ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[Marut]

Gavaskar - Widely regarded as the greatest Indian opener. Hutton - Widely regarded as the most technically correct English batsman

[Marut]

I am also laughing at the people voting for Hayden. Yes he is good but not the best. If you're going to put Hayden' date=' may as well put Kirsten as an option. Not much difference.[/quote'] Hayden may not make an all time Australian XI.

[Robelinda]

For those who haven't seen Len Hutton, step over to my channel..... [ame=

Sir Len Hutton 156* vs Australia 4th test 1950/51 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=

Sir Len Hutton - the famous 62* vs Australia 1st test 1950/51 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=

Sir Len Hutton 79 vs Australia 5th test 1950/51 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=

Sir Len Hutton 60* vs Australia 5th test 1950/51 - YouTube[/ame] Please don't complain about the footage, its extremely hard to obtain, and frankly is amazing viewing.

[Chalks]

Also voted for Sunny and Hayden. Surprised his little mate Langer didn't make an appearance here (even though he was a #3 in the first half of his career, and only returned to the side as an opener after Slater was axed). They were a devastating combo, and a key reason Australia stayed on top for as long as they did. Oz's relative decline can be traced back to the retirements of Langer and McWarne after the 5-0 over England in 06/07 (though since the last Ashes they have revived on the back of unearthing some serious pacers - how about that?).

[rkt.india]

For those who haven't seen Len Hutton, step over to my channel.....

Please don't complain about the footage, its extremely hard to obtain, and frankly is amazing viewing.

:hatsoff:

[rkt.india]

The problem with folks like you' date=' and perhaps your generation, is this - [i']You dont know much, dont stand for anything...and argue about everything. Dude, I am perhaps the biggest Kapil Dev fan you will ever see. Unlike you I do not have to reach for my laptop and search YouTube to see his exploits. I was fortunate enough to watch LIVE when the best Pakistani batsman of Benson Hedges 1985 series walked to the middle and got his stump uprooted by a fierce Kapil Dev yorker sending Richie Benaud in an orgasm with a "ball of the tournament" comment. I was lucky enough to see/hear Kapil walk to the middle in the DeanJones-KapilDev-ChennaiTiedTest after the Indian openers had flopped on a docile pitch and carted Aussies all over the park. I was watching with glee when the next best thing to Pakistani cricket Inzamam-ul-Haq walked to the middle and got lbw to the aging legend. and then began his walk back to pavillion that took forever. Of course this happened in the same game where Kapil had shepherded another budding legend SRT. If I select an All-time Indian XI, the first name I would pencil in would be Kapil Dev. And then I would proceed to pick the other 10. And yet, I would also pencil two other names for the all-rounder slot - Vinoo Mankad and Salim Durrani. Even CK Nayudu perhaps. And if someone picks Vinoo saab ahead of Kapil Dev I would be fully supportive of that. And this comes from someone who is a die-hard Kapil fan and has seen him LIVE for better part of his career. You, on the other hand, never have seen him. Your knowledge is based on a few video clips. Like the 90 Test series against England where he smoked 4 sixes...Did you know he averaged 60 or so as a bowler in the same lol? You obviously never bothered to find more about Vinoo Mankad or Salim Durrani either. And somehow you wear it as a badge of prestige too. The reason I am using Kapil as an example here is to show how those who shout from rooftops on "picking players only who they have seen" know little about Indian greats, forget about Hobbs, Turner, Faulkner. But yeah keep up with the whole shenanigan :)

Yaar Instead of writing such long para, you must have answered my issue which I mentioned above. Once you answer I will except I am wrong in my approach. Here's my issues. Another issue here is Hobbs, Hutton, Sutclife, all have similar test batting average while Sutclife has a marginal edge. Now tell me if I have not see any of them who should I pick based on stats should it be Sutclife because of marginally better average, but Hutton has more runs. What reason should I give when I pick any one of the three because stats wise there is not much difference. As I have not seen them, I cannot assess them too and the little footage we have completely rules out Hobbs. And I am sure, you have not seen them too and what ever you know is by reading, but writers always exaggerate what they write that is the art of a write how one can make it a better reading for their readers to attract attention. I give you an example of an article about Viv Richards in which had described an incident between Viv and Australian pacer Pascal but when Rob posted the video of that incident, that incident described by the writer seemed exaggerated which shows that it is hard to be 100% sure about these writings.

[The Outsider]

rkt, if you want to go by averages then Hobbs is the clear leader among Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton because for the majority of his career Hobbs batted in an era where the average runs scored per wicket were much less than in the times of Sutcliffe and Hutton and also the average of great batsmen like RanjitSinhji and Trumper was in the early 40s while Hobbs was averaging in the mid 50s.

[The Outsider]

And I am sure, you have not seen them too and what ever you know is by reading, but writers always exaggerate what they write that is the art of a write how one can make it a better reading for their readers to attract attention. I give you an example of an article about Viv Richards in which had described an incident between Viv and Australian pacer Pascal but when Rob posted the video of that incident, that incident described by the writer seemed exaggerated which shows that it is hard to be 100% sure about these writings.

