606v2 Greatest Test Opening Batsmen Rankings

First topic message reminder :

Morning all

Sorry for the delay in getting the middle order batsmen results sorted, I'll do that in the next day or so.

Meanwhile, we might as well get the voting for the top 10 greatest Test opening batsmen under way.

Same rules apply, post-war batsmen only (those that played both can be considered if their body of work post-war warrants their inclusion).

In order, please.

Thanks.

guildfordbat wrote:

JDizzle wrote: Barry Richards ....
.... To place .. with the likes of Hutton and Gavaskar is a little unfair on those names, as Richards may well have gone on to have a Test career like the two of them and, listening to people who saw him bat like Guildford, it seems likely that he would have done.

JDizzle - indeed, I had that honour and that is what it was.

You use the words ''seems likely''. That is such a massive understatement. Off hand, I cannot think of any greater certainty in cricket or in life.

But, he never had the chance so there is always that doubt.

Precisely. He wouldn't be the first to have had all the promise in the world only to make much of a muchness out of it.

It may seem unlikely, but without solid facts and statistics it is very difficult to place someone so highly on such limited evidence, and unfair on those that have had a long and successful career.

Fists
I reckon everybody who saw Richards bat will have him in their top 10 and most who didn't see him not in their top 10.

He likely won't feature in mine unless an incredibly strong argument can be put forward to persuade me otherwise, but that is probably how it will pan out in general, you're right.

Stella wrote:
But, he never had the chance so there is always that doubt.

Stella -would Don Bradman have survived the skill and cunning of Gareth Batty's mystery ball or would he have been cheaply skittled every test?
Are you suggesting that as Bradman never had the chance to face Batty, there must be some doubt as to how he would have got on?

The only doubt is just how fast he could hit him out of the attack, I'd wager. 1 over, or 2? That is the question.

guildfordbat wrote:

Stella wrote:
But, he never had the chance so there is always that doubt.

Stella -would Don Bradman have survived the skill and cunning of Gareth Batty's mystery ball or would he have been cheaply skittled every test?
Are you suggesting that as Bradman never had the chance to face Batty, there must be some doubt as to how he would have got on?

Mmm, but Bradman faced better bowlers (so have I) than Batty so yes he would have.

Fists and Stella - good response, guys. Calling it stumps for now.

I'll post my top 10 tonight. Currently got about 18 names floating around ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyHvFArouAM

a nice video of Barry Richards batting. Lovely technique, so still as he waits for the ball, crisp and decisive footwork and good bat-speed.

Stumps for me, too.

Thanks for the vid MFC, I will take a look later.

Just to add to the Richards debate. I, like Guildford, rate Richrads very highly and reckon there is no doubt that, if he'd had the chance, he'd have been an all-time great test opener.
But he didn't have the chance. This list is to find the best test match opening batsmen since the war, those who acheived the most or performed the best over the course of a long test career. Richards didn't have a long test career and, IMO, can't, therefore, be included in this list, no matter how good he might have been.
IF this were asking for the top 10 openers since the war, I'd definitely include him, but it's not, it's asking for the top 10 opening batsmen IN TESTS since the war. Richards can't be included on the basis of just 4 tests and what he would probably have achieved if he'd played more IMHO.

im suprised no one went crazy over my list (with the exception of Attapattu)

dont tell me that after neaely 12,000 posts i might have done something people agree with

I have to admit watching that video of Barry Richards bat, my immediate thoughts were just class. Almost a lazy swing of the bat in his drives and he showed the sign of class that is distinctive which is almost appearing to have too much time to play his shots. Ally that with the ability to play some brutally powerful shots, which he clearly had, his short but great Test record and his superb First Class record, it does seem that he would have gone on ot take the cricketing world by storm. However I just can't bring myself to rank him in my top 5. Too many ifs and buts. Injuries, loss of form could have put pay to him at any time and we just don't know what could have happened.

JDizzle wrote:I have to admit watching that video of Barry Richards bat, my immediate thoughts were just class. Almost a lazy swing of the bat in his drives and he showed the sign of class that is distinctive which is almost appearing to have too much time to play his shots ....

