Who is the best Test opening batsman of all time?

cricketjoshila

T20I Captain
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Runs
44,180
Post of the Week
1
Who do you think is the best test opening batsman of all time?

1.Sunil Gavaskar
2.Graeme Smith
3.Matthew Hayden
4.Virender Sehwag
5.Gordon Greenidge
6.Desmond Haynes
7.Geoffrey Boycott
8.Len Hutton
9.Jack Hobbs
10.Herbert Sutcliffe
11.Hanif Mohammad
12.Saeed Anwar
13.Alistair Cook
14.Graham Gooch
15.Mark Taylor

SPECIAL MENTION:Barry Richards,As the title suggests that its for Test Batsman and Barry Richards didnt play many tests,but he was very good in domestic cricket.Hence a special mention of him.


These are the top 15 according to me in no particular order.

But for me the best opening batsman combo would be Gavaskar and Hutton.

Who would be yours?
 
Last edited:
Sunil Gavaskar - good all round technique to play all sorts of bowling, almost equally good in all countries he played. great record against the best team of his era. then longevity too.and with this longevity he had a great average of 51 too.the others lacked in one or more of the above said.
 
Hutton and Hobbs have great numbers and have my respect (similar to Bradman). Then you had the brilliance of Barry Richards.

Those would probably be the only bats i would rate above Smith.
 
Hard to judge, because it depends so much on the quality of the new ball bowling they faced.
 
Who do you think is the best test opening batsman of all time?

1.Sunil Gavaskar
2.Graeme Smith
3.Matthew Hayden
4.Virender Sehwag
5.Gordon Greenidge
6.Desmond Haynes
7.Geoffrey Boycott
8.Len Hutton
9.Jack Hobbs
10.Herbert Sutcliffe
11.Hanif Mohammad
12.Saeed Anwar
13.Alistair Cook
14.Graham Gooch
15.Mark Taylor

SPECIAL MENTION:Barry Richards,As the title suggests that its for Test Batsman and Barry Richards didnt play many tests,but he was very good in domestic cricket.Hence a special mention of him.


These are the top 15 according to me in no particular order.

But for me the best opening batsman combo would be Gavaskar and Hutton.

Who would be yours?

If we make this list smaller the list would be.

Hutton
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Gavaskar
Hutton

From newer players : Cook / Smith.

I think most PP would choose among the above mentioned players.
 
My top 10

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Gavaskar
4. Sutcliffe
5. Greenidge
6. Boycott
7. Mohammad
8. Ponsford
9. Anwar
10. Morris
 
Barry Richards. Such a shame he didn't play much. Second Gavaskar. I don't know enough about Hutton, Hobbs or Sutcliffe but great numbers.

From the modern era:

Smith
Hayden
Sewagh

It's hard to choose between Smith and Hayden but I feel Hayden is the bigger match winner.
 
Had Graeme Hick not played international cricket, i m sure many would have been calling him the best no: 4 batsman ever - average of 52, 136 centuries doesn't get better in first class.
 
from the players I have watched playing, I would choose Gordon Greenidge+Sunil Gavaskar as the best opening pair.
 
Hutton and Gavaskar for me. Would have been a Great sight to watch these two.
 
I have not seen many of the above bat.

From what I have seen the best opener was Hayden, followed by Smith. Cook has the potential to be the best in business as age is on his side. He is even likely to score more test centuries than tendu.
 
Had Graeme Hick not played international cricket, i m sure many would have been calling him the best no: 4 batsman ever - average of 52, 136 centuries doesn't get better in first class.

If you're talking about Barry Richards, then I disagree. The reason historians rate him so highly is not because he was successful in domestic cricket, but he, along with Viv Richards, were the only 2 batsmen who could take the best fast bowlers apart on the bouncy pitches of Australia during WSC.

To OP, I don't know. The best I've seen live are Cook and Sehwag. But from what I have read about past players, then Gavaskar and Richards.
 
Seen just 5 of them bat.. Cook, Smith, Haydos, Anwar and Veeru.

Smith easily the best of the lot but I'd love to watch Sehwag and Hayden bat in tandem, would totally destroy attacks on their day.
 
If you're talking about Barry Richards, then I disagree. The reason historians rate him so highly is not because he was successful in domestic cricket, but he, along with Viv Richards, were the only 2 batsmen who could take the best fast bowlers apart on the bouncy pitches of Australia during WSC.
.

That is true. Its the quality of Bowlers that you bring to knees in there own Den That makes a champion.
 
