Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
That's quite a generalisation.
That's quite a generalisation.
Matthew Hayden - One of our greats or flat track bully?
- Thread starter Minotaur
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Radical Roo
Club Legend
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Now when talking about Hayden i simply refer to 93 vs SA, 96 vs WI, 05 vs Eng and 08 vs Eng. In 93 he faced someone called Donald, came off second best, in 96 he was K.O by Ambrose. In 2005 he was found out by Flintoff and the English in general and in 2008 he was so out of form by then that anyone could get him out. He dominated the 2001 to 2004 period where there was no major attacking bowlers. Flat track bully.
Now when talking about Hayden i simply refer to 93 vs SA, 96 vs WI, 05 vs Eng and 08 vs Eng. In 93 he faced someone called Donald, came off second best, in 96 he was K.O by Ambrose. In 2005 he was found out by Flintoff and the English in general and in 2008 he was so out of form by then that anyone could get him out. He dominated the 2001 to 2004 period where there was no major attacking bowlers. Flat track bully.
- Jan 12, 2008
- 8,125
- 8,301
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Fiorentina, Aus. Cricket
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Some quality sweeping generalisations here.
In 1993 he wasn't playing Test cricket.
In 1996/97 he was generally quite poor, but he did score a century against a good WI attack and managed 44 on a really dire Perth pitch.
The problem with using the 1990's to criticise Hayden is that it doesn't consider how his technique could've improved over time. Critics of Hayden tend to go by the assumption that he never changed his technique to adapt to Test cricket, which is obviously false given how hard he worked against spin. He used to play around his front pad far too much, but this tendency was less apparent in later years. His footwork could be a bit leaden, particularly when out of form, but much of the time, his only real technical weakness was against the inswinger pitched on a good length.
But now, let's consider the 2000's:
You stated that there were no real attacking bowlers from the period 2001 to 2004. That's false, even though there were better bowlers in the 1990's.
In 2001, he had to face Pollock, who was still in his prime, plus Ntini, Kallis and Hayward who were all at least promising. He did very well.
In 2002, he had to face Shoaib and Saqlain, both of whom were viable Test bowlers. The English attack he had to face was fairly poor, although it did have Caddick and a condition-reliant Hoggard.
Over the years, he faced Ntini, Kumble, Harbhajan, etc. and made plenty of runs in some hostile conditions, although not as often as some would like. It's extremely harsh to call him an FTB and he is comfortably better than Slater (who saved his best for middling English sides) or Taylor.
In 2005, he came into the series woefully out of form to begin with and did manage a century at the very end, when Flintoff was at his peak (although Simon Jones was missing).
Some quality sweeping generalisations here.
In 1993 he wasn't playing Test cricket.
In 1996/97 he was generally quite poor, but he did score a century against a good WI attack and managed 44 on a really dire Perth pitch.
The problem with using the 1990's to criticise Hayden is that it doesn't consider how his technique could've improved over time. Critics of Hayden tend to go by the assumption that he never changed his technique to adapt to Test cricket, which is obviously false given how hard he worked against spin. He used to play around his front pad far too much, but this tendency was less apparent in later years. His footwork could be a bit leaden, particularly when out of form, but much of the time, his only real technical weakness was against the inswinger pitched on a good length.
But now, let's consider the 2000's:
You stated that there were no real attacking bowlers from the period 2001 to 2004. That's false, even though there were better bowlers in the 1990's.
In 2001, he had to face Pollock, who was still in his prime, plus Ntini, Kallis and Hayward who were all at least promising. He did very well.
In 2002, he had to face Shoaib and Saqlain, both of whom were viable Test bowlers. The English attack he had to face was fairly poor, although it did have Caddick and a condition-reliant Hoggard.
Over the years, he faced Ntini, Kumble, Harbhajan, etc. and made plenty of runs in some hostile conditions, although not as often as some would like. It's extremely harsh to call him an FTB and he is comfortably better than Slater (who saved his best for middling English sides) or Taylor.
In 2005, he came into the series woefully out of form to begin with and did manage a century at the very end, when Flintoff was at his peak (although Simon Jones was missing).