And to think Barry Richards opened the batting for South Africa with that old guy you never knew much about who took your coaching!

Feeling bad?

Hutton
Gavaskar
Richards
Morris
Hayden
Greenidge
Sehwag
Haynes
Langer
Boycott

cricketfan90 wrote:im suprised no one went crazy over my list (with the exception of Attapattu)

dont tell me that after neaely 12,000 posts i might have done something people agree with

Where is Shanks?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Just to add to the Richards debate. I, like Guildford, rate Richrads very highly and reckon there is no doubt that, if he'd had the chance, he'd have been an all-time great test opener.
But he didn't have the chance. This list is to find the best test match opening batsmen since the war, those who acheived the most or performed the best over the course of a long test career. Richards didn't have a long test career and, IMO, can't, therefore, be included in this list, no matter how good he might have been.
IF this were asking for the top 10 openers since the war, I'd definitely include him, but it's not, it's asking for the top 10 opening batsmen IN TESTS since the war. Richards can't be included on the basis of just 4 tests and what he would probably have achieved if he'd played more IMHO.

Hoggy - I follow your reasoning which is certainly logical. How many tests does someone have to play to be considered for greatness and a top ten place? There is no set number. It just depends. I agree it would normally be a lot more than 4 but, for me, Richards was so brilliant he's the exception to any normal rule.

Sir Donald Bradman described Richards as ''the world's best ever right handed opener'' and named him to open with the left handed Arthur Morris in his All Time Great XI. If that wasn't enough to satisfy me, the comments of two personal favourites, Richie Benaud and John Arlott, do. The ever wise Benaud said of Richards, ''No more elegant player has taken the field in our time.'' The eminent writer and broadcaster Arlott referred to Richards as ''a batsman of staggering talent''.

It should also be remembered that Richards regularly came up against test bowlers in his County Championship and Sheffield Shield matches for Hants and Southern Australia for whom he performed so splendidly. Playing against Western Australia in 1970-71, he scored 325 in a day against an attack comprising world greats Dennis Lillee, Garth McKenzie and Tony Lock plus Tony Mann and John Inverarity who both also played tests for Australia.

Now for my top ten.

1. Barry Richards
2. Len Hutton
3. Arthur Morris
4. Sunny Gavaskar
5. Gordon Greenidge
6. Matt Hayden
7. Bob Simpson
8. Glenn Turner
9. Hanif Mohammed
10. Eddie Barlow

Honourable mentions to Des Haynes, Dennis Amiss, Graeme Smith and Bill Lawry. Lawry is particularly unfortunate that I first properly came across him during the '70-'71 Ashes series in which he and Australian cricket didn't do themselves justice and rather skewed my judgment.

Special Award for the unluckiest opener ever goes to South Africa's Jimmy Cook. Magnificent batman at county and state level . However, due to the apartheid ban, he was denied a test debut until aged almost forty and past his best. His test career lasted just 3 matches and gave him an average of less than 18 when it deserved to be three times greater.

L.Hutton
S.Gavaskar
B.Simpson
D.Amiss
M. Hayden
V.Sehwag
B.Lawry
G.Boycott
G.Smith
G.Greenidge

Not had time to put together a list but I think Bobby Simpson should feature in the top ten. Clearly Hutton and Gavaskar at or very near the top.

Doubtful about including Amiss - he's a bit of a paradox. According to crickinfo:

"Of Amiss's 11 Test hundreds, eight exceeded 150, a higher proportion even than that of Don Bradman. His power, timing and placement through extra cover and midwicket, his two great scoring areas, could sometimes make him uncontrollable. To the regret of his many admirers, however, Amiss's dismal record against Australia denied him acceptance as a top-ranking England batsman. Starting with a pair, at Old Trafford in 1968, and later running into Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at their fastest, he made seven ducks in 21 innings against them, averaging 15.25."

right, have edited my list for hopefully the last time. Given the Don's ringing endorsement (though I do believe Bradman tended to be a bit biased towards his own team when picking his world XI), I've nudged Arthur Morris in there. This means Hayden would miss out, but I've decided I wanted to include him, so going by the corporal's recent post about Amiss (which I didn't know), I'm going to keep Hayden and shunt Amiss.