If you're talking about Barry Richards, then I disagree. The reason historians rate him so highly is not because he was successful in domestic cricket, but he, along with Viv Richards, were the only 2 batsmen who could take the best fast bowlers apart on the bouncy pitches of Australia during WSC.

To OP, I don't know. The best I've seen live are Cook and Sehwag. But from what I have read about past players, then Gavaskar and Richards.

WSC was not test cricket.No domestic tournament can equal test matches.

Else we will someday say IPL>>>>>>>International T20.
 
WSC was not test cricket.No domestic tournament can equal test matches.

Else we will someday say IPL>>>>>>>International T20.

What are you on about? WSC was not a domestic tournament. It featured the best players of the world, and the games were played over 5 days. It was the highest quality of cricket during the late 70's to early 80's.

IPL can only be compared to WSC in terms of the money it generated and the way it has revolutionized world cricket (for better or worse). The majority of IPL teams consist of useless domestic Indian hacks. WSC cricket teams consisted exclusively of the best players in the world.
 
What are you on about? WSC was not a domestic tournament. It featured the best players of the world, and the games were played over 5 days. It was the highest quality of cricket during the late 70's to early 80's.

IPL can only be compared to WSC in terms of the money it generated and the way it has revolutionized world cricket (for better or worse). The majority of IPL teams consist of useless domestic Indian hacks. WSC cricket teams consisted exclusively of the best players in the world.

IPL also has the world's best cricketers.And played in 20 over format.So is IPL champs equal to ICC T20 champs?NO WAY.

WSC or any other anything is not equal TEST CRICKET.
 
IPL also has the world's best cricketers.And played in 20 over format.So is IPL champs equal to ICC T20 champs?NO WAY.

WSC or any other anything is not equal TEST CRICKET.

Did you miss my point of my exclusively the best cricketers? IPL only features 4 foreign players per team - most of whom are retired has beens.

Look up the old WSC super tests scorecards. Read up on the history behind it. Most of the players will say that WSC was the highest quality of cricket in which they played. It's because of their exploits that players like Viv Richards and Barry Richards made their place in the history of cricket.
 
Did you miss my point of my exclusively the best cricketers? IPL only features 4 foreign players per team - most of whom are retired has beens.

Look up the old WSC super tests scorecards. Read up on the history behind it. Most of the players will say that WSC was the highest quality of cricket in which they played. It's because of their exploits that players like Viv Richards and Barry Richards made their place in the history of cricket.

IPL has mostly has beens?Except 3-4 Pakistani players most WC players play in IPL.

PAcking team with stars mean nothing.Look no further than the ICC super series vs Australia.
 
Hayden was a bit of a minnow basher...

I meant Smith. I was a bit absent minded when I typed that and I can't edit it now. I meant to say Smith is the bigger match winner. Because when he scores South Africa do really well.
 
What are you on about? WSC was not a domestic tournament. It featured the best players of the world, and the games were played over 5 days. It was the highest quality of cricket during the late 70's to early 80's.

IPL can only be compared to WSC in terms of the money it generated and the way it has revolutionized world cricket (for better or worse). The majority of IPL teams consist of useless domestic Indian hacks. WSC cricket teams consisted exclusively of the best players in the world.

just curious how many matches of WSC did u watch? It was played over 3 years, and never extended to 1980 btw, so donno how u came up with early 80s.

WSC was exactly wot IPL is to cricket now. A lot of entertainment, OTT commentary, and a gladiator like marketing of fast bowlers as if they will come and blast everything, just like IPL does with its stupid ads. Even in those days, it was marketed as "complete entertainment package".
 
Hutton and Hobbs have great numbers and have my respect (similar to Bradman). Then you had the brilliance of Barry Richards.

Those would probably be the only bats i would rate above Smith.

Yeah Elephant legs Smith who feasted on poor quality bowling attacks all over the world and he doesn't have to face his own bowlers...Yeap makes sense..... But he is a lion hearted captain though..
 
Last edited:
Featured on our FB page

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_GB/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/PakpassionOfficialPage/posts/10151956650876041" data-width="550"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/PakpassionOfficialPage/posts/10151956650876041">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PakpassionOfficialPage">PakPassion.Net</a>.</div></div>
 
Hayden was a bit of a minnow basher...

And Smith isn't Hahahaha

Smith
V Australia ave 37
V India ave 34
V Sri Lanka 35

V Bangledesh ave 80
V Zimbabwe ave 81.

South Africans have funny ways of judging cricketers.
 
