Matthew Hayden - One of our greats or flat track bully?

[Caesar]

Mark Waugh only averaged 41.81 overall, yet he was considered a great batsman by many. Why is Hayden judged by a different standard?

I don't think he was a worse player than M. Waugh, but for me neither player comes anywhere near an alltime Australian XI.

Mark Waugh also often gets a rep over and above his actual ability because he was such a beautiful batsman. He's a sentimental choice for a lot of people because of that (including myself).

 

[DIG]

He's a home-country-and-in-India bully?

 

[skipper kelly]

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.

49 is his lowest average. Thats impressive.

The GABBA isnt a bad fast bowlers track either.

 

[skipper kelly]

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.

I asked you for the detailed analysis of the 103 pitches he played on. If you cant provide it then it looks like you are making it up. Simple really.

The stats, which are facts, have been provided. The facts behind your argument have not been provided. I can wait..

 

[Spikey]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

49 is his lowest average. Thats impressive.

The GABBA isnt a bad fast bowlers track either.

Yeah but if you take out a score against pretty substandard opposition (scores runs against who he plays blah blah blah) you get a clearly picture of what Hayden was actually like at the WACA. An average of just above 25.

 

[skipper kelly]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

Yeah but if you take out a score against pretty substandard opposition (scores runs against who he plays blah blah blah) you get a clearly picture of what Hayden was actually like at the WACA. An average of just above 25.

Why do runs have to be taken off??

Can low scores be taken off when the pitch is a minefield?

He did what he did.

 

[crownie]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

Yeah but if you take out a score against pretty substandard opposition (scores runs against who he plays blah blah blah) you get a clearly picture of what Hayden was actually like at the WACA. An average of just above 25.

so we going to take away Laras 400 cause the opposition was poor?

 

[Caesar]

I asked you for the detailed analysis of the 103 pitches he played on. If you cant provide it then it looks like you are making it up. Simple really.

The stats, which are facts, have been provided. The facts behind your argument have not been provided. I can wait..

I've provided a breakup domestically, overseas, by country. Post 19 by Thommo has provided further details comparing him to other batsman during the same period. None of that has been addressed or refuted by you, other than "OmGZ look at how many runz he scored!!!!!!!1111".

Come to the table or your 'arguments' will recieve the respect they deserve.

 

[Spikey]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

Why do runs have to be taken off??

Can low scores be taken off when the pitch is a minefield?

He did what he did.

Because if we do it gives us a clearly picture of Hayden at the WACA. If you count the 380, that means Hayden's average is 49 at the WACA. However he actually got to 49 or better only 4 times out of 15 innings. So is that average of 49 at the WACA actually representatively of Matthew Hayden at the WACA? No. 11 times he failed to get to 49. 8 times he failed to pass 20. Only once did he get a century.

The average of 26.4 that he gets when you remove the 380 is much more realistic of Hayden at the WACA

You can if the low-score is a oddity among the other statistics gathered. If a player has 16 innings at a ground, got ten 100's, five 50's and a duck on a mine-field in those innings, you'd be free to discount the duck, as it's a oddity.

so we going to take away Laras 400 cause the opposition was poor?

That team contained 7 players of the 12 that would play for England during the 05 Ashes, including all of the seamers that caused Australia so much trouble.

 

[skipper kelly]

I've provided a breakup domestically, overseas, by country.

Nope. You mentioned pitches but wont support your statements. You mentioned challenging pitches. Please provide the rundown on the 103 pitches or otherwise it looks like a random generalisation plucked out of the sky.

What I understand so far is that runs made after 2000 dont count, runs in Australia and India dont count and runs made against the earlier mentioned bowlers dont count unless of course those runs where small.

It would be easier if you just provided a list of Haydens innings that do count.

 

[skipper kelly]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

Because if we do it gives us a clearly picture of Hayden at the WACA. If you count the 380, that means Hayden's average is 49 at the WACA. However he actually got to 49 or better only 4 times out of 15 innings. So is that average of 49 at the WACA actually representatively of Matthew Hayden at the WACA? No. 11 times he failed to get to 49. 8 times he failed to pass 20. Only once did he get a century.

The average of 26.4 that he gets when you remove the 380 is much more realistic of Hayden at the WACA

You can if the low-score is a oddity among the other statistics gathered. If a player has 16 innings at a ground, got ten 100's, five 50's and a duck on a mine-field in those innings, you'd be free to discount the duck, as it's a oddity.

It still makes no sense to take off a players best score. Why would you do that if you want to get a true reflection of what he did?

That team contained 7 players of the 12 that would play for England during the 05 Ashes, including all of the seamers that caused Australia so much trouble.

Obviously the pitch is not a factor when Lara makes runs. Gotcha.

 

[Caesar]

Nope. You mentioned pitches but wont support your statements. You mentioned challenging pitches. Please provide the rundown on the 103 pitches or otherwise it looks like a random generalisation plucked out of the sky.

What I understand so far is that runs made after 2000 dont count, runs in Australia and India dont count and runs made against the earlier mentioned bowlers dont count unless of course those runs where small.