I also meant to add that I'm a bit surprised about Haynes featuring in one or two lists - as he averaged about 42 - and didn't have to face the fearsome Windies bowling attack....

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Not had time to put together a list but I think Bobby Simpson should feature in the top ten. Clearly Hutton and Gavaskar at or very near the top.

Doubtful about including Amiss - he's a bit of a paradox. According to crickinfo:

"Of Amiss's 11 Test hundreds, eight exceeded 150, a higher proportion even than that of Don Bradman. His power, timing and placement through extra cover and midwicket, his two great scoring areas, could sometimes make him uncontrollable. To the regret of his many admirers, however, Amiss's dismal record against Australia denied him acceptance as a top-ranking England batsman. Starting with a pair, at Old Trafford in 1968, and later running into Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson at their fastest, he made seven ducks in 21 innings against them, averaging 15.25."

A number of players have poor records against one country, or against certain bowlers, or in certain conditions. Unfortunately for Amiss, the country he had a poor record against was Australia which, for England fans, perhaps means that he is somewhat overlooked . Perhaps if he'd done a Boycott and avoided Lillee and Thompson at their peak, he'd be better remembered.
Certainly it was not a weakness against pace that was his downfall, as his performances against the WIndies, especially his 203 at the Oval in 1976, prove.
It should also be remembered about Amiss that his overall average is about 7 runs lower than his average as an opener.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I also meant to add that I'm a bit surprised about Haynes featuring in one or two lists - as he averaged about 42 - and didn't have to face the fearsome Windies bowling attack....

I go along with that, Corporal.

Greenidge and Haynes were together probably the greatest opening pair I've seen. However, it's easier batting with a great partner and knowing other greats (Richard, Lloyd) are to follow. This influenced Turner making my top ten and Gavaskar getting as high as number four. They both played in comparatively poor test teams (Turner throughout most of his test career and Gavaskar certainly in his early years when the only other Indian batsman of any near distinction was Viswanath) and so had to shoulder far more responsibility.

As for Amiss, he only played 46 more tests than Richards without being troubled by an apartheid ban. A very good player but it shouldn't be overlooked that he didn't always make the test side, losing out to a combination of Boycott, Edrich and Luckhurst.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:right, have edited my list for hopefully the last time. Given the Don's ringing endorsement (though I do believe Bradman tended to be a bit biased towards his own team when picking his world XI), I've nudged Arthur Morris in there ....

Mad - your belief is correct. The Don had seven Australians in his World XI and several from his own era. To me, that just shows how great Richards must have been to get an opener's berth.

guildfordbat wrote:As for Amiss, he only played 46 more tests than Richards without being troubled by an apartheid ban. A very good player but it shouldn't be overlooked that he didn't always make the test side, losing out to a combination of Boycott, Edrich and Luckhurst.

Which just goes to show that the stupidity of England selectors wasn't confined to the 1990s

Mad for Chelsea wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyHvFArouAM

a nice video of Barry Richards batting. Lovely technique, so still as he waits for the ball, crisp and decisive footwork and good bat-speed.

Mad - meant to say, lovely video. Thanks for sharing.

Corporal - can you name all the featured bowlers?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:As for Amiss, he only played 46 more tests than Richards without being troubled by an apartheid ban. A very good player but it shouldn't be overlooked that he didn't always make the test side, losing out to a combination of Boycott, Edrich and Luckhurst.

Which just goes to show that the stupidity of England selectors wasn't confined to the 1990s

The old saying. stats don't tell you everything is certainly true, but what still remains is that Amiss has one of the best Averages as an opener since WW2 - 53.17.

Even Gavaskar had his bogey team (England), with a much lower average than against the rest.

So gentlemen, they are very good points to consider that were brought up, but (i hate this expression) at the end of the day, you will in history be remembered (like most sports) for your final stats.