Featured on our FB page

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_GB/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/PakpassionOfficialPage/posts/10151956650876041" data-width="550"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/PakpassionOfficialPage/posts/10151956650876041">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PakpassionOfficialPage">PakPassion.Net</a>.</div></div>

I made it to the PP facebook page.:kohli
 
^^

Shewag is option when you play in subcontinent , other No way he can be ahead of Hutton / Gavaskar / cook etc
 
In my opinion the batsman more than anyone who deserves the title of the best opening batsman of all time in all types of conditions is Jack Hobbs.In terms of longevity he is the greatest batsmen ever dominating the game for 3 decades.Imagine amassing 98 centuries after the 1st world war and 11 after the age of 40.Sunil Gavaskar or Len Hutton woulkd never come close to Hobb's gareagre of 197 centuries and 61,327 runs.Above all Jack Hobbs never played for records.He virtually innovated a new art of batting in the golden age.Hobbs was the fist cricketer the imbibe the values of professionalism into the game of cricket.Personally I find it difficult envisaging Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards equal Jack Hobb's batting feats if he played in his era.Remember that Hobbs played on wet,uncovered tracks.True he did opt play as much test cricket but he scored 12 of his 15 centuries against Australia.He also has a superior match performance rating than ,Sunil Gavaskar or Len Hutton .In the analysis of Anantha Narayana on cricinfo IN 2009 his adjusted batting average is even above that of Gary Sobers.Unlike Gavaskar and Hutton, Hobbs averaged more in games won than drawn.I still don't back Lara or Tendulkar to outclass Hobbs on the treacherous wet tracks.

Had Barry Richards played test cricket he would almost certainly been the greatest opening batsmen ever.On ability or batting style he would be at the top.

Below I am posting Geoff Boycott's article from cricinfo on the 2nd best to Bradman:



In terms of figures and performances, making runs, and helping win matches, it has to be Don Bradman. The best. But the people in the era he played, think that on all types of pitches, and I repeat, on all types of pitches, John Berry Hobbs was the best player the world has ever seen.

Now, nobody can compete with Bradman on good batting pitches. His record is unbelievable. But you have to remember, right up to the 1970s, cricket was played on uncovered pitches in Test matches. In many of the hot countries, they didn't get much rain, so you hardly ever got a wet pitch - or a sticky dog, as they call it in Australia. But in places like New Zealand and England, where we get lots of rain, you never quite know what you are going to get. The pitches would be juicy. Even if they were not wet, the grass would make the ball move around.

Hobbs played 61 Tests. Remember, only England, Australia and South Africa played then. He averaged 56.94. It doesn't even come close to Bradman's 99.94. He played his first Test in 1907-08 and his last one in 1930.

He was the oldest of 12 children. He taught himself the game by actually using a cricket stump and a tennis ball in the fives court - which is very much like a squash court - at Jesus College, Cambridge, where his father was the groundsman and umpire for the college. With no formal coaching, Hobbs practised on his own through the long vacations, hitting the ball with a stump. He said in his autobiography, years later, that this was responsible for his ability to play predominantly off the back foot and to place the ball accurately.

I think this simple practice laid a wonderful foundation. As a boy Hobbs watched the older boys playing cricket at the college and tried to pick up things. He had no formal coaching; he became a natural batsman with hand-eye coordination and footwork, the neat, quick footwork you need to hit a tennis ball with a stump on a fives court.

This, to me, is what made him a great player on all sorts of pitches, where the ball turned alarmingly, where it jumped when it was wet. It was fascinating when I read that the greatest batsman ever, Bradman, born a few years later, used the same method as a child when he was growing up in Bowral on the other side of the world. When you think about it, Bradman hitting a golf ball with a cricket stump was making the same type of cricket match for himself as Hobbs was doing on the other side of the world.

Hobbs was more or less brought up on the principle laid down by the first great batsman, WG Grace, which was to get the left leg forward to the length of the ball and the right foot right back to the short ball. That's how Hobbs played, from Grace's way of playing and by watching his elders. He made his first-class debut for Surrey in 1905 and scored 197 hundreds.

He is known to have been the best player anybody has ever seen. Now how do I know this? I never saw him play, but I've read so much about him by the doyen writers of the day, who wrote about the way Hobbs played and what he did, and the batsmen of that era who talked about him.

Hobbs had never played on matting wickets when he went to South Africa for the first time to play. The ball turned alarmingly on matting pitches there, but in five Test matches in 1909-10, he worked it out and scored 539 runs at an average of 67. The key is not the 67. It's that it's double the average of the next four run-makers for England - George Thompson, Frank Woolley, Lucky Denton and Wilfred Rhodes. They averaged 33, 32, 26 and 25.

