Who is the best Test opening batsman of all time?

[khurram39]

 

[khurram39]

 

[Bilal7]

You really want to compare the opposition and players faced by Gavaskar and Hobbs?

We are not discussing county cricket bullies here.Else we will be talking about Mark Ramprakash and Graeme Hick.

Hobbs is a hype of english media nothing else.Hutton ofcourse is a fair comparision.

Hobbs is a legendary opening batsman. FC doesn't count for much but I was just putting this out there because these are seriously impressive numbers. This guy has twice the number of centuries that Tendulker has and thousands of runs more.

In international cricket, he still averaged 56 while opening in England. Gavasker was no Kohli against swing, but he did have the advantage of bating in Asia most of the time.

1) Hobbs
2) Hutton
3) Gavasker
4) Smith
5) Greenidge

Is my top five.

 

[TestMatch]

Hobbs and Hutton aren't "first class bullies". They played enough international games to be in the running for best opener ever.

I feel Greenidge is underrated. He played until 40 or 41 years old. If he retired in 1987 instead of 91, he'd have a 49ish average.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Hobbs is a legendary opening batsman. FC doesn't count for much but I was just putting this out there because these are seriously impressive numbers. This guy has twice the number of centuries that Tendulker has and thousands of runs more.

In international cricket, he still averaged 56 while opening in England. Gavasker was no Kohli against swing, but he did have the advantage of bating in Asia most of the time.

1) Hobbs
2) Hutton
3) Gavasker
4) Smith
5) Greenidge

Is my top five.

Hobbs is legendary only in english media. Tendulkar has 100 international centuries not County ones.

In Hobbs times only one other significant team played cricket,Australia.So that 56avg means little.

Though you have a habit of making many not so well thought out statements.FYI Gavaskar avgs 50 plus outside Asia and nowhere does he avg less than 40.Try again.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Hobbs and Hutton aren't "first class bullies". They played enough international games to be in the running for best opener ever.

I feel Greenidge is underrated. He played until 40 or 41 years old. If he retired in 1987 instead of 91, he'd have a 49ish average.

I can understand Hutton.But Hobbs runs mostly came againist one team,Australia.Gavaskar played againist many more opponents and many other quality bowlers.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Rohit Sharma, he has two or three double tons and a lot more daddy centuries in odis

 

[Chrish]

I can understand Hutton.But Hobbs runs mostly came againist one team,Australia.Gavaskar played againist many more opponents and many other quality bowlers.

Several people of that time watched both Hobbs and Hutton play and the opinion is almost unanimous on who was better bat

 

[Chrish]

Anyways in my all time xi two openers would be Sunny and Barry Richards

 

[cricketjoshila]

Several people of that time watched both Hobbs and Hutton play and the opinion is almost unanimous on who was better bat

You mean English Media?Wisden lists WG Grace among the best ever.

 

[Chrish]

You mean English Media?Wisden lists WG Grace among the best ever.

Why would the media be biased against their own players?

 

[Chrish]

WG hit 50 FC hundreds when the next bat didn't even hit 10 or something. His dominance over his peers is only matched by Bradman. And at that time FC cricket was given more importance than test so it's not surprising that WG would be considered for that spot after invening the modern Cricket

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why would the media be biased against their own players?

Biased in favour of their own players.Bigging up Hobbs etc.Since Hutton retired in 1950s Only one England batsman has ever managed to finish his career with an avg of 50.English media has no option but to big up the likes of Hobbs etc to satisfy their Ego.

 

[cricketjoshila]

WG hit 50 FC hundreds when the next bat didn't even hit 10 or something. His dominance over his peers is only matched by Bradman. And at that time FC cricket was given more importance than test so it's not surprising that WG would be considered for that spot after invening the modern Cricket

Being a on eyed man among blind men doesnt make you great.Stop this better than his peers reasoning.

 

[Chrish]

Being a on eyed man among blind men doesnt make you great.Stop this better than his peers reasoning.

Apart from being better than peers, WG is rated mainly for being the father of modern Cricket.. He invented the game that we know today and made sure there was money for everyone making the sports model financially viable.

He wouldn't make my top one but I can see why someone would select him as such.

 

[Chrish]

Biased in favour of their own players.Bigging up Hobbs etc.Since Hutton retired in 1950s Only one England batsman has ever managed to finish his career with an avg of 50.English media has no option but to big up the likes of Hobbs etc to satisfy their Ego.

So if Kohli suppresses Sachin, indian media would still refuse to acknowledge it by bigging up Tendulkar?