Given that you have played enough

skyeman wrote:
.... at the end of the day, you will in history be remembered (like most sports) for your final stats.

Given that you have played enough

Skye - Go and get Mrs Skyeman to print you off a copy of Richards' test stats and play you the video supplied by Mad, then tell me he didn't play enough.

A giant is always a giant even if we're not allowed to watch him much of the time.

Done that hours ago Guildford, and i agree his figures were truly remarkable. But there is no escaping the fact that Richards only played four tests.

If Australia's Marsh never played again after his three recent tests, should he be considered as an all time great because of his great stats in Test cricket.

If he were able to,his next series may have contained five ducks, or maybe 7 hundreds.

A remarkable batsman YES, but impossible to put him in an all time (since WW2) TEST list for me.

We will never know.

guildfordbat wrote:

JDizzle wrote:I have to admit watching that video of Barry Richards bat, my immediate thoughts were just class. Almost a lazy swing of the bat in his drives and he showed the sign of class that is distinctive which is almost appearing to have too much time to play his shots ....

And to think Barry Richards opened the batting for South Africa with that old guy you never knew much about who took your coaching!

Feeling bad?

Haha, my initial thoughts were "Who are you? You can't tell me how to bat.". Apparently he could. He just to do it quite well himself! And I do! I feel that I abused my time with Eddie whereas other people would have made much more valuable with it!

Who knows what Barry Richards would have achieved in the crucible of the Test Match arena?
But he certainly played with a timing and power so effortless that it seemed he could do anything he wanted with that bat - only seeming to get out as he apparently would lose interest, or at least focus.
Only saw him perhaps just less than a dozen times, but no sportsman in my experience has played with more time and with such exquisite timing.

Ironic that Greenidge makes some lists. In their years opening with Hampshire (best County opening partnership ever?) it is unlikely that GG would have seen himself as anything other than the junior partner.

And he was a hell of a slip fielder as well.

There is NO denying the genius of the man, but that is not what is in question. This thread asks for post-war greatest TEST opening batsman, and imo it is impossible to include Richards in that list.

Most, if not all official averages lists require a certain amount of games or innings to have been played by either batsmen or bowlers to gauge their averages over a certain period of time and in all conditions. If you have not met their minimum requirement, then you are not on the list and therefore not ranked. Obviously because they believe you need to have played a certain amount to be judged fairly.

Richards played his four test matches in stadiums and on pitches he was used to, which certainly would have helped him. His average after the first test being 30.50.
If he were to have played no more games after that first match, would we even be having this discussion? NO, of course we would not, which brings me to my point, he needed three more games to get his average to the heights it is. Which is why averages over a period of games is so important, and why those official lists require a minimum amount to have been played. If his next six innings were scores of around 20, his average would have tumbled to 48.01, again, that is why it is so important a certain amount of games must be played, and for a period of time. Would his average have stayed so high after playing away to India, Australia, England and so on. We will never know.

If Vernon Philander played no more Test matches, with his ave of 9.00 per wicket (10.75 being the official lowest ever) would you guys include him in an all time TEST list?.

If Richards had of played 30 games and still had such a good average,of course he would be at the summit of most peoples lists. But to include anyone in an all time opener/or since WW2 TEST list after only four games, is something I could never do. It just would not make sense.

Also, I could not put him above other players who have played many, many Tests, and still have a fantastic average. Again imo, that is the true benchmark of what this thread is all about.

Hi all
I am new tot his website
here is the list of people i think my all time X1
1. gavaskar
2.hayden
3.greenidge
4.langer
5.sehwag
6.kirsten
7.langer
8.grame smith
9.gooch
10.boycott

Well these are the people i have seen and heard about (gavaskar,greenidge,boycott,gooch)
i basically ranked them interms of match winning/saving ability with keeping the scoring rate of that era in mind

ANother cricket fan!

Ha, welcome aboard mate. We have another user with the name: Cricketfan90, but never mind, we will be able to tell the difference given that he has about 9 million posts.

How'd you hear about us?

A solid enough list, quite interesting that you have Justin Langer so high. A fine opening batsman no doubt, and often gets overlooked. I'd say he was a tad high at 3, but it is nice to see JL get some overdue credit.