He more than doubled their averages, which showed how good he was compared to everybody else, which is how we rate Bradman. We look at how many players average 50 in Test cricket and they are the iconic greats of our era. Yet Bradman averaged twice as much.

Hobbs' nickname was "The Master", because he played on all types of pitches. He had a great opening partnership with Herbert Sutcliffe of Yorkshire. They were fantastic players on sticky pitches, when it rained overnight and the ball jumped. At The Oval in 1926. In Melbourne two years later, they just played out of this world.

Hobbs was just an outstanding player. Wilfred Rhodes, the great allrounder of the time for Yorkshire and England, said, "He was the greatest batsman of my time. I learnt a lot from him when we went in first together for England. He had a cricket brain, and the position of his feet as he met the ball was perfect. He could have scored thousands more runs, but often he was content to throw his wicket away when he had reached his hundred and give someone else a chance."

Sutcliffe, who formed the greatest opening partnership ever for England with Hobbs, said: "I was his partner on many occasions on extremely bad wickets and I can say this without any doubt that he was the most brilliant exponent of all time and quite the best batsman of my generation on all types of pitches. On good wickets, I do believe that pride of place be given to Sir Donald Bradman."

Jack Fingleton played with Bradman and became a great writer. He wrote, "Although figures indicate the greatness of Hobbs, they don't convey the grandeur of his batting, his faultless technique and the manner in which he could captivate those who could recognise and analyse style. Australians who played against him believe cricket never produced a more correct batsman but it is well to note Hobbs' claim that he never had an hour's coaching in his life. He was a self-taught cricketer, observing, thinking, and executing for himself." Very interesting, that.

And the great doyen writer of the time, Neville Cardus, wrote: "Immediately the bowler begins his run, Hobbs seems to have some instinct of what manner of ball is on the way. Rarely does he move his feet to an incorrect position. His footwork is so quick that even from behind the nets it is not always possible to follow its movement in detail."

Mouth-watering stuff, eh? What a player he must have been.
 
In my opinion the batsman more than anyone who deserves the title of the best opening batsman of all time in all types of conditions is Jack Hobbs.In terms of longevity he is the greatest batsmen ever dominating the game for 3 decades.Imagine amassing 98 centuries after the 1st world war and 11 after the age of 40.Sunil Gavaskar or Len Hutton woulkd never come close to Hobb's gareagre of 197 centuries and 61,327 runs.Above all Jack Hobbs never played for records.He virtually innovated a new art of batting in the golden age.Hobbs was the fist cricketer the imbibe the values of professionalism into the game of cricket.Personally I find it difficult envisaging Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards equal Jack Hobb's batting feats if he played in his era.Remember that Hobbs played on wet,uncovered tracks.True he did opt play as much test cricket but he scored 12 of his 15 centuries against Australia.He also has a superior match performance rating than ,Sunil Gavaskar or Len Hutton .In the analysis of Anantha Narayana on cricinfo IN 2009 his adjusted batting average is even above that of Gary Sobers.Unlike Gavaskar and Hutton, Hobbs averaged more in games won than drawn.I still don't back Lara or Tendulkar to outclass Hobbs on the treacherous wet tracks.

Had Barry Richards played test cricket he would almost certainly been the greatest opening batsmen ever.On ability or batting style he would be at the top.

Below I am posting Geoff Boycott's article from cricinfo on the 2nd best to Bradman:



In terms of figures and performances, making runs, and helping win matches, it has to be Don Bradman. The best. But the people in the era he played, think that on all types of pitches, and I repeat, on all types of pitches, John Berry Hobbs was the best player the world has ever seen.

Now, nobody can compete with Bradman on good batting pitches. His record is unbelievable. But you have to remember, right up to the 1970s, cricket was played on uncovered pitches in Test matches. In many of the hot countries, they didn't get much rain, so you hardly ever got a wet pitch - or a sticky dog, as they call it in Australia. But in places like New Zealand and England, where we get lots of rain, you never quite know what you are going to get. The pitches would be juicy. Even if they were not wet, the grass would make the ball move around.

Hobbs played 61 Tests. Remember, only England, Australia and South Africa played then. He averaged 56.94. It doesn't even come close to Bradman's 99.94. He played his first Test in 1907-08 and his last one in 1930.