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Saeed Anwar.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So if Kohli suppresses Sachin, indian media would still refuse to acknowledge it by bigging up Tendulkar?

The level of professionalism and quality of bowlers Sachin faced and Kohli faced and the number of opposition dont differ much.If anything Sachin faced better bowlers.

Hobbs played in an era of amateurs with only one other team which was any good.Its not even a comparision.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Apart from being better than peers, WG is rated mainly for being the father of modern Cricket.. He invented the game that we know today and made sure there was money for everyone making the sports model financially viable.

He wouldn't make my top one but I can see why someone would select him as such.

Grace did nothing for the game as a financial success.Each country did their own thing.Some struggle to this day.

1800s is modern cricket?Then what is 2000s?Ultimate Super Mega Ultra Modern Cricket?The way cricket was played in 80s and 90s dont match how it is played today.Let alone 1800s.As i said this is all English media propoganda.

 

[Chrish]

The level of professionalism and quality of bowlers Sachin faced and Kohli faced and the number of opposition dont differ much.If anything Sachin faced better bowlers.

Hobbs played in an era of amateurs with only one other team which was any good.Its not even a comparision.

Grace did nothing for the game as a financial success.Each country did their own thing.Some struggle to this day.

1800s is modern cricket?Then what is 2000s?Ultimate Super Mega Ultra Modern Cricket?The way cricket was played in 80s and 90s dont match how it is played today.Let alone 1800s.As i said this is all English media propoganda.

Cricket is the sport where quality of surface plays just as important role as the quality of bowling faced.. Learn some history.. Hobbs scored runs especially before WW1 when wickets were notoriously under-prepared.

And Grace invented the financial model for what would eventually become modern Cricket.


As for Sachin vs kohli, it's the same argument.. Kohli is facing easier conditions yes but he is still able to dominate his peers. If he is facing easier conditions so is everyone around him.. Why is no one else able to replicate what he is doing?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Cricket is the sport where quality of surface plays just as important role as the quality of bowling faced.. Learn some history.. Hobbs scored runs especially before WW1 when wickets were notoriously under-prepared.

And Grace invented the financial model for what would eventually become modern Cricket.


As for Sachin vs kohli, it's the same argument.. Kohli is facing easier conditions yes but he is still able to dominate his peers. If he is facing easier conditions so is everyone around him.. Why is no one else able to replicate what he is doing?

More English media non sense about uncovered pitches.If i start bowling on uncovered pitches i wont become Malcolm Marshall or Shane Warne. I think i have more knowledge of cricketing history than most here.Please dont teach me that.

Grace invented no financial model.Every country did their own thing regarding finance.If anything Jagmohan Dalmiya invented the modern financial model of maximising earnings not Grace in 1800s.

Kohli SMith Root Williamson are not too far away. If my peers are not good enough doesnt mean i am the greatest of all times. It only means i am better than my peers esp when the eras of comparision is so vastly separated.

Hobbs was an amateur who feasted on amateur bowling attacks mostly at home and when there was little cricket played by other nations.Now where near what players face since 1960s or late 60s.

 

[Chrish]

More English media non sense about uncovered pitches.If i start bowling on uncovered pitches i wont become Malcolm Marshall or Shane Warne. I think i have more knowledge of cricketing history than most here.Please dont teach me that.

Grace invented no financial model.Every country did their own thing regarding finance.If anything Jagmohan Dalmiya invented the modern financial model of maximising earnings not Grace in 1800s.

Kohli SMith Root Williamson are not too far away. If my peers are not good enough doesnt mean i am the greatest of all times. It only means i am better than my peers esp when the eras of comparision is so vastly separated.

Hobbs was an amateur who feasted on amateur bowling attacks mostly at home and when there was little cricket played by other nations.Now where near what players face since 1960s or late 60s.

I knew it's all gonna fall on deaf ears but I tried any ways

You have ZERO knowledge of history.. and I am not patronizing.. just telling the truth. Each and every sentence is factually incorrect to the point I won't bother any more

 

[Chrish]

Any ways here is the most basic place to start to learn about these Cricketers for those interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hobbs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._G._Grace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Hutton

One can also find more articles on different players by clicking "news and articles' link on their crickinfo page.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I knew it's all gonna fall on deaf ears but I tried any ways

You have ZERO knowledge of history.. and I am not patronizing.. just telling the truth. Each and every sentence is factually incorrect to the point I won't bother any more

LOL.I dont need certification from you on my cricketing knowledge.As i said i have more knowledge of cricketing history than most here.And i certainly dont buy ENglish Media hype,be it of now or of 1900s.