It would be easier if you just provided a list of Haydens innings that do count.

I think you're conflating my arguments with others, and then making a whole lot of stuff up to boot.

I pointed out that if you rank Australian Test bats by overseas performances, Hayden drops a long way down the list - which is suggestive of how he performs in variable conditions. In particular he struggled in countries that typically have pitches with more life, like England and New Zealand.

Thommo provided some very interesting statistics that indicate the positive effect batting in the 2000s had on averages compared to the 90s. I'm yet to see anybody address his points satisfactorily.

I repeat, nobody is saying any of the runs he scored 'don't count', but analysing some different aspects of his runscoring has provided a lot of compelling reasons why they shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all when comparing him to other batsmen.

 

[Spikey]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

It still makes no sense to take off a players best score. Why would you do that if you want to get a true reflection of what he did?

I would have thought it makes perfect sense, it's a extreme oddity among 14 other innings at the WACA and it's against a team that at the time, wasn't test quality. Why should I count it?

Fun fact: In 14 other innings at the WACA he didn't even make 380 runs combined. That gives me a "true reflection of what he did" much more than that 380 does.

re Lara, I don't know what the pitch was like. So you know, I can't factor it in. However I'm just saying that the English team he was playing against that test wasn't "poor".

 

[skipper kelly]

I think you're conflating my arguments with others, and then making a whole lot of stuff up to boot.

I pointed out that if you rank Australian Test bats by overseas performances, Hayden drops a long way down the list - which is suggestive of how he performs in variable conditions. In particular he struggled in countries that typically have pitches with more life, like England and New Zealand.

Thommo provided some very interesting statistics that indicate the positive effect batting in the 2000s had on averages compared to the 90s. I'm yet to see anybody address his points satisfactorily.

I repeat, nobody is saying any of the runs he scored 'don't count', but analysing some different aspects of his runscoring has provided a lot of compelling reasons why they shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all when comparing him to other batsmen.

I provided a list of Haydens achievements. If they arent good enough then so be it. Im not sure why most other players let their stats tell their story but this doesnt apply to Hayden.

PS. Do Indian pitches count?

 

[skipper kelly]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

I would have thought it makes perfect sense, it's a extreme oddity among 14 other innings at the WACA and it's against a team that at the time, wasn't test quality. Why should I count it?

Fun fact: In 14 other innings at the WACA he didn't even make 380 runs combined. That gives me a "true reflection of what he did" much more than that 380 does.

re Lara, I don't know what the pitch was like. So you know, I can't factor it in. However I'm just saying that the English team he was playing against that test wasn't "poor".

He made the runs. They shouldnt be discounted.

Anyway why does performance at 1 ground override and entire career. Does his rating bump up because he was successful at the Gabba. Does success at the GABBA cancel out the failure at the WACA (bar 380)?

 

[The_Reaper]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

It still makes no sense to take off a players best score. Why would you do that if you want to get a true reflection of what he did?
.

For a proper statistical analysis, outliers should be removed

 

[crownie]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

Because if we do it gives us a clearly picture of Hayden at the WACA. If you count the 380, that means Hayden's average is 49 at the WACA. However he actually got to 49 or better only 4 times out of 15 innings. So is that average of 49 at the WACA actually representatively of Matthew Hayden at the WACA? No. 11 times he failed to get to 49. 8 times he failed to pass 20. Only once did he get a century.

The average of 26.4 that he gets when you remove the 380 is much more realistic of Hayden at the WACA

You can if the low-score is a oddity among the other statistics gathered. If a player has 16 innings at a ground, got ten 100's, five 50's and a duck on a mine-field in those innings, you'd be free to discount the duck, as it's a oddity.



That team contained 7 players of the 12 that would play for England during the 05 Ashes, including all of the seamers that caused Australia so much trouble.

guess they wern't that great without lollies to shine the ball.

 

[crownie]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

For a proper statistical analysis, outliers should be removed

a test match is a test match.

cant pick and choose what games do and dont count because a bowling attack might of got weakened.

players had the chance over time to score cheap runs when Sri Lanka, India and New Zealand started playing.

so we know must remove those stats as well when those countries started?

did anyone else make 300 the game Hayden did?

 

[The_Reaper]

Re: Matthew Hayden - In our best XI or Flat track Bully?

a test match is a test match.

cant pick and choose what games do and dont count because a bowling attack might of got weakened.

players had the chance over time to score cheap runs when Sri Lanka, India and New Zealand started playing.

so we know must remove those stats as well when those countries started?

did anyone else make 300 the game Hayden did?

I am not denying that

However

Spikey is correct in that, to evaluate how Hayden performed at the WACA his 380 should be discounted.

 

[Spikey]

He made the runs. They shouldnt be discounted.

Anyway why does performance at 1 ground override and entire career. Does his rating bump up because he was successful at the Gabba. Does success at the GABBA cancel out the failure at the WACA (bar 380)?