Dixie Flatline
Moderator
- Jun 3, 2005
- 37,137
- 38,143
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cartagena C.F., NYJ, A's
- Moderator
- #54
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
To work out how good Haydos was, just ask Justin Langer. No, wait, he'll tell you every opportunity he gets.
To work out how good Haydos was, just ask Justin Langer. No, wait, he'll tell you every opportunity he gets.
The whole notion of a batsman being a flat track bully is CRAP!
He scored runs regularly against differing oppositions on differing wickets.
The fact that he "may have" scored more heavily on flat tracks shows he did his job. Other guys had to bat on those same "flat tracks" too.
The Bully part comes about as he was big chested and aggressive....so what!
Very, very good batsman and close to one of our greats.
He scored runs regularly against differing oppositions on differing wickets.
The fact that he "may have" scored more heavily on flat tracks shows he did his job. Other guys had to bat on those same "flat tracks" too.
The Bully part comes about as he was big chested and aggressive....so what!
Very, very good batsman and close to one of our greats.
That's simply not true. Look up his stats in different countries.
He did very well at home and in India. He did relatively well in a handful of matches played in the Windies and Sri Lanka. Everywhere else he was pretty dire.
A good Test batsman, but his away average of 41 is probably more indicative of his ability than his raw stats.
Radical Roo
Club Legend
Hayden really made his name in 2001 when the great bowlers of the 90s were either gone or nearing the end of their careers. Come 2005, he was horribly out of form against of the better attacks of the new century. Come 2008 he happens to be out of form again against a very good attack.
- Jan 12, 2008
- 8,125
- 8,301
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Fiorentina, Aus. Cricket
His average in SA is lower because of his 90's travails, when he was nowhere near the batsman that he would become later.
His average in NZ is low because he was woefully out of form when he toured in 2005.
He also played very well in Sharjah in 50 degree heat.
The only one which cannot entirely be explained away is his form in ENG, which is probably down to his technical faults against inswingers + poor form.
The problem with attacking him based on his 90's output is that it simply doesn't consider that he could've improved on his game later. Many critics of Hayden tend to go on the assumption that there were few, if any improvements to his game in the 2000's and dismiss his prodigious run-scoring based on that alone. Remember that self-improvement is important in cricket.
Although there were no bowlers of Donald's calibre and there were flatter decks, there were still some very good bowlers around. He also did very well on green Gabba pitches in the past. So some of his poor 90's output could be attributed to confidence or injury along with his technical flaws, which he did fix to an extent later. If nothing else, he was a hard worker.
Would he have been as prolific if he was ten years older? No, he wouldn't be. But the average of bowlers simply hasn't gone up enough (34+ vs around 32.5) to explain away his run-scoring in the 2000's.
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Isn't that what a flat track bully is, batting when the conditions suit best?
Isn't that what a flat track bully is, batting when the conditions suit best?
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Depends how you define it. However nobody's suggesting he's a rubbish batsman who only performs under good conditions. They're saying he's a decent Test bat with overinflated statistics because he plundered a lot of runs in great conditions, and was found wanting on tough pitches and/or against good bowling attacks.
Nobody's saying he was nothing more than a flat track bully - just that if you take that aspect of his game away, he was nothing more than a good Test opener. You know, like Boon or Taylor. Not the second coming of Christ.
Depends how you define it. However nobody's suggesting he's a rubbish batsman who only performs under good conditions. They're saying he's a decent Test bat with overinflated statistics because he plundered a lot of runs in great conditions, and was found wanting on tough pitches and/or against good bowling attacks.
Nobody's saying he was nothing more than a flat track bully - just that if you take that aspect of his game away, he was nothing more than a good Test opener. You know, like Boon or Taylor. Not the second coming of Christ.
- Jan 12, 2008
- 8,125
- 8,301
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Fiorentina, Aus. Cricket
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Well, Radical Roo called him an FTB, which I thought was unjustified.
Your statement about him being inadequate against good bowling attacks and tough pitches is true some of the time due to form, confidence and technical factors, but not all of the time.
