quote:

Originally posted by ten years after:
Hutton – The Second best test match opener of all time. ‘nuff said.

... after which one of Sutcliffe, Hobbs, or Gavaskar?

oh, and Langer?

quote:

after which one of Sutcliffe, Hobbs, or Gavaskar?

They didn't have to open with an idiot mono-brow FTB for most of their careers.

st00pid wozzie

Silly billy.

quote:

Originally posted by lardbucket:

quote:

Originally posted by ten years after:
Hutton – The Second best test match opener of all time. ‘nuff said.

... after which one of Sutcliffe, Hobbs, or Gavaskar?

oh, and Langer?

JBH of course.

quote:

Originally posted by ten years after:
Hutton – The Second best test match opener of all time. ‘nuff said.

After MTFTBB obviously.

hmm, 50 years is indeed a long time. teams who havent had certifiable batting greats (making an all-time xi) in that time would be bangladesh, new zealand, sri lanka, zimbabwe? south africa would be a bit iffy

or would kallis qualify?

Martin Crowe must be considered a great batsman

quote:

Originally posted by The One:
or would kallis qualify?

Assuming there is a limitation to those who proved it at test level i would say that Graeme Pollock did enough to be among those considefred for an all time Great XI.

Personally i'm happy that Barry Richards was good enough to get a capital G 'Great' tag as well. He wouldn't be ahead of the 3 players listed by Lardbucket at the top of this page (or Hutton) but he's in that league.

quote:

Originally posted by peterg:
Martin Crowe must be considered a great batsman

Glen Turner as well.

'great' rather than 'Great'. Comparing with the subjects of this thread i'd say that both were a bit better than Graveney but not quite as good as Cowdrey.

quote:

hmm, 50 years is indeed a long time. teams who havent had certifiable batting greats (making an all-time xi) in that time would be bangladesh, new zealand, sri lanka, zimbabwe?

Fair point, though Flower was "jolly good".

quote:

south africa would be a bit iffy

RGP surely.

quote:

Originally posted by never say never:

quote:

hmm, 50 years is indeed a long time. teams who havent had certifiable batting greats (making an all-time xi) in that time would be bangladesh, new zealand, sri lanka, zimbabwe?

Fair point, though Flower was "jolly good".

Indeed. I think he's done enough to be considered a great batsman.

His wicketkeeping was maybe not quite test class but that's beside the point.

oh yes i forgot flower. he was certainly not far from being a great batsman, though with the team he was playing in could he ever be an all-time great?

pollock i guess has a fair claim, though just 21 tests does make it not so cut and dried. one needs to only look at viv to see how a great start does not mean a great career for the rest of the years

crowe and turner are greats within their time, but certainly not serious contenders for all-time xis. another reason why i wouldnt consider kallis, inzi (dravid?) in that elite category

quote:

Originally posted by ten years after:
Indeed. I think he's done enough to be considered a great batsman.

Agreed.

Has NZ EVER had a great batsman?

I think Pollock and Richards count as Great batsmen. Pollock played Test cricket over most of the 60's, even though that didn't amount to very many games. He had an unusually long career at FC level.

Richards excelled at every level and in every competition, including WSC.

In both cases the weight of qualitative evidence, in the evaluations of great players who observed them, is massive.
Finglton wrote a terrific essay on pollock. bradman admired Richards enough to include him in his All Time team.

Good enough for me.

quote:

Originally posted by never say never:
Has NZ EVER had a great batsman?

Stewie Dempster and Martin Donnelly would both have claims, although their careers were even briefer than that of Pollock.

Bert Sutcliffe may have been before he got knocked on the head.

On the thread topic - in the 'among the best of his era' great category, Alec Stewart would have to be among the very best pure openers of his time. Only Gooch and Anwar come to mind as more effective in the 1990s.

I'd say it would be

Gower
Gooch
Stewart
Atherton

in order of departure ( did Stewart go before Athers ??? ).

But really - I would say last great was/must be Gooch though my favs were Gower, Smith and David Steele.

quote:

Only Gooch and Anwar come to mind as more effective in the 1990s.

I'd take Taylor and Slater over Stewart.

quote:

Originally posted by JGK:

quote:

Only Gooch and Anwar come to mind as more effective in the 1990s.

I'd take Taylor and Slater over Stewart.

Could you elaborate a little?

Tubby was probably a better player of spin, but I'd have had him well behind against the fast men.

Stewie was quality as an opener without the gloves - averaged 48+ IIRC, prolly got a decent percentile of his hundreds there too...

Thorpe would've had a 50+ average if he hadn't spent so much of his career batting with the tail.

However, over the last 17 years or so that I've been watching cricket the biggest barrier against greatness for most English batsmen has been the inability to convert hundreds into big double or even triple hundreds. The reason Bradman averaged just shy of 100 was because so many of his big scores were REALLY BIG!

Of the current side only Tres has a double to his name. In fact off the top of my head the only players to pass 200 in the last 15 years are Hussain, Thorpe, Trescothick and Key (on a flat pitch against a rubbish Windies attack).

For a triple you have to go back to 1990 and Gooches effort at Lords. That is very very very poor imho.

He averaged 45.98 in the role, with 26 of his 38 matches in the position coming against Australia, Pakistan, South Africa and the West Indies. Averaged 47.68 v them.

Widely under-rated player.

quote:

Originally posted by JayPatel:
Atherton

Massively overrated player. Test average 38 says it all.