W G Grace invented modern cricket's financial structure. :

 

[Chrish]

LOL.I dont need certification from you on my cricketing knowledge.As i said i have more knowledge of cricketing history than most here.

"Being a one eyed man among blind men doesnt make you great."

 

[Napa]

Hobbs played in an era of amateurs with only one other team which was any good.Its not even a comparision.

Very true. There is no point in comparing amateurs from a century or more ago to professionals from the post-1950s era.

 

[cricketjoshila]

"Being a one eyed man among blind men doesnt make you great."

Includes you as well.WHo advised me to learn cricketing history as i had ZERO knowledge.

 

[Bilal7]

Hobbs is legendary only in english media. Tendulkar has 100 international centuries not County ones.

In Hobbs times only one other significant team played cricket,Australia.So that 56avg means little.

Though you have a habit of making many not so well thought out statements.FYI Gavaskar avgs 50 plus outside Asia and nowhere does he avg less than 40.Try again.

I am not the English media. Hobbs is a legend for anyone who knows even a little bit of cricket history. That one team, Australia, was better than any team playing cricket today. That is not a knock against him but a testament to his greatness.

Gavasker had the luxury of playing in Asia most of the time. Yes, he did well in the few matches he played overseas but would he have maintained a 50 average if he was opening match after match in England? Hard to say.

Hobbs > Hutton > Gavasker.

 

[Bilal7]

Indians are their delusions about their batsman. Tendulker is better than Bradman, Kohli is better than AB, Gavasker is better than Hobbs and Sehwag is better than Hayden. Lol, whattay joke.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I am not the English media. Hobbs is a legend for anyone who knows even a little bit of cricket history. That one team, Australia, was better than any team playing cricket today. That is not a knock against him but a testament to his greatness.

Gavasker had the luxury of playing in Asia most of the time. Yes, he did well in the few matches he played overseas but would he have maintained a 50 average if he was opening match after match in England? Hard to say.

Hobbs > Hutton > Gavasker.

Hobbs was legend in 1950s.He is now what is considered an extremely amateur cricketer.

Australian Team of 1920s and 30s is better than any team that Gavaskar played? )

Gavaskar played 46 matches outside Asia avging 50 plus.If he was opening match after match againist the amateurs that Hobbs faced he would be avging 150.May be even more.Hard to say.

 

[cricketjoshila]

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/N4EHL"><a href="//imgur.com/N4EHL"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Great Bowlers during the times of Jack Hobbs

 

[Romali_rotti]

I am not the English media. Hobbs is a legend for anyone who knows even a little bit of cricket history. That one team, Australia, was better than any team playing cricket today. That is not a knock against him but a testament to his greatness.

Gavasker had the luxury of playing in Asia most of the time. Yes, he did well in the few matches he played overseas but would he have maintained a 50 average if he was opening match after match in England? Hard to say.

Hobbs > Hutton > Gavasker.

Hobbs is better than any Pakistani batsmen to ever play international cricket, that is for sure

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Hobbs 100 county century should not be compared to 100 international century. Any bully can score on a single type of pitch. There is a reason why test cricket > first class cricket

 

[Bilal7]

Hobbs 100 county century should not be compared to 100 international century. Any bully can score on a single type of pitch. There is a reason why test cricket > first class cricket

200 centuries, not merely a 100. Hobbs numbers blow Tenda's out of the water.

Hobbs is better than any Pakistani batsmen to ever play international cricket, that is for sure

You're so clever.

Hobbs was legend in 1950s.He is now what is considered an extremely amateur cricketer.

Australian Team of 1920s and 30s is better than any team that Gavaskar played? )

Gavaskar played 46 matches outside Asia avging 50 plus.If he was opening match after match againist the amateurs that Hobbs faced he would be avging 150.May be even more.Hard to say.

Not any team Gavasker played but any team playinh cricket today, genius.

Amateur for someone like you, who has zero knowledge of history, knowledge is different than simply knowing things, by the way. For the rest of us, he was a legend of that era, just like Don Bradman. Playing on uncovered pitches and without modern protective equipment while also lacking the support of coaches, fitness instructors, etc and still averaging 55+ is simply fantastic.

 

[cricketjoshila]

200 centuries, not merely a 100. Hobbs numbers blow Tenda's out of the water.



You're so clever.



Not any team Gavasker played but any team playinh cricket today, genius.