You have Langer twice.

@stella

Thanks for pointing out
1. gavaskar
2.hayden
3.greenidge
4.Hutton
5.sehwag
6.kirsten
7.langer
8.grame smith
9.gooch
10.boycott

@fists
i just googled for cricket forums and found it lol

i think langer is a one of the best opening batsmen of the modern era , he played many outstanding innings,
i didnot find any one else so had to put boycott at no 10 because from what i heard he wasnot useful enough ot the team's cause

lol???

It's the same person

Cool, good to have you here.

Ha, maybe stella.

1) Gavaskar 2) Hobbs 3) Hutton 4) Sutcliffe 5) B. Richards 6) Hayden 7) Greenidge 8) Boycott 9) Sehwag 10) Smith

Off the top of my head, Fists, so don't be surprised if I've missed a few. Sehwag's 'low' position might surprise a few, but to me he remains a little bit of a flat track bully, albeit a very good one. Gavaskar's record against that fabulous West Indies attack, against whom just about every other batsman wilted in the seventies and eighties, makes him my number one.

Chris, very good list and it almost mirrors my own (which is yet to be posted) to a tee.

88Chris05 wrote:1) Gavaskar 2) Hobbs 3) Hutton 4) Sutcliffe 5) B. Richards 6) Hayden 7) Greenidge 8) Boycott 9) Sehwag 10) Smith

Off the top of my head, Fists, so don't be surprised if I've missed a few. Sehwag's 'low' position might surprise a few, but to me he remains a little bit of a flat track bully, albeit a very good one. Gavaskar's record against that fabulous West Indies attack, against whom just about every other batsman wilted in the seventies and eighties, makes him my number one.

Gavasker's record is a little misleading.

Look at the matches that he played and you will see he came up against at times a pretty decent but not always great Windies attack.

The list is for post-war players though guys, so the great Hobbs and Sutcliffe sadly can not make this list

I guess I should try and put some names up with numbers.

Overall I have been swayed by the argument that this is an all-time TEST openers and therefore I can't reasonably have Richards at no1. He may have been the greatest ever opener to play test cricket but that is subtly different from being the best test opener of all-time. However I am going to have my cake and eat it (if you don't like this, tough, it's my list not yours) and put him in somewhere, albeit lower down.

The list thus reads:
1) Hutton
2) Morris
3) Gavaskar
4) Richards - I'm sorry but I can't push him down any lower.
5) Greenidge
6) Simpson - thanks for the review of his record.
7) Shewag
8) Hayden
9) Haynes - that Greenidge was allowed the freedom to play as he did owed much to his solid opening partner.
10) Amiss - we all have our weaknesses. Amiss could clearly play fast bowling, as indicated by his record against the West Indies.

Boycott just misses out, mainly because he wasn't a team player.

OUCH

skyeman wrote:There is NO denying the genius of the man, but that is not what is in question. This thread asks for post-war greatest TEST opening batsman, and imo it is impossible to include Richards in that list.

Most, if not all official averages lists require a certain amount of games or innings to have been played by either batsmen or bowlers to gauge their averages over a certain period of time and in all conditions. If you have not met their minimum requirement, then you are not on the list and therefore not ranked. Obviously because they believe you need to have played a certain amount to be judged fairly.

Richards played his four test matches in stadiums and on pitches he was used to, which certainly would have helped him. His average after the first test being 30.50.
If he were to have played no more games after that first match, would we even be having this discussion? NO, of course we would not, which brings me to my point, he needed three more games to get his average to the heights it is. Which is why averages over a period of games is so important, and why those official lists require a minimum amount to have been played. If his next six innings were scores of around 20, his average would have tumbled to 48.01, again, that is why it is so important a certain amount of games must be played, and for a period of time. Would his average have stayed so high after playing away to India, Australia, England and so on. We will never know.

If Vernon Philander played no more Test matches, with his ave of 9.00 per wicket (10.75 being the official lowest ever) would you guys include him in an all time TEST list?.