He was the oldest of 12 children. He taught himself the game by actually using a cricket stump and a tennis ball in the fives court - which is very much like a squash court - at Jesus College, Cambridge, where his father was the groundsman and umpire for the college. With no formal coaching, Hobbs practised on his own through the long vacations, hitting the ball with a stump. He said in his autobiography, years later, that this was responsible for his ability to play predominantly off the back foot and to place the ball accurately.

I think this simple practice laid a wonderful foundation. As a boy Hobbs watched the older boys playing cricket at the college and tried to pick up things. He had no formal coaching; he became a natural batsman with hand-eye coordination and footwork, the neat, quick footwork you need to hit a tennis ball with a stump on a fives court.

This, to me, is what made him a great player on all sorts of pitches, where the ball turned alarmingly, where it jumped when it was wet. It was fascinating when I read that the greatest batsman ever, Bradman, born a few years later, used the same method as a child when he was growing up in Bowral on the other side of the world. When you think about it, Bradman hitting a golf ball with a cricket stump was making the same type of cricket match for himself as Hobbs was doing on the other side of the world.

Hobbs was more or less brought up on the principle laid down by the first great batsman, WG Grace, which was to get the left leg forward to the length of the ball and the right foot right back to the short ball. That's how Hobbs played, from Grace's way of playing and by watching his elders. He made his first-class debut for Surrey in 1905 and scored 197 hundreds.

He is known to have been the best player anybody has ever seen. Now how do I know this? I never saw him play, but I've read so much about him by the doyen writers of the day, who wrote about the way Hobbs played and what he did, and the batsmen of that era who talked about him.

Hobbs had never played on matting wickets when he went to South Africa for the first time to play. The ball turned alarmingly on matting pitches there, but in five Test matches in 1909-10, he worked it out and scored 539 runs at an average of 67. The key is not the 67. It's that it's double the average of the next four run-makers for England - George Thompson, Frank Woolley, Lucky Denton and Wilfred Rhodes. They averaged 33, 32, 26 and 25.

He more than doubled their averages, which showed how good he was compared to everybody else, which is how we rate Bradman. We look at how many players average 50 in Test cricket and they are the iconic greats of our era. Yet Bradman averaged twice as much.

Hobbs' nickname was "The Master", because he played on all types of pitches. He had a great opening partnership with Herbert Sutcliffe of Yorkshire. They were fantastic players on sticky pitches, when it rained overnight and the ball jumped. At The Oval in 1926. In Melbourne two years later, they just played out of this world.

Hobbs was just an outstanding player. Wilfred Rhodes, the great allrounder of the time for Yorkshire and England, said, "He was the greatest batsman of my time. I learnt a lot from him when we went in first together for England. He had a cricket brain, and the position of his feet as he met the ball was perfect. He could have scored thousands more runs, but often he was content to throw his wicket away when he had reached his hundred and give someone else a chance."

Sutcliffe, who formed the greatest opening partnership ever for England with Hobbs, said: "I was his partner on many occasions on extremely bad wickets and I can say this without any doubt that he was the most brilliant exponent of all time and quite the best batsman of my generation on all types of pitches. On good wickets, I do believe that pride of place be given to Sir Donald Bradman."

Jack Fingleton played with Bradman and became a great writer. He wrote, "Although figures indicate the greatness of Hobbs, they don't convey the grandeur of his batting, his faultless technique and the manner in which he could captivate those who could recognise and analyse style. Australians who played against him believe cricket never produced a more correct batsman but it is well to note Hobbs' claim that he never had an hour's coaching in his life. He was a self-taught cricketer, observing, thinking, and executing for himself." Very interesting, that.

And the great doyen writer of the time, Neville Cardus, wrote: "Immediately the bowler begins his run, Hobbs seems to have some instinct of what manner of ball is on the way. Rarely does he move his feet to an incorrect position. His footwork is so quick that even from behind the nets it is not always possible to follow its movement in detail."

Mouth-watering stuff, eh? What a player he must have been.

198 domestic centuries.Not to mention the sheer amateurism of the game in those days.Hobbs would hardly come close to a Richards or Tendulkar.
Gavaskar played the game in the era when fast bowling resources were one of the best in the history of the game.

Hobbs played in the era of two teams,thats enough to tell how much competition he faced.

Dominating for 3 decades,well its important to know which decades and which team played.

The reason Hobbs and to a certain extent Hutton are so hyped up because since Hutton England hasnt produced a cricketer who could make a claim to be the best in the world.

I doubt Cardus saw a Tendulkar,Richards,Lara,Ponting Chappel,Gavaskar,Sobers etc bat.
 
