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

[Jimthegreat]

Anyone that thought Hayden is a flat track bully is an idiot of the first order. Could make runs against any attack. Just about our greatest opening batsman and a part of our greatest combination with Langer.

Maybe we'll remove alot of Tendulakar's average because he played on roads in India.

Sometimes one has to lower his IQ temporarily to fit in sometimes.

 

[Spikey]

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.

Trumper? Obviously it's before WW1 so it's hard to judge, but being ranked as our best batsmen before Bradman has gotta be worth something. Might go do some reading......

Am I still doing the Gabba analysis? To sum it up, h he was very consistent there, with really only one bad match there (last one, against NZ). Not much else to add. His record is pretty good at Sydney, the second best behind Melbourne.


btw I don't think Hayden is a flat track bully.

 

[Spikey]

Maybe we'll remove alot of Tendulakar's average because he played on roads in India.

Nah.

Mohammad Yousuf though......

 

[skipper kelly]

Trumper? Obviously it's before WW1 so it's hard to judge, but being ranked as our best batsmen before Bradman has gotta be worth something. Might go do some reading......

Am I still doing the Gabba analysis? To sum it up, h he was very consistent there, with really only one bad match there (last one, against NZ). Not much else to add. His record is pretty good at Sydney, the second best behind Melbourne.

Yeah I didnt know how far to go back but I suppose Trumper has to be in there somewhere.

Interesting when I was looking up Simpson, it took him 52 innings to score his 1st century for Australia. It happened to be 311 and went on to score 9 more.

Its hard to see any opener today being given such leeway. He would be hounded out of the game.

 

[Spikey]

Interesting when I was looking up Simpson, it took him 52 innings to score his 1st century for Australia. It happened to be 311 and went on to score 9 more.

Its hard to see any opener today being given such leeway. He would be hounded out of the game.

And he had already been made captain hadn't he? Maybe only vice-captain. Quite amazing. Obviously they had faith in him....

 

[skipper kelly]

And he had already been made captain hadn't he? Maybe only vice-captain. Quite amazing. Obviously they had faith in him....

Im not sure if he was Captain then. I know he came back when World Series Cricket was on in the 70's and captained Australia.

Steve Waugh is another who went 41 innings before his 1st test hundred. How times have changed.

 

[Spikey]

Im not