Amateur for someone like you, who has zero knowledge of history, knowledge is different than simply knowing things, by the way. For the rest of us, he was a legend of that era, just like Don Bradman. Playing on uncovered pitches and without modern protective equipment while also lacking the support of coaches, fitness instructors, etc and still averaging 55+ is simply fantastic.

197 County centuries.Tendulkar wipes the floor with such county legends.

LOLfer.Australian team on 1920s and 30s better than any playing today and then you tell me that i have no knowledge of cricket. ) .The great bowlers of that Aussie team are listed above.LOL.

I dont need "knowledge" from you.I have tons of better people to learn it from,people who have run cricket,played international cricket.

Hobbs was a amateur who played with amateurs cannot be compared to professionals.Else George Lohmann and Sidney Barnes are better bowlers than Marshall,Wasim,Imran etc.LOL.

Blinded by India hatred or Duped by english propoganda.I wonder.

 

[anoop]

only one player is not fit enough to lace the others boots. One has over a thousand runs in 4th inning chases and has not even played the same amount of matches as Gavaskar over 4 hundreds chasing some tough targets. Give me a call should Sunny ever chase 400 though, thanks!
Smith leads from the front with the burden of captaincy. But hey dont forget to give me that call

Sunny has chased 400 twice in test matches. A century against West indies India won that match.
Gavaskar also scored 229 against england chasing 430+ score. India made 420+ and the game was drawn. Give me a call to tell when your smith scored a double century in 4th innings

 

[Bilal7]

197 County centuries.Tendulkar wipes the floor with such county legends.

LOLfer.Australian team on 1920s and 30s better than any playing today and then you tell me that i have no knowledge of cricket. ) .The great bowlers of that Aussie team are listed above.LOL.

I dont need "knowledge" from you.I have tons of better people to learn it from,people who have run cricket,played international cricket.

Hobbs was a amateur who played with amateurs cannot be compared to professionals.Else George Lohmann and Sidney Barnes are better bowlers than Marshall,Wasim,Imran etc.LOL.

Blinded by India hatred or Duped by english propoganda.I wonder.

That era was easier for bowlers and more difficult for batsmen. Get a clue, will you? Lol at someone like you knowing anyone who has played international cricket.

 

[anoop]

That era was easier for bowlers and more difficult for batsmen. Get a clue, will you? Lol at someone like you knowing anyone who has played international cricket.

No. In modern times video analysis of any batsman can bring out loopholes in him. In Hobbs' time this was not available to bowlers. Feilding standards were also quiet low those days.

 

[Snatch]

Yeah the general consensus is Hobbs & Hutton are the 2 greatest openers of all time.

 

[Bilal7]

No. In modern times video analysis of any batsman can bring out loopholes in him. In Hobbs' time this was not available to bowlers. Feilding standards were also quiet low those days.

You don't need video analysis when the games are happening in the same two countries. Fielding has improved but that does not compensate for the unprepared pitches, lack of protection and fielding restrictions that modern bowlers have to content with.

 

[Ellipsism]

You don't need video analysis when the games are happening in the same two countries. Fielding has improved but that does not compensate for the unprepared pitches, lack of protection and fielding restrictions that modern bowlers have to content with.

The Australian pitches in the 1930-40s era were excellent wickets. Why do you think the English bowlers had to resort to bodyline tactics to dismiss Bradman.

On what basis can you pronounce Hobbs better than Gavaskar? Gavaskar toured the world and maintained an excellent average, what did the likes of Hobbs achieve? Score a few centuries in two nations.

One of the factors when deeming someone an ATG is how they performed around the world. Now, Hobbs hasn't toured anywhere apart from Australia but should that be held against him? No. But does that mean we pronounce him as an ATG? No.

Gavaskar averages something like 50 outside Asia (don't ken the exact statistics). That's as good as an average you will ever see for a batsman touring outside their respective nation. That's enough evidence for anyone with an open mind to except that Gavaskar was better than Hobbs or any other of his contemporaries.

 

[anoop]

You don't need video analysis when the games are happening in the same two countries. Fielding has improved but that does not compensate for the unprepared pitches, lack of protection and fielding restrictions that modern bowlers have to content with.

'Same two countries'..that itself proves why gavaskar and modern batsmen are more tested & trusted.

 

[SL_Fan]

Gavaskar easily. To average 50+ opening the batting with 34 Test tons in 200 odd innings in the 70/80s up against quality quicks and with hardly any protection is just unreal.

 

[Sidilicious]

But you were happy to convert it into Smith vs Australia? You cant have your cake and it too buddy, doesnt work like that

No one is calling Smith an average bat. Without a shadow of doubt, he is one of the greats of his era, if not an ATG. But most of his reputation comes from his grittiness, attitude and his captaincy. IMHO, he is the first opener in my XI for post 00s, even before Hayden and Sehwag.

