All Time XI of different cricketers

[khalek]

And Dhoni gives a much better balance to ODI side as well and he's got a fantastic record to go with it. Gilly might still be able to make an All Time XI for his batting alone as an opener even though there are other openers with better averages cause the manner in which he batted over the years (especially in the late 90s) by taking the attack to the opposition was quite remarkable.

 

[Dare]

Oh, so we're going purely by stats then. Couldn't care less that Richards only played 4 Tests, I've posted my reasons for picking him earlier in this thread. If you're going by stats, which it seems you are with Hayden (as it can't be down to his technique) then you'd have been better off picking Sutcliffe or Hobbs, both have superior records to Hayden.

So your going after me for having Hayden over a whole bunch of other openers but you would take Richards over those players too :help.

Flat pitches or not Hayden did his thing for 100+ tests, Richards played 4. What makes you so sure that Richards wouldn't have been run over by the West Indies quick's of his era or Lilly and Thomo.

 

[King Pietersen]

He smacked the best bowlers in the world around in World Series cricket when he was past his prime, and in the domestic cricket he played around the world. The 325 he scored in Australia was scored against an excellent attack that included Lillee, he played County Cricket, opening the batting alongside Gordon Greenidge at a time when all the Windies quicks were playing County Cricket. You're going about this on a purely stats based argument. Everyone that saw Barry Richards bat has talked about how brilliant he was. Bradman included him in his XI, Dicky Bird said he was one of the best players he's ever seen and talked about how Richards had such precise foot-movement, how he played the ball incredibly late and how he had so much time to do so. I understand why people don't regard Richards amongst the top few openers in the history of the game, because of the fact he only played 4 Tests, but anyone that's done any research about him knows what a fine player he was; and he was certainly on a completely different level to someone like Hayden AFAIC. I would have had no disputes had you picked Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Morris, Hutton or even Greenidge, as there's really not much between them, but I find it difficult to believe that Hayden's one of the 2 greatest opening batsmen of all-time.

I haven't picked Richards ahead of all of those players either, I've got him partnered by the legendary Jack Hobbs, a man I believe is the greatest opening batsman of all-time.

 

[Dare]

He smacked the best bowlers in the world around in World Series cricket when he was past his prime, and in the domestic cricket he played around the world. The 325 he scored in Australia was scored against an excellent attack that included Lillee, he played County Cricket, opening the batting alongside Gordon Greenidge at a time when all the Windies quicks were playing County Cricket. You're going about this on a purely stats based argument. Everyone that saw Barry Richards bat has talked about how brilliant he was. Bradman included him in his XI, Dicky Bird said he was one of the best players he's ever seen and talked about how Richards had such precise foot-movement, how he played the ball incredibly late and how he had so much time to do so. I understand why people don't regard Richards amongst the top few openers in the history of the game, because of the fact he only played 4 Tests, but anyone that's done any research about him knows what a fine player he was; and he was certainly on a completely different level to someone like Hayden AFAIC. I would have had no disputes had you picked Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Morris, Hutton or even Greenidge, as there's really not much between them, but I find it difficult to believe that Hayden's one of the 2 greatest opening batsmen of all-time.

I haven't picked Richards ahead of all of those players either, I've got him partnered by the legendary Jack Hobbs, a man I believe is the greatest opening batsman of all-time.

Now even funnier then having Richards over some of those other guys that you mentioned is having him over Gavaskar. Who averaged 70 in the Caribbean, 65 overall against the West Indies and scored 13 of his 34 centuries against the best bowlers of his time.
To each his own, you think Hayden is overrated, I think Richards doesn't deserve to be in because he didn't play enough test cricket.

 

[King Pietersen]

More stats. I rate Gavaskar very highly, but Richards was the better opener of that era. Not playing much Test cricket is a moot point, given the situation of South Africa. The fact that people that played with him and against him rate him so highly is more than enough proof for me. From watching him play I'm of the firm belief that he is the 2nd best opening batsman of all-time, behind Jack Hobbs. Care to explain your reasoning behind picking Hayden ahead of Hobbs? I'm failing to see any way in which Hayden's superior to Hobbs. Hobbs scored more FC centuries after the age of 40 than Hayden did in his whole career, and Hobbs had a superior Test record in an era of uncovered pitches. Be interesting to hear how you feel Hayden rates in comparison.

 

[Dare]

More stats. I rate Gavaskar very highly, but Richards was the better opener of that era. Not playing much Test cricket is a moot point, given the situation of South Africa. The fact that people that played with him and against him rate him so highly is more than enough proof for me. From watching him play I'm of the firm belief that he is the 2nd best opening batsman of all-time, behind Jack Hobbs. Care to explain your reasoning behind picking Hayden ahead of Hobbs? I'm failing to see any way in which Hayden's superior to Hobbs. Hobbs scored more FC centuries after the age of 40 than Hayden did in his whole career, and Hobbs had a superior Test record in an era of uncovered pitches. Be interesting to hear how you feel Hayden rates in comparison.