But don't me wrong, I'm not suggesting that he was another Jack Hobbs or anything. He had a couple of obvious faults. I just feel that, despite the easier scoring conditions in the 2000's, he was superior to your Taylor's or Slater's. Slater's because he was less than outstanding overseas and saved his best for reasonable to mediocre English attacks and Taylor because he had to rely on sheer will and tactical nous to keep his average above 40 after a brilliant start.
Boon is much closer to Hayden, but then again Boon was also superior to Taylor and Slater. It's a matter of preference: whether you want a doughty fighter or a relative swashbuckler.
Well, Radical Roo called him an FTB, which I thought was unjustified.
Your statement about him being inadequate against good bowling attacks and tough pitches is true some of the time due to form, confidence and technical factors, but not all of the time.
But don't me wrong, I'm not suggesting that he was another Jack Hobbs or anything. He had a couple of obvious faults. I just feel that, despite the easier scoring conditions in the 2000's, he was superior to your Taylor's or Slater's. Slater's because he was less than outstanding overseas and saved his best for reasonable to mediocre English attacks and Taylor because he had to rely on sheer will and tactical nous to keep his average above 40 after a brilliant start.
Boon is much closer to Hayden, but then again Boon was also superior to Taylor and Slater. It's a matter of preference: whether you want a doughty fighter or a relative swashbuckler.
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
You make that sound like a bad thing.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
- Sep 9, 2003
- 27,578
- 28,760
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- FGR
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
i thought you were joking muzza lol
i thought you were joking muzza lol
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Hayden is definitely a great, in all forms of the game. What is continuely disputed is that he is a flat track bully, which can clearly be made a case against any batsman of the modern era in an effort to justify previous player's worth. The reality is he scored a huge amount of runs in a relatively short period of time and set a standard for all opening batsman to live by.
Hayden is definitely a great, in all forms of the game. What is continuely disputed is that he is a flat track bully, which can clearly be made a case against any batsman of the modern era in an effort to justify previous player's worth. The reality is he scored a huge amount of runs in a relatively short period of time and set a standard for all opening batsman to live by.
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Agreed.
You can't argue with his statistics, simple as that.
Basically, discounting Hayden as a great means you're discounting anybody whose performed at their peak during the 2000-2010.
DaRick makes a lot of good points - it seems the line of thought in here is that Hayden of the 90s was exactly the same as Hayden of the 00s; he didn't improve his game or his mental application, it was just the bowlers weren't as good. Do we throw the same logic at Langer and Clarke then? They were dropped because they weren't up to it, and only reclaimed their spots because the quality of bowling dropped off, not because they improved as players?
Agreed.
You can't argue with his statistics, simple as that.
Basically, discounting Hayden as a great means you're discounting anybody whose performed at their peak during the 2000-2010.
DaRick makes a lot of good points - it seems the line of thought in here is that Hayden of the 90s was exactly the same as Hayden of the 00s; he didn't improve his game or his mental application, it was just the bowlers weren't as good. Do we throw the same logic at Langer and Clarke then? They were dropped because they weren't up to it, and only reclaimed their spots because the quality of bowling dropped off, not because they improved as players?
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
Post #19 is an excellent analysis that hasn't really been satisfactorily addressed by any of the fanboys in this thread. If someone would like to do that - with real statistical arguments, rather than just "whoo he scored so many runz" - I might take the cheerleading a bit more seriously.
Well that's a nice opinion, but it's kind of ignoring my point. Which is that when you put Hayden on challenging pitches, his performances are no better than other good Test openers of the last couple of decades. A fact that is borne out by his record away from home, and how that matches up against other players' overseas averages. Personally, my opinion is that if you put Boon and Taylor on '00s pitches they would have probably padded their averages in a similar way.
Post #19 is an excellent analysis that hasn't really been satisfactorily addressed by any of the fanboys in this thread. If someone would like to do that - with real statistical arguments, rather than just "whoo he scored so many runz" - I might take the cheerleading a bit more seriously.