But that doesnt mean he is in the same tier as Gavaskar, Hobbs or Hutton. As pure opening bats they are definitely ahead of Smith, and this can be seen in their stats. On top of that, Smith had significant technical deficiencies which didnt allow him to score the runs that would have allowed him to enter the Gavaskar, Hobbs and Hutton territory.

 

[Mamoon]

Yeah the general consensus is Hobbs & Hutton are the 2 greatest openers of all time.

English and cricket establishment propaganda. Same propaganda that promotes Bradman as the best ever batsman and Sobers as the best ever all-rounder.

Isn't it interesting that pretty much all these 'best evers' are from a time where there was no TV coverage and very little is left of them but the anecdotes of certain folks? Gavaskar wipes the floor with both Hobbs and Hutton, and I can bet my bottom dollar that Cook, Atherton and Boycott were better openers as well and didn't thrive in an amateur era. They aren't even in the top 3 English openers.

Players from the 60s and beyond have had their legacies artificially inflated because of urban myths and old men's tales. They were good players but they way they are lionized compared to modern cricketers is highly dubious. I hope you saw the video that day where the 'speed king' Larwood was bowling at an incredible pace of 70 mph. Anwar Ali would also have been a speed king in that era.

Cricket became a professional, competitive sport in the 50s, and Sobers' stock is enormously high because his competition wasn't Imran, Kapil, Botham, Hadlee and Clive Rice. He was simply a champion of his era, and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that he is the unrivaled GOAT all-rounder.

Rant over.

 

[PakLFC]

For me it would be Gordon Greenidge for his attacking stroke play. Sunny was a great defensive opener no doubt about it however I like a bit of aggression in my openers. Michael Atherton is another one to consider with his tremendous powers of concentration.

 

[Junaids]

Hobbs is legendary only in english media. Tendulkar has 100 international centuries not County ones.

I am no admirer of Hobbs - ask [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] - but Tendulkar's so-called 100 "international centuries" is a meaningless and worthless record.

It just means he was good at scoring runs on flat, grassless wickets when there was no slip cordon.

 

[Tusker]

I am no admirer of Hobbs - ask [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

Thats correct. And thats Despite [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] being a big fan of older ERA's ...its very refreshing to see someone who doesnt argue for the sake of arguing.

- but Tendulkar's so-called 100 "international centuries" is a meaningless and worthless record. It just means he was good at scoring runs on flat, grassless wickets when there was no slip cordon.

Lets apply some logic and analyse this ... why hasnt anyone else managed to fill their boots if batting is so easy in Tendulkars time ? Of those 100 hundreds only 42 are in India. The next best is 21 by Dravid - exactly half.

Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rderby=hundreds;template=results;type=batting

And here is the stat for Away + Neutral

Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rderby=hundreds;template=results;type=batting

 

[Junaids]

Thats correct. And thats Despite [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] being a big fan of older ERA's ...its very refreshing to see someone who doesnt argue for the sake of arguing.



Lets apply some logic and analyse this ... why hasnt anyone else managed to fill their boots if batting is so easy in Tendulkars time ? Of those 100 hundreds only 42 are in India. The next best is 21 by Dravid - exactly half.

Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rderby=hundreds;template=results;type=batting

And here is the stat for Away + Neutral

Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rderby=hundreds;template=results;type=batting

Don't get me wrong: I think Tendulkar was an ATG. But his value was as a batsman so dedicated that he stayed in the Top Five batsmen in the world for twenty years, and in spite of not having a great brain or temperament.

I'm starting to think that WW2 was the cut-off between plucky amateurs and dedicated professionals, and that the likes of Headley and Hobbs were largely unproven.

I think the top players from 1945 onwards would have been top players in any conditions, including modern ones. Implicit in this is a recognition that while Bradman was the best batsman by far of the span 1928-1948, he actually only really encountered Larwood and Verity as top bowlers at Test level, and rather like modern batting averages only mean anything if reduced by 1/4 or even 1/3, the same may apply to Bradman.

I'd argue that Williamson's average of 50 means 37, Smith's average of 60 means a bit less than Viv Richards and Javed Miandad's 50, and Bradman's 99.94 is probably around Barry Richards' combined Test plus SuperTest average of 75.

 

[Tusker]

Don't get me wrong: I think Tendulkar was an ATG. But his value was as a batsman so dedicated that he stayed in the Top Five batsmen in the world for twenty years, and in spite of not having a great brain or temperament.