You wanna know why? Because its my fliping team, I can have Chris motherfliping Gayle and Strauss opening if I wanted to.
Since 2000 there hasn't been a better opener then Hayden. I am well aware that there are better openers then him in history but I prefer him.
You go after me for using stats but your using them to back up Hobbs over Hayden.
I couldn't care if God came to you and said that Richards was the 2nd best opener in history, he played 4 tests and others played more. You would be better of including Sutcliffe or Hutton too over dude that played 4 tests.

 

[King Pietersen]

Jeez, don't get ya panties in a twist fella. Was only asking.

All you've used is stats though, that's my point. Hayden's a flat track bully, that with his technique would have struggled to make anywhere near as many runs as he did in a different era. He was just fortunate that he played in an era of flat pitches, mediocre fast bowling and big bats. Hobbs was better technically, scored his runs at a better average, and was an absolute beast in FC cricket.

Again, why does the number of Tests matter? He played 4 Tests, played 2 magnificent innings, was involved in one of the most famous batting partnerships of all-time (with Graeme Pollock), smashed the best bowlers in the world around in domestic cricket in South Africa, England and Australia, scored big runs in World Series Cricket, was technically magnificent, capable of scoring runs in any conditions, scored runs against the best bowlers of the era and scored his runs at a very good rate. Couldn't care less if he only played 4 Tests, he was a magnificent cricketer. Same with George Headley and Graeme Pollock, neither of those played a great deal of Test cricket, but they're still magnificent cricketers and 2 of the best batsmen of all-time.

 

[Dare]

Good and Hayden faced Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Pollock, McGrath, Ntini, Kumble, Murali, Vaas.
If you can prove to me that Richards could have done what Gavaskar did to the WI attack, I will take out Hayden and put Richards in. In the meantime Richards aint getting close to my team.

 

[Dabi]

Ok.

Then it's a baseless comparison cause Gilly wasn't a lower order batsman in ODIs and Dhoni doesn't open the innings so you can't just guess their abilities to finish off games or playing cameos down the order.

What I mean is that they both play in different positions in ODI cricket so it's up to you to decide how you wanna use in your playing XI. Personally, I feel Gilly could have done as good as Dhoni coming down the order and finishing games.

Yeah that's exactly what I mean. I can only go with how they played and which position. To use Gilly as an opener would be wasting an opening slot (when one looks at the other openers out there) while using Gilly down the order is something I wouldn't go with because he doesn't have a proven track record down the order.

 

[King Pietersen]

Good and Hayden faced Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, Ambrose, Pollock, McGrath, Ntini, Kumble, Murali, Vaas.

And when did he score big runs against any of them on a pitch that offered something to the bowlers? Not very often, certainly not often enough to warrant being called one of the 2 best opening batsmen of all-time.

Before I even bother looking through the scorecards of games Richards played against the Windies quicks, how about you answer my question regarding the comparison between Hayden and Hobbs? How come Jack Hobbs isn't in this team ahead of Hayden or Gavaskar? I'm not too bothered about whether you pick Richards or not, as quite a few people wouldn't pick him due to their lack of exposure to him, but I'm sure 99.9% of people would pick Sir Jack Hobbs in an all-time XI ahead of Matthew Hayden. I'm pretty sure that .1% is made up entirely of you and Aussie_Ben too.

 

[Dare]

And when did he score big runs against any of them on a pitch that offered something to the bowlers? Not very often, certainly not often enough to warrant being called one of the 2 best opening batsmen of all-time.

Find me the scorecard where Richards faced any of those caliber and I will see if I should even consider him. Even then Id include someone else like Hutton and Hobbs over him...

Before I even bother looking through the scorecards of games Richards played against the Windies quicks, how about you answer my question regarding the comparison between Hayden and Hobbs? How come Jack Hobbs isn't in this team ahead of Hayden or Gavaskar? I'm not too bothered about whether you pick Richards or not, as quite a few people wouldn't pick him due to their lack of exposure to him, but I'm sure 99.9% of people would pick Sir Jack Hobbs in an all-time XI ahead of Matthew Hayden.

If you dig up your thread about all time XI, that you started last year you will see that I have Hobbs or Hutton(cant remember) alongside Hayden. And allot of the middle order looks different. If you look back a few pages back in this thread I said that if I was going to do this thing again in a month it would look different except for Bradman,Sobers and Imran because of all the great players in history.
Why did I include Hayden over Hobbs. Because I can, because I wanted to and because I did.
Everyone can pick whoever they want because its their team. Just like you can include Richards and you will probably be the only one on these forums. That .1% that you were mentioning earlier.

I'm pretty sure that .1% is made up entirely of you and Aussie_Ben too.

ahahah you say that to everyone that considers Hayden a good batsman?

 

[RoboRocks]

Settle down please guys. Let's not turn an interesting discussion into an arguement.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone's all time XI is going to be different.

My personal opinion is that Barry Richards is up their with the great openers in the game. He was an entertainer and an elegant player to watch. My dad saw him play and said he's one of the best he's ever seen, which is good enough for me.