198 domestic centuries.Not to mention the sheer amateurism of the game in those days.Hobbs would hardly come close to a Richards or Tendulkar.
Gavaskar played the game in the era when fast bowling resources were one of the best in the history of the game.

Hobbs played in the era of two teams,thats enough to tell how much competition he faced.

Dominating for 3 decades,well its important to know which decades and which team played.

The reason Hobbs and to a certain extent Hutton are so hyped up because since Hutton England hasnt produced a cricketer who could make a claim to be the best in the world.

I doubt Cardus saw a Tendulkar,Richards,Lara,Ponting Chappel,Gavaskar,Sobers etc bat.


You forget the treacherous wet ,uncovered tracks of the era before the 1st world war and Hobbs's mastery on the.Imagine registering 12 centuries against Australia and almost winning ever test match wnen he scored a century.Can you envisage Sachin scoring 197 first -class hundreds .Remember the match performance rating given to Jack Hobbs of 23.8 which is atleast 2 points above Tendulkar in Anantha Narayana's 2009 analysis.Hobbs would hve relished the flat pitches of today.Above all Hobbs never played for records.
 
You forget the treacherous wet ,uncovered tracks of the era before the 1st world war and Hobbs's mastery on the.Imagine registering 12 centuries against Australia and almost winning ever test match wnen he scored a century.Can you envisage Sachin scoring 197 first -class hundreds .Remember the match performance rating given to Jack Hobbs of 23.8 which is atleast 2 points above Tendulkar in Anantha Narayana's 2009 analysis.Hobbs would hve relished the flat pitches of today.Above all Hobbs never played for records.

Can you imagine the bowlers and fielders in Hobbs era, they didn't train and worked all week only to be made to field for their landlords who wanted to play a bit of weekend cricket to impress the ladies.
 
You forget the treacherous wet ,uncovered tracks of the era before the 1st world war and Hobbs's mastery on the.Imagine registering 12 centuries against Australia and almost winning ever test match wnen he scored a century.Can you envisage Sachin scoring 197 first -class hundreds .Remember the match performance rating given to Jack Hobbs of 23.8 which is atleast 2 points above Tendulkar in Anantha Narayana's 2009 analysis.Hobbs would hve relished the flat pitches of today.Above all Hobbs never played for records.

Again you and i can be asked to ball on the greenest wickets and we wouldnt trouble a FC batsman.

Lots of 2nd 3rd division cricket is still played on uncovered wickets and batsman score a lot of runs there a well.

Again winning againist a single team hardly matters,it was an era of little competetion.

Ananth Narayana's analysis.Well when no one says Hobbs didnt score runs.The matter was againist whom in what era etc etc.

I doubt Hobbs would have relished the reverse swing of the 2Ws,the sheer pace of Akhtar Lee Donald Waqar or the Wizadary of Warne Murali Kumble Saqlain or the accuracy and movement of a mcgrath or a Pollock.

Lets not even go into what MArshall Holding Imran Roberts Lillee HAdlee and co. would have done to him.


.Above all Hobbs never played for records

Above all that sentence doesnt make sense and comes out as a lame and futile attempt to justify something that isnt justifiable.
 
Hobbs would hve relished the flat pitches of today.Above all Hobbs never played for records.

Somehow I don't think its as easy as you make it out, Hobbs may have been a good player for his time vs bowlers of his time. If we brought him out to the future in a time machine to face say a shoib Akhtar or even Malcolm Sami on a flat deck he may well have been a shooting duck...........
 
Graeme Smith and Hayden would be my opening pair just edging out Gavaskar - a stable but run-rate maintaining pair.
 
I challenge even Tendulkar,Ponting or Lara to tackle the uncovered pitches as effectively as Hobbs or score 98 first-class hundreds after the age of 40.Remember the top class Austalain bowlers Hobbs tackled when scoring 12 of his 15 centuries.His match performance rating in 2009 has considered the bowling attack ,pitches and opposition and he is still overall rated above Sobers,Gavaskar,Viv Richards and Hutton.Refer to Anantha Narayana's rating on cricinfo cordon on best batsman of 132 years and the rejoinder (re-rating)and in both Hobbs is assesed as the best opening batsman.Morally even Bradman was not as good as Hobbs on wet pitches.

Modern batsman also have the benefit of equipment like arm guards and helmets.Do you mean Bradman,George Headley or Hobbs would not shine today?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somehow I don't think its as easy as you make it out, Hobbs may have been a good player for his time vs bowlers of his time. If we brought him out to the future in a time machine to face say a shoib Akhtar or even Malcolm Sami on a flat deck he may well have been a shooting duck...........