Yeah people exaggerate - that does not mean that they fabricate everything. For example in the video you are referring to, yeah Richards did not play some drive which threatened to endanger the bowler, but he did play a drive which did go to the boundary, right?

[rkt.india]

rkt' date=' if you want to go by averages then Hobbs is the clear leader among Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton because for the majority of his career Hobbs batted in an era where the average runs scored per wicket were much less than in the times of Sutcliffe and Hutton and also the average of great batsmen like RanjitSinhji and Trumper was in the early 40s while Hobbs was averaging in the mid 50s.[/quote'] Problem is if we go just by average than Sunil Gavaskar shouldnt be there too as hutton and sutclife have better average but as I saw the above footage of Hutton apart from Lindwall most bowler looked pie chuckers. Based on average, I will pick Sutclife and Hobbs though.

[ravishingravi]

Wtf Barry Richards got just 3 votes.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Problem is if we go just by average than Sunil Gavaskar shouldnt be there too as hutton and sutclife have better average but as I saw the above footage of Hutton apart from Lindwall most bowler looked pie chuckers. Based on average' date=' I will pick Sutclife and Hobbs though.[/quote'] Huh? Who is talking about going just by average? You asked about how to distinguish between Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton based on average and I explained how Hobbs' average was much better given the context of the kind of pitches he played his cricket on. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Jan+1916;spanmin1=01+Jan+1908;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Jan+1931;spanmin1=01+Jan+1919;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate are the batting averages before and after the war during Hobbs' career. Sutcliffe played in the second half and Hutton even later.

[Marut]

rkt' date=' if you want to go by averages then Hobbs is the clear leader among Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton because for the majority of his career Hobbs batted in an era where the average runs scored per wicket were much less than in the times of Sutcliffe and Hutton and also the average of great batsmen like RanjitSinhji and Trumper was in the early 40s while Hobbs was averaging in the mid 50s.[/quote'] RanjitSinhji played just a handful of tests ( only abt 15) and that is too low to judge if his career average reflects his abilities.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

RanjitSinhji played just a handful of tests ( only abt 15) and that is too low to judge if his career average reflects his abilities.

I gave Ranji as an example to demonstrate how really good players of that time averaged in the 40s instead of the customary 50s later on and how Hobbs' average in the 50s was an anomaly for those times : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=01+Jan+1916;spanmin1=01+Jan+1900;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

[jairamesh]

Huh? Who is talking about going just by average? You asked about how to distinguish between Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton based on average and I explained how Hobbs' average was much better given the context of the kind of pitches he played his cricket on. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Jan+1916;spanmin1=01+Jan+1908;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Jan+1931;spanmin1=01+Jan+1919;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate are the batting averages before and after the war during Hobbs' career. Sutcliffe played in the second half and Hutton even later.

Granted these pre-war players were good but majority of their matches involved playing in England and Australia and the occasional trip to South Africa. They most likely experienced the same conditions and bowlers. It's like saying if the likes of Sehwag and Inzamam never played Tests outside Asia they would have been considered absolute legends just based on their numbers in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. So unfortunately we just don't know how these players would have performed against the varying pitches and bowlers they would have faced if they played in West Indies and Asia (in addition to the Anglosaxon countries). So some feel more comfortable at assessing players post-1970 because regardless of not seeing them "live" or lack of extensive videos there is at least some comfort knowing that players post 1970 were tested across all conditions currently on offer.

[The Outsider]

Granted these pre-war players were good but majority of their matches involved playing in England and Australia and the occasional trip to South Africa. They most likely experienced the same conditions and bowlers. It's like saying if the likes of Sehwag and Inzamam never played Tests outside Asia they would have been considered absolute legends just based on their numbers in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. So unfortunately we just don't know how these players would have performed against the varying pitches and bowlers they would have faced if they played in West Indies and Asia (in addition to the Anglosaxon countries). So some feel more comfortable at assessing players post-1970 because regardless of not seeing them "live" or lack of extensive videos there is at least some comfort knowing that players post 1970 were tested across all conditions currently on offer.

If 50 years later, Mongolia starts playing test cricket would it be fair to Tendulkar and Lara when someone uses the argument that they were not tested in the challenging conditions of the Gobi desert?

[jairamesh]

If 50 years later' date=' Mongolia starts playing test cricket would it be fair to Tendulkar and Lara when someone uses the argument that they were not tested in the challenging conditions of the Gobi desert?[/quote'] Exactly, I was going write up on this! Yes, say in the next century the cricket playing horizon has expanded and Test cricket is played in over 50 countries then yes comparing today's greats with those in that hypothetical scenario will be impossible and those "future" greats will take centre stage in any "future" all time XIs by the simple fact they have played in those conditions whilst Tendulkar never played on the "Mongolian" pitch conditions. I can't recall any mainstream sport (except Tennis maybe) where playing conditions have such distinctive influence on the challenges a player is expected to face.

[Raghav_12]

More than half of the Hobbs centuries came when he was past age of 40. More than 40% of his runs came after that age. His average past 40 was significantly better than his average before 40. It's really difficult to take his numbers seriously.