Hobbs is the greatest opening batsmen, without doubt for me. He had a perfect technique and played many, many times on pitches that would be considered "dangerous" and "impossible" to modern viewers. He made 90 FC hundreds after he was 40, which is unpresidented.

 

[stereotype]

And when did he score big runs against any of them on a pitch that offered something to the bowlers? Not very often, certainly not often enough to warrant being called one of the 2 best opening batsmen of all-time.

Before I even bother looking through the scorecards of games Richards played against the Windies quicks, how about you answer my question regarding the comparison between Hayden and Hobbs? How come Jack Hobbs isn't in this team ahead of Hayden or Gavaskar? I'm not too bothered about whether you pick Richards or not, as quite a few people wouldn't pick him due to their lack of exposure to him, but I'm sure 99.9% of people would pick Sir Jack Hobbs in an all-time XI ahead of Matthew Hayden. I'm pretty sure that .1% is made up entirely of you and Aussie_Ben too.

But you can only play what is in front of you right? His record speaks for itself.

He scored a test hundred in Durban against an attack including Pollock and Ntini, he scored a great double hundred in India on a very spin friendly wicket back when Singh and Kumble were at their best and he scored 300 in a match at the Gabba v England in 2002, I would love for you to explain to me how the Gabba is a flat track. He scored 21 hundreds on home soil from just 56 matches which is a tremendous record and one of the reasons why Australia were so dominant, the Australian team from 1999-2006 are among the greatest teams of all time. He faced the best attacks from around the world and sent them packing.

From the time Hayden got back into the side, from 2001 until 2007 he averaged 50 or more in a calendar year in every year bar two, those two were early forties so hardly bad.

 

[ballers101]

Yeah that's exactly what I mean. I can only go with how they played and which position. To use Gilly as an opener would be wasting an opening slot (when one looks at the other openers out there) while using Gilly down the order is something I wouldn't go with because he doesn't have a proven track record down the order.

But see that's the thing, if Gilly can bat down the order in Tests he can bat down the order in ODIs. You look at some of the innings he has played they were extremely agressive and he can score at better than one run a ball. See the thing is that we cannot speculate who would be better down the order, Gilly or Dhoni so you went with the obvious Dhoni, I can respect that.

But to me because you aren't 100% sure who is better down the order, I would give it to Gilly because he is better in big games and he is easily the best wicketkeeper in ODI history by far. To me as well fielding is the most important thing when it comes to wicketkeeping and if Gilly is by far better at fielding then he gets the job for me.

 

[King Pietersen]

Find me the scorecard where Richards faced any of those caliber and I will see if I should even consider him. Even then Id include someone else like Hutton and Hobbs over him...

Why did I include Hayden over Hobbs. Because I can, because I wanted to and because I did.
Everyone can pick whoever they want because its their team. Just like you can include Richards and you will probably be the only one on these forums. That .1% that you were mentioning earlier.

Mate, if you're going to cop out and not even attempt to answer my question about Hayden vs Hobbs, then I see no reason why I should try and justify an argument I didn't even start. I've not once tried to compare Richards to Gavaskar, that's all you. My whole argument has been based on the fact that Hayden's been picked. I happen to rate Gavaskar up there with the greatest openers of all-time, so I'm not going to waste my time crawling through hundreds of scorecards to try and back up an argument I've not even begun to get involved in.

He scored a test hundred in Durban against an attack including Pollock and Ntini, he scored a great double hundred in India on a very spin friendly wicket back when Singh and Kumble were at their best and he scored 300 in a match at the Gabba v England in 2002, I would love for you to explain to me how the Gabba is a flat track. He scored 21 hundreds on home soil from just 56 matches which is a tremendous record and one of the reasons why Australia were so dominant, the Australian team from 1999-2006 are among the greatest teams of all time. He faced the best attacks from around the world and sent them packing.

The double hundred against India was in the 1st innings, and from the highlights I've seen of that game, the pitch wasn't spinning much, and India happened to go on and make over 500 in reply to Australia's innings. Hayden was always a very talented player of spin bowling though, it's his ability against good quality seam bowling where the problems lie. Luckily for Hayden he played in an era of flat pitches and slim fast bowling stocks.

The innings in Durban was an example of Hayden cashing in once the pitch had flattened out and a matter of scoring runs against bowlers in Pollock and Ntini that were either past their best or never really that good. The runs at Perth against England weren't that impressive either. The pitch didn't do that much (certainly not enough for England to be bowled out for 74 2nd time round), and the attack was pretty mediocre with Caddick, Hoggard, Jones, Wright and Giles; and his runs in Melbourne against basically the same attack were very fortunate, given the fact he was out lbw twice before reaching 13 but was incorrectly given not out.

Don't get me wrong, I do rate Matthew Hayden, it's hard not to rate a batsman that's made 30 Test hundreds, but he simply wasn't good enough to be rated as the 2nd best Test opener of all-time. Very good against spin bowling, but against top quality seam bowling he was often found out.