I challenge even Tendulkar,Ponting or Lara to tackle the uncovered pitches as effectively as Hobbs or score 98 first-class hundreds after the age of 40.Remember the top class Austalain bowlers Hobbs tackled when scoring 12 of his 15 centuries.His match performance rating in 2009 has considered the bowling attack ,pitches and opposition and he is still overall rated above Sobers,Gavaskar,Viv Richards and Hutton.Refer to Anantha Narayana's rating on cricinfo cordon on best batsman of 132 years and the rejoinder (re-rating)and in both Hobbs is assesed as the best opening batsman.Morally even Bradman was not as good as Hobbs on wet pitches.

Modern batsman also have the benefit of equipment like arm guards and helmets.Do you mean Bradman,George Headley or Hobbs would not shine today?
 
I challenge even Tendulkar,Ponting or Lara to tackle the uncovered pitches as effectively as Hobbs or score 98 first-class hundreds after the age of 40.Remember the top class Austalain bowlers Hobbs tackled when scoring 12 of his 15 centuries.His match performance rating in 2009 has considered the bowling attack ,pitches and opposition and he is still overall rated above Sobers,Gavaskar,Viv Richards and Hutton.Refer to Anantha Narayana's rating on cricinfo cordon on best batsman of 132 years and the rejoinder (re-rating)and in both Hobbs is assesed as the best opening batsman.Morally even Bradman was not as good as Hobbs on wet pitches.

Modern batsman also have the benefit of equipment like arm guards and helmets.Do you mean Bradman,George Headley or Hobbs would not shine today?

Who brought Bradman here?

I challenge Hobbs to tackle Wasim Waqar Akhtar in Pakistan.Murali in Galle.Kumble in Delhi.Mcgrath And Warne Anywhere.Donald Pollock at Joburg.Walsh Ambrose in Barbados.Saqlain in Pakistan.

Anantha Narayanan's rating didnt take into consideration the level of competition in cricket.
 
Modern batsman also have the benefit of equipment like arm guards and helmets.Do you mean Bradman,George Headley or Hobbs would not shine today?

That would be because the bowling didn't warrant players to need that protection, its not like players in Hobbs era were getting hit all the time and being injured by the bowlers. If Lee and Shoiab opened the bowling in Hobbs era then there would have been carnage.
 
Modern batsman also have the benefit of equipment like arm guards and helmets.Do you mean Bradman,George Headley or Hobbs would not shine today?

YES that's exactly what I mean, you bring those old athletes in a time machine to face the modern athletes, then arm them with all the helmets and shin guards etc (as otherwise they would get physically decimated) and take on bowlers such as; Wasim, Marshall, Shoib etc they would've still been nothing more than shooting ducks...
 
Last edited:
I challenge even Tendulkar,Ponting or Lara to tackle the uncovered pitches as effectively as Hobbs or score 98 first-class hundreds after the age of 40.Remember the top class Austalain bowlers Hobbs tackled when scoring 12 of his 15 centuries.His match performance rating in 2009 has considered the bowling attack ,pitches and opposition and he is still overall rated above Sobers,Gavaskar,Viv Richards and Hutton.Refer to Anantha Narayana's rating on cricinfo cordon on best batsman of 132 years and the rejoinder (re-rating)and in both Hobbs is assesed as the best opening batsman.Morally even Bradman was not as good as Hobbs on wet pitches.

Modern batsman also have the benefit of equipment like arm guards and helmets.Do you mean Bradman,George Headley or Hobbs would not shine today?

Who brought Bradman here?

I challenge Hobbs to tackle Wasim Waqar Akhtar in Pakistan.Murali in Galle.Kumble in Delhi.Mcgrath And Warne Anywhere.Donald Pollock at Joburg.Walsh Ambrose in Barbados.Saqlain in Pakistan.

Anantha Narayanan's rating didnt take into consideration the level of competition in cricket.

Everyone including Bradman's ghost has accepted challenges thrown by 2 of you, and want to know when and where do the 2 of you want them to come and play. Pls send air tickets, match fees to them.

and @HT - Why r u focusing so much on the term "first world war" combining it with words like treacherous etc. I hope you are not visualizing that war is going on outside the ground, bullets are being fired from everywhere, blood is everywhere and yet these brave cricketers are still playing cricket without any shields. They were just playing "during" the first world war, not "in" the world war.
 