You asked Caesar to 'post an analysis of the 103 pitches that Hayden played his Tests on'. There's pitch one done, the WACA. It's interesting how that one of the main doubts many of us have over Hayden, is to do with facing fast bowlers, and that on the WACA, the wicket known to help fast bowlers the most out of all the pitches in Australia, Hayden was a failure, with one good score against poor opposition masking an other-wise ordinary record.

Im not sure why most other players let their stats tell their story but this doesnt apply to Hayden.

The stats are telling the story? I'm just reading the story instead of looking at it.

In particular he struggled in countries that typically have pitches with more life, like England and New Zealand.

Let's just look at Hayden's record in England.

He played 10 matches there and had 18 innings for 552 runs at 34.59, with 2 not outs in there. He has one 50 and one 100. All of those matches were played in the 2001 Ashes and 2005 Ashes.

That 50 and 100 were both scored at the Oval, a pitch traditional known to be easy to bat on. He scored 68 in 2001 and 138 and 0* in 2005. In both those matches over 1000 runs were scored all up. Of his 552 runs scored in England, 206 were scored at the Oval. In his other 15 innings England, his top score is 42 (at Trent Bridge, 2001) and he has 346 runs with the even more ordinary average of 24.

Interesting enough, on these other, more 'lively' pitches (Hard to say whether these pitches were actually lively or not) Hayden's problem isn't that he got out straight away but rather that he would make his way to 20-30 and then get out. Showing that his batting style wasn't very effective for a long time on English pitches not called 'The Oval'.

 

[skipper kelly]

You asked Caesar to 'post an analysis of the 103 pitches that Hayden played his Tests on'. There's pitch one done, the WACA. It's interesting how that one of the main doubts many of us have over Hayden, is to do with facing fast bowlers, and that on the WACA, the wicket known to help fast bowlers the most out of all the pitches in Australia, Hayden was a failure, with one good score against poor opposition masking an other-wise ordinary record.



The stats are telling the story? I'm just reading the story instead of looking at it.



Let's just look at Hayden's record in England.

He played 10 matches there and had 18 innings for 552 runs at 34.59, with 2 not outs in there. He has one 50 and one 100. All of those matches were played in the 2001 Ashes and 2005 Ashes.

That 50 and 100 were both scored at the Oval, a pitch traditional known to be easy to bat on. He scored 68 in 2001 and 138 and 0* in 2005. In both those matches over 1000 runs were scored all up. Of his 552 runs scored in England, 206 were scored at the Oval. In his other 15 innings England, his top score is 42 (at Trent Bridge, 2001) and has 346 runs with the even more ordinary average of 24.

Interesting enough, on these other, more 'lively' pitches (Hard to say whether these pitches were actually lively or not) Hayden's problem isn't that he got out straight away but rather that he would make his way to 20-30 and then get out. Showing that his batting style wasn't very effective for a long time on English pitches not called 'The Oval'.

Why dont you do the analysis for India and the GABBA. A fair comparison dont you think?

See it all evens out and produces an overall average of just above 50 after 103 tests. If he suceeded everywhere then he would be Bradman.

No other batsman has suceeded everywhere.

 

[skipper kelly]

The stats are telling the story? I'm just reading the story instead of looking at it.

Thats a load of codswallop. You are only looking for failures so you are only reading chapters and not the whole story.

 

[Spikey]

Why dont you do the analysis for India and the GABBA.

Because I'm in full agreement with you that he was good, great in fact, in India. Possibly due to the slower, more spin friendly nature of the pitches. It's quite interesting that for a opener, he was a very good player of spin.

I'll do the Gabba, I think that will be interesting. Be 5-10 minutes as I look at the scorecards

Thats a load of codswallop. You are only looking for failures so you are only reading chapters and not the whole story.

Yep.


And for a possible 'great', he has a lot of chapters....

 

[skipper kelly]

Because I'm in full agreement with you that he was good, great in fact, in India. Possibly due to the slower, more spin friendly nature of the pitches. It's quite interesting that for a opener, he was a very good player of spin.

I'll do the Gabba, I think that will be interesting. Be 5-10 minutes as I look at the scorecards



Yep.


And for a possible great, he has a lot of chapters....

His record at the GABBA is great. Surely everyone would agree this is a seamers pitch early on.

Sydney. I havent looked up his stats but Sydney is famous for early movement Day 1.

Melbourne. Boxing Day Test. Regardless of the pitch could there be a more pressure packed time to walk out and open for Australia.

Adelaide. Day 2 and 3 are usually better than Day 1.

There is nothing easy about opening the batting for Australia in Australia regardless of what hindsight says.

To get this back to the main issue, Hayden belongs in any discussion about 'best of' in Australian cricket. Ponsford, Morris, Simpson, Taylor and Hayden are the choices IMO. Possibly Lawry. They would be very close to the 6 openers for the 3 XI's.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

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.

on the contrary - for the best part of the last decade - the waca certainly hasn't been the same juicy waca of the 90's and earlier.

it's been getting lower and slower - and has been for a decade

it's only just starting to get it's pace back - so i would look elsewhere for an argument

the pitch that offers most to bowlers, especially quicks is the gabba or perhaps the MCG late in the test.