exaggerated considering tampering and chucking were free game those days, the Duke ball was ruthless and the pitches were often uncovered that led to exaggerated spin and uneven and completely random bounce. Reckon Hobbs is one of the GOATs against spin and medium pace, unproven against true pace.

Sutcliffe and Hammond by all means debuted in a batting friendly era, but Sutcliffe is reported to score heavily on difficult wickets, from what I see their batsmenship seems quite competent, both have big 4 hundreds tours to Australia, both scoredd heavily against spinners like Grimmett, Ironmonger and O Reilly.

Hutton is the most interesting because I reckon he is the only one who actually faced pacers Harwood inspired like Miller and Lindwall, he is the one with the most complete record, from obliterating O Reilly at Lords as a youngun to taming the Greatest bowling lineup of all time (in my opinion) on extremely difficult 50s Australian and English wickets, to destroying mystery spinners like Alfred Valentine and Ramadhin in the slow west Indies wickets.

I reckon Hutton has the most complete record as he faced all types of bowling, batted in the batter friendly era as well as the bowler friendly era, faced pace/spin all alike and so forth. Hobbs and Sutcliffe are unproven against true pace but ATG and potential GOATs against what they faced (spin/medium fast).

From what you shared, Hutton faced all kinds of challenges. I have not taken too much time to read pre 70 periods so not really aware of details. So find it hard to rate players. Also, I always have ceratain imporession of players if I have watched their entier career.

Me sharing data here is simply for discussions to support what I am thinking. Some time though it ends up surpising me . I was surprised to see Wasim averaging 28-29 against Aus, SA, Ind and Eng - home and away combined. I somehow thought he must be averaging low due to how often he used to trouble batsmen. I used to tune in to Pakistani matches just to watch Wasim bowl. I know missed catches etc, but 28-29 was surprising for me.

 

[atreus]

From what you shared, Hutton faced all kinds of challenges. I have not taken too much time to read pre 70 periods so not really aware of details. So find it hard to rate players. Also, I always have ceratain imporession of players if I have watched their entier career.

Me sharing data here is simply for discussions to support what I am thinking. Some time though it ends up surpising me . I was surprised to see Wasim averaging 28-29 against Aus, SA, Ind and Eng - home and away combined. I somehow thought he must be averaging low due to how often he used to trouble batsmen. I used to tune in to Pakistani matches just to watch Wasim bowl. I know missed catches etc, but 28-29 was surprising for me.

I think Wasim's numbers must've went up in the last 2-3 years of his career, other than the West Indies series in 2000, he looked genuinely homeless in Australia and England by that point

 

[BouncerGuy]

Sehwag was good but not as good as Hayden or smith. Sehwag will be number 4 for me

Hayden
Smith
cook
Sehwag

 

[Buffet]

I think Wasim's numbers must've went up in the last 2-3 years of his career, other than the West Indies series in 2000, he looked genuinely homeless in Australia and England by that point

I looked closely again. Yes, You are right. He had some poor series near the end, but in the first 8 years, he played 20-25 tests against Aus, Ind and Eng with avg of 28-29 including home and away and that's same as his career avg against those countries.

He just had many poor series in his career against Aus/Eng/SA/Ind and not just at the end, see some examples.

Eng in Pak 88 series - avg 51
Aus in Pak 98 series - avg 44
Pak in SA 94 series - avg 41
Pak in SA 96 series - avg 35
Pak in Eng 96 series - avg 32
Ind in Pak 89 series - Avg 31
Pak in Indi 87 series - Avg 32

He did have some good series as well otherwise avg would not be 28-29 against Ind/Aus/SA/Eng home and away combined. It would have been then in 30-35 range, so all series were not poor.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Thread is not about bowlers or wasim or any other bowler. It is about Hayden vs cook vs smith vs sehwag so stick to the topic