Its amazing what Gavaskar achieved playing against some of the greatest bowling attacks on tough pitches without proper protective gear and also having been brought up on docile Indian pitches. To make that adjustment and score so consistently for so many years is phenomenal.
 
1. Gavaskar

2. Daylight

3. Hobbs, Greenidge, Hutton and all the rest
 
Who is the best Test opening Batsman of all time?

And Smith isn't Hahahaha

Smith
V Australia ave 37
V India ave 34
V Sri Lanka 35

V Bangledesh ave 80
V Zimbabwe ave 81.

South Africans have funny ways of judging cricketers.
He delivers when it counts, he doesn't bash the likes of Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, India and the West Indies at home. 21 out of Hayden's 30 100s came at home.
 
I'll go with an opening partnership of Barry Richards and Gavaskar.
 
I rate Smith tremendously highly, but I think Gavaskar is the greatest and I don't think the two of them would complement each other well in a partnership. Maybe Hobbs or Barry Richards to partner Gavaskar.
 
He delivers when it counts, he doesn't bash the likes of Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, India and the West Indies at home. 21 out of Hayden's 30 100s came at home.

Hayden did bash South Africa at home averaging over 50 with 4 hundreds, he also averaged over 50 in India and the West Indies.

But most of all he has done something Smith has not, he has scored hundreds in India and Sri Lanka, in fact Smith has not scored a hundred against India or Sri Lanka at home or away, he cant handle spinners at with 35 innings against India and Sri Lanka and no hundreds with a average of 35.

Every time you introduce something to try and ridicule Hayden it highlights Smiths weeaknesses.
 
Who is the best Test opening Batsman of all time?

Every time you introduce something to try and ridicule Hayden it highlights Smiths weeaknesses.
Likewise with Hayden. Averaging 35 and less in SA, England and NZ. I guess he couldn't handle the swinging ball. But it's all good when you're hitting 380 against the Zimbos at home...
 
Likewise with Hayden. Averaging 35 and less in SA, England and NZ. I guess he couldn't handle the swinging ball. But it's all good when you're hitting 380 against the Zimbos at home...

But that still leaves Smith with over 35 innings against India and Sri Lanka without a hundred and averaging only 35.

Can you think of any other opening batsman that has not scored a hundred against India and Sri Lanka, Smith is the only opener I can think of.
 
Who is the best Test opening Batsman of all time?

But that still leaves Smith with over 35 innings against India and Sri Lanka without a hundred and averaging only 35.

Can you think of any other opening batsman that has not scored a hundred against India and Sri Lanka, Smith is the only opener I can think of.

You're resorting to straw men arguments, which is disappointing as I expected better from you. I could play the same card and ask if you know of any opening batsman who doesn't have a hundred against Bangladesh, or a hundred in NZ, or or or...
 
Yeah Elephant legs Smith who feasted on poor quality bowling attacks all over the world and he doesn't have to face his own bowlers...Yeap makes sense..... But he is a lion hearted captain though..

thats very funny, why is the list of players averaging 50 away only dominated by South Africans? Only Cook averages 50 away from the current lot (with SRT retiring, not sure about Chanderpaul).
Why are the rest not feasting against poor attacks then?
 
In the post 90s era. I think the opening partnership of Sehwag and Hayden would the most Destructive in Tests.
Total Mayhem
:AR15firin :2ar15smil
:D
 
thats very funny, why is the list of players averaging 50 away only dominated by South Africans? Only Cook averages 50 away from the current lot (with SRT retiring, not sure about Chanderpaul).
Why are the rest not feasting against poor attacks then?

Younis Khan also averages more than 50 away from home.
 
thats very funny, why is the list of players averaging 50 away only dominated by South Africans? Only Cook averages 50 away from the current lot (with SRT retiring, not sure about Chanderpaul).
Why are the rest not feasting against poor attacks then?

Errr I was responding back to your earlier post, where you hinted you felt Smith was better than Vaskar....
 
Errr I was responding back to your earlier post, where you hinted you felt Smith was better than Vaskar....

yep, a far superior match winner is Smith and in that regard very few players (if any) are after than him. I'll have Smith all day long. Again averaging 50 away as an opening bat is no joke. There are some overrated cricketers that i wont mention who average less despite batting in the middle order. That says alot about Smith.
 
. I'll have Smith all day long. Again averaging 50 away as an opening bat is no joke. .

Yeah man its no joke not having to face your bowlers, struggle when you come up against the real deal bowlers like Mcgrath etc but feast on mainly the mediocre. lol Do you even know who Vaskar is ? :)) Graeme Smith he says :)))
 
Back
Top