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,486
- 27,236
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Javagal Srinath, not Sree Sreesanth
Even if Srinath's averages don't look amazing, he was clearly India's best fast bowler after Kapil Dev retired.As for Hayden, he can only compete against the opposition he is given, on the wickets he is given, so his runs are as valid as any other batsman's are IMO. There's too many variables when comparing eras (one of which is over-romanticism of the past), which make it hard to effectively compare. If Hayden had only played 10-15 tests, then "flat track bully" accusations would be perfectly valid (after 50 tests, Hayden's average was 58, so he dropped off slightly in the 2nd half of his career), but he player 103 Tests, averaged over 50 with 30 centuries (more centuries than 50s as well, so he usually converted a start into a big score), so he did it for a long time, and deserves to be considered one of the great openers IMO.
Nothing wrong with being a flat-track bully. Nothing wrong with capitalizing when conditions are in your favor. Otherwise we'd have to throw out all those wickets Warne got on the 5th day of the test - 'Yes, but he's supposed to get wickets once the pitch gets old'.
Surely if Hayden is as good as Player X in general or tough conditions, but better under 'flat track' conditions, then he's better overall. I think Hayden's record looks so good for those reasons - he matches up well against anybody in adverse conditions, but made hay when conditions were right - and isn't that one of the things you want in a test batsman?
Surely if Hayden is as good as Player X in general or tough conditions, but better under 'flat track' conditions, then he's better overall. I think Hayden's record looks so good for those reasons - he matches up well against anybody in adverse conditions, but made hay when conditions were right - and isn't that one of the things you want in a test batsman?
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
So runs dont count now???? Geez cricket has certainly changed.
Didnt someone post that Hayden has a great record in India but you chose to ignore this?
103 Tests is enough to get an idea of a players ability.
Can you post an analysis of the 103 pitches that Hayden played his Tests on?
So runs dont count now???? Geez cricket has certainly changed.
Didnt someone post that Hayden has a great record in India but you chose to ignore this?
103 Tests is enough to get an idea of a players ability.
Can you post an analysis of the 103 pitches that Hayden played his Tests on?
Did I say that? No. I said that you need to look deeper than "wow he scores runz!!!!!1111" when trying to work out if he's a great.
I didn't ignore it. But even when you take into account his great record in India, he still averages 41 overseas. Which is indicative of a pretty poor record in a lot of other countries - like England, South Africa and NZ to name just three.
The unwillingness of the Hayden fanboys to actually provide some detailed, supported critical analysis of the facts and stats in this thread is astounding.
That's basically what I think. But run-plundering in 'easy' conditions does highlight that you need to look deeper than his raw average when it comes to whether he's a great.
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
I'll start off with this. Matthew Hayden's average at the WACA is the lowest average he has on Australian grounds (that he's played more than 5 tests at), at 49.
And once you take out that 380 against Zimbabwe the average drops down to below 30. Isn't that interesting? The Australian pitch that helps fast bowlers the most is the pitch he's worse at.
I'll start off with this. Matthew Hayden's average at the WACA is the lowest average he has on Australian grounds (that he's played more than 5 tests at), at 49.
And once you take out that 380 against Zimbabwe the average drops down to below 30. Isn't that interesting? The Australian pitch that helps fast bowlers the most is the pitch he's worse at.
Cousin Jed
Retired President of BigFooty
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
You could argue it is the Gabba, where he averages a measly 60.
You could argue it is the Gabba, where he averages a measly 60.
Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?
I suppose that match against England in the 02-03 where England lost Simon Jones early on plays a big part in getting that average up to 60. Got about 300 runs that match. But I would say it's still the WACA, Hayden hasn't got a ton on the WACA if you exclude the 380.
I suppose that match against England in the 02-03 where England lost Simon Jones early on plays a big part in getting that average up to 60. Got about 300 runs that match. But I would say it's still the WACA, Hayden hasn't got a ton on the WACA if you exclude the 380.
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,486
- 27,236
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Mark Waugh only averaged 41.81 overall, yet he was considered a great batsman by many. Why is Hayden judged by a different standard?