If Richards had of played 30 games and still had such a good average,of course he would be at the summit of most peoples lists. But to include anyone in an all time opener/or since WW2 TEST list after only four games, is something I could never do. It just would not make sense.

Also, I could not put him above other players who have played many, many Tests, and still have a fantastic average. Again imo, that is the true benchmark of what this thread is all about.

Skye - I thought I would try and get your attention now as I'm sure you'll be too busy soon trying out your new Barrington bat with Mrs Skyeman having to bowl tennis balls to you in the hall.

Let me emphasise that I understand and appreciate your point about Richards having only played 4 tests. As a general rule, I would certainly support it.

You mention the immediate outstanding test success of Philander and (in an earlier post) Marsh and ask if they never played test cricket again would I and others include them in an all time list of greats. The answer is ''almost certainly no''.

Why then is Richards different?

I'm judging him not just on his 4 tests but the entirety of his career. I don't see anything wrong with that, particularly as he had no say nor part in his exclusion from test cricket. Remember he continued to play at the highest level available to him for over thirteen years following the apartheid ban. I mentioned yesterday that he scored an undefeated 325 in a day for South Australia against a Western Australia bowling attack comprising Lillee, McKenzie, Lock and other test bowlers. I have since found out that play that day was limited to just five and a half hours!

Philander and Marsh remain available for selection as test cricketers. I'll judge them at the end of their careers. Now is far too soon but today they haven't done nearly enough for long enough.

One other I'll judge now is Bob Massie, Australian swing bowler from almost forty years ago who had an outstanding Ashes series here in 1972. His test career lasted only 6 matches and finished with him having an average of under 21. Despite that fantastic average , he gets a resounding ''no'' from me. Injury and loss of form greatly restricted the length of his test career and quickly resulted in him being dropped from both his national and state side. Massie was great at his peak but that was for only one English summer. Richards was at his peak in 1969-70 and for thirteen years after that as he regularly showed.

I hope the above shows I'm not normally in a rush to judge and attribute greatness. As said before, Richards is a considerable exception to my general rule but I believe a deserving one.

I know you don't mean this but a strict reading of your own post could give some the impression that the top ten greatest test batsmen could be mathematically worked out by some complex formula involving appearances made and runs scored. I think we would both say to that.

In all cricket judgments, gut feelings have to come into the mix. My feelings in the case of Richards clearly conflict with your logic and that of respected others. I make no apology for that, nor do I slate your reasoning. I may be wrong but I saw Richards bat and that to me is more important than anything else.

PS Is that your doorbell I can hear? Might be Mr Barrington with your bat - good luck with it!

First off, superb post Guildford.

I can see where you are coming from entirely. A parallel I would draw would be with Simon Jones from his era. His Test career was cut short by a number of horrific injuries and people will say "Well, he only had one great series against the Aussies" and they would be right. But from just watching him bowl I got the impression that he would have gone on to do it for years and been revelation in the world game and possibly have gone down as an English great. Admittedly not the best comparison to Richards, as the way people speak of him makes it clear that they hold him "greatest of all time" in regard for openers whereas Jones would simply have been a great English bowler. The similarity lies in the fact that you just got a tingle watching them do their thing and you got the sense something sensational was going to happen when the ball was in their hand, or when they nursed their piece of willow out to the middle.

Obviously Richards went on to have an outstanding First Class career which counts in his favour, something which Jones doesn't have, but I am guessing that your admiration of Richards barely has any relation on stats? It comes from seeing him bat. Stats don't always give the indication of how a player will perform at the highest level but seeing them play and bat does. And that is where the votes will differ on Richards. Like someone has already said those who saw him bat will undoubtedly rank him higher as they would have received that tingle from seeing him play, from the intangibles in watching him play and those who haven't can only judge him with more emphasis on statistics and seen as he only played 4 Tests, and we cannot overlook that no matter what could have been, they are bound to rank him lower.

Guildford, superb post, and likewise JD an excellent alternative example in Simon Jones. Sometimes, you just know.

Anyway, I'm off to begin my defence of Lance Gibbs, stay tuned.