But you said in the earlier post that his 100 centuries were worthless as they came on Grass-less wkts ... do you still stand by that ?


I posted a link to a video clip few weeks ago ... here it is again : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzpDddFEb2Y

Watch it and let me know what you think.

If anything Tendulkar was criticized a lot for over analyzing and not going with his instincts and let his natural talent deal with the situation.

I'm starting to think that WW2 was the cut-off between plucky amateurs and dedicated professionals, and that the likes of Headley and Hobbs were largely unproven.

I think the top players from 1945 onwards would have been top players in any conditions, including modern ones. Implicit in this is a recognition that while Bradman was the best batsman by far of the span 1928-1948, he actually only really encountered Larwood and Verity as top bowlers at Test level, and rather like modern batting averages only mean anything if reduced by 1/4 or even 1/3, the same may apply to Bradman.

I'd argue that Williamson's average of 50 means 37, Smith's average of 60 means a bit less than Viv Richards and Javed Miandad's 50, and Bradman's 99.94 is probably around Barry Richards' combined Test plus SuperTest average of 75.

My Cut off is mid 1970s ... thats when fast bowling ERA started and also cricket began its real journey towards professionalism although it wasnt untill much later that it became financially rewarding to play Cricket at the top level.

 

[Junaids]

But you said in the earlier post that his 100 centuries were worthless as they came on Grass-less wkts ... do you still stand by that ?


I posted a link to a video clip few weeks ago ... here it is again : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzpDddFEb2Y

Watch it and let me know what you think.

If anything Tendulkar was criticized a lot for over analyzing and not going with his instincts and let his natural talent deal with the situation.



My Cut off is mid 1970s ... thats when fast bowling ERA started and also cricket began its real journey towards professionalism although it wasnt untill much later that it became financially rewarding to play Cricket at the top level.

I can see why you'd say the mid-1970's, and I'd argue that Packer's WSC was the catalyst. But I think that that mainly was when most teams stopped containing weak links.

But if you look at South Africa v Australia in 1970 or Australia v England in 71-72, you see two exceptionally strong and hard-nosed professional teams.

 

[Tusker]

I can see why you'd say the mid-1970's, and I'd argue that Packer's WSC was the catalyst. But I think that that mainly was when most teams stopped containing weak links.

Thats true .. WSC was a seminal moment that changed cricket for the good ... although the standards are far less than what we have today but they were the best of those times. But most importantly Cricket finally became a sport that could be played to earn a living.

But if you look at South Africa v Australia in 1970 or Australia v England in 71-72, you see two exceptionally strong and hard-nosed professional teams.

These are just exceptions but Iam ok with a few yrs here and there from mid 70s as the starting point.

 

[Bilal7]

The Australian pitches in the 1930-40s era were excellent wickets. Why do you think the English bowlers had to resort to bodyline tactics to dismiss Bradman.

On what basis can you pronounce Hobbs better than Gavaskar? Gavaskar toured the world and maintained an excellent average, what did the likes of Hobbs achieve? Score a few centuries in two nations.

One of the factors when deeming someone an ATG is how they performed around the world. Now, Hobbs hasn't toured anywhere apart from Australia but should that be held against him? No. But does that mean we pronounce him as an ATG? No.

Gavaskar averages something like 50 outside Asia (don't ken the exact statistics). That's as good as an average you will ever see for a batsman touring outside their respective nation. That's enough evidence for anyone with an open mind to except that Gavaskar was better than Hobbs or any other of his contemporaries.

Do you know what a sticky-dog is? Look it up.

Hobbs did what he could. It wasn't his fault that no other country hosted test matches in those days and unlike a Dennis Lillee, he didn't dodge any tours. 100 years from now, when we will have 15-17 countries hosting cricket matches, it won't be fair to say that just because AB has only played in 10 countries, he isn't as good a player as the top batsmen of those times.

Gavasker is a great for sure, no one denies that and his away average of 50 is mighty impressive. However, I will continue to rate Hobbs and Hutton as better test openers for their impressive numbers in far more difficult batting circumstances.

 

[Snatch]

English and cricket establishment propaganda. Same propaganda that promotes Bradman as the best ever batsman and Sobers as the best ever all-rounder.

Isn't it interesting that pretty much all these 'best evers' are from a time where there was no TV coverage and very little is left of them but the anecdotes of certain folks? Gavaskar wipes the floor with both Hobbs and Hutton, and I can bet my bottom dollar that Cook, Atherton and Boycott were better openers as well and didn't thrive in an amateur era. They aren't even in the top 3 English openers.

Players from the 60s and beyond have had their legacies artificially inflated because of urban myths and old men's tales. They were good players but they way they are lionized compared to modern cricketers is highly dubious. I hope you saw the video that day where the 'speed king' Larwood was bowling at an incredible pace of 70 mph. Anwar Ali would also have been a speed king in that era.

Cricket became a professional, competitive sport in the 50s, and Sobers' stock is enormously high because his competition wasn't Imran, Kapil, Botham, Hadlee and Clive Rice. He was simply a champion of his era, and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that he is the unrivaled GOAT all-rounder.

Rant over.

You don't need to convince me of Gavaskar, he's def 3rd best opener after the 2 H's.

It's also not true that all the greatest players in cricket historians opinions were all from pre-TV eras, considering Malcolm Marshall is generally regarded as the greatest fast bowler ever. They seem to make an exception for him didn't they?

 

[cricketjoshila]

You don't need to convince me of Gavaskar, he's def 3rd best opener after the 2 H's.

It's also not true that all the greatest players in cricket historians opinions were all from pre-TV eras, considering Malcolm Marshall is generally regarded as the greatest fast bowler ever. They seem to make an exception for him didn't they?

Heard of a name Sydney Barnes?He is considered to be better than Marshall or Akram.

The English have a habit of bigging up pre 1960s player because no one knows how good they really were.

Can you name 3 great bowlers whom Hobbs faced?

 

[Tekcirc]

Heard of a name Sydney Barnes?He is considered to be better than Marshall or Akram.

The English have a habit of bigging up pre 1960s player because no one knows how good they really were.

Can you name 3 great bowlers whom Hobbs faced?

Some Aussie guys!

 

[AlizeeFan]

Jack Hobbs averaged 50+ even from age 43-48.

Played first class till the age of 52.

Either batsmen from those era were superhumans or modern professionals are just too weak.

And that too while facing fast bowlers who used to bowl 125-140 overs easily in a day. It seems that even bowlers were superhumans in those days.

Here we have modern day professionals who get tired in 3rd session (just 70-80 overs) which is half of the time bowled by superhuman bowlers.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Some Aussie guys!

See post 191.

 

[Snatch]

Heard of a name Sydney Barnes?He is considered to be better than Marshall or Akram.

The English have a habit of bigging up pre 1960s player because no one knows how good they really were.

Can you name 3 great bowlers whom Hobbs faced?

I've course I've heard of Sydney Barnes, but he wasn't a fast bowler.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Jack Hobbs averaged 50+ even from age 43-48.

Played first class till the age of 52.

Either batsmen from those era were superhumans or modern professionals are just too weak.

And that too while facing fast bowlers who used to bowl 125-140 overs easily in a day. It seems that even bowlers were superhumans in those days.

Here we have modern day professionals who get tired in 3rd session (just 70-80 overs) which is half of the time bowled by superhuman bowlers.

You're joking right? Modern professionals play 3 formats + foreign T20 leagues + FC cricket. Workload nowadays doesn't even compare to 100 years ago when cricket was a part time job. Now cricket is a professional sport. Very few cricketers were professional 100 years ago.

 

[soso_killer]

No one is calling Smith an average bat. Without a shadow of doubt, he is one of the greats of his era, if not an ATG. But most of his reputation comes from his grittiness, attitude and his captaincy. IMHO, he is the first opener in my XI for post 00s, even before Hayden and Sehwag.

But that doesnt mean he is in the same tier as Gavaskar, Hobbs or Hutton. As pure opening bats they are definitely ahead of Smith, and this can be seen in their stats. On top of that, Smith had significant technical deficiencies which didnt allow him to score the runs that would have allowed him to enter the Gavaskar, Hobbs and Hutton territory.

I don't consider Smith as the greatest opening bat of all time. However he is certainly a better match winner than Gavaskar, for that I will have Smith ahead of him. My best bat can't have a match winning average in the low 40's.
That's just my opinion feel free to disagree.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I don't consider Smith as the greatest opening bat of all time. However he is certainly a better match winner than Gavaskar, for that I will have Smith ahead of him. My best bat can't have a match winning average in the low 40's.
That's just my opinion feel free to disagree.

Cricket is a team game.One batsman doesnt win or lose matches.

 

[soso_killer]

Cricket is a team game.One batsman doesnt win or lose matches.

it's funny how that narrative keeps changing, yet certain individuals are labeled as chokers not the team.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Do you know what a sticky-dog is? Look it up.

Hobbs did what he could. It wasn't his fault that no other country hosted test matches in those days and unlike a Dennis Lillee, he didn't dodge any tours. 100 years from now, when we will have 15-17 countries hosting cricket matches, it won't be fair to say that just because AB has only played in 10 countries, he isn't as good a player as the top batsmen of those times.

Gavasker is a great for sure, no one denies that and his away average of 50 is mighty impressive. However, I will continue to rate Hobbs and Hutton as better test openers for their impressive numbers in far more difficult batting circumstances.

Test cricket will be dead 100 years later, it's already dying in England. WICB is bankrupt. Afghanistan is war torn and Ireland cricket board is as poor as it gets. Enjoy it while it lasts

 

[Ellipsism]

Do you know what a sticky-dog is? Look it up.

Hobbs did what he could. It wasn't his fault that no other country hosted test matches in those days and unlike a Dennis Lillee, he didn't dodge any tours. 100 years from now, when we will have 15-17 countries hosting cricket matches, it won't be fair to say that just because AB has only played in 10 countries, he isn't as good a player as the top batsmen of those times.

Gavasker is a great for sure, no one denies that and his away average of 50 is mighty impressive. However, I will continue to rate Hobbs and Hutton as better test openers for their impressive numbers in far more difficult batting circumstances.

Who were the mighty bowlers that the likes of Hobbs had to face.

I want names.

 

[Bilal7]

Who were the mighty bowlers that the likes of Hobbs had to face.

I want names.

It was the conditions that made batting difficult, moreso than the bowlers themselves. The bowlers in the 80s, 90s and even modern times are probably better than the guys who were bowling on unprepared pitches. Batting however, was mightily difficult on those pitches which is why Gavasker is #3 on my list.

Test cricket will be dead 100 years later, it's already dying in England. WICB is bankrupt. Afghanistan is war torn and Ireland cricket board is as poor as it gets. Enjoy it while it lasts

You and I will both be dead in 100 years too so I don't really care.

 

[anoop]

I don't consider Smith as the greatest opening bat of all time. However he is certainly a better match winner than Gavaskar, for that I will have Smith ahead of him. My best bat can't have a match winning average in the low 40's.
That's just my opinion feel free to disagree.

There is a difference. Gavaskar when cane in 1971 India wasn't a dominant team and was more like Bangladesh. It was after Gavaskar we won or use to draw matches which otherwise we would have lost. In contrast smith came in a team which was already a dominant team since a decade. He had three batsmen (Kallis,amla,devilliers) averaging more than him and pace bowlers like Pollock, steyn & Ntini.
First you were boasting about Smith chasing 400 in 4th innings and now when you have been told that Gavaskar chased 400 twice in 4th innings in which he had a hundred & double hundred you have another criteria.

 

[atreus]

Hutton's record even after 7 year of inactivity and his wartime accident is FARRRRR too flawless for me to not have him at 1.

Hobbs the second due to impact on the game and longetivity and being brilliant on sticky dogs even though he didn't face as many great bowlers as Hutton did.

Gavaskar the third because unlike Hutton who has Graveny and Hobbs who had plethora of partners and eventually Sutcliffe , he was a lone warrior and still brilliant even though had clear holes in his record.

Sutcliffe fourth , statistically the best and was averaging 70 until his last 3 years but the difference between him when he played with Sobers and then without sobers put him at fourth

Greenidge was a matchwinner and was averaging nearly 50 before his decoine

An unpopular opinion , But Boycott deserves to be in the top 5 , don't know where I would place him and who I would knock out , probably greenidge , but Boycott is almost an English Gavaskar averaging 48 , 55.97 average throughout 1970s , success on both uncovered wickets and covered wickets and great stats against windies and 59 average in fourth inning , just that he was a selfish ****.

 

[MenInG]

Taylor: Opening pair good without being great

Sky Sports Cricket's Mark Taylor:

"These two as a combination [Usman Khawaja and David Warner], both fine players, both averaging in the mid-forties, a number of Test match hundreds.

"But their record as a combination is good without being great, 35, you compare to someone like Hayden and Langer, 51.

"They only have one, one hundred opening span between them, one of them tends to go early while the other stays and gets big runs. I'm sure they'd like to rectify that today."

 

[Ab Fan]

Gavaskar

 

[Bhaijaan]

Gavaskar is arguably the greatest batsman of the last 5-6 decades regardless of format and batting position.

 

[jeetu]

Post 70's its hard to go past Gavaskar. Before that period Hobbs , Hutton and Sutcliffe are also very strong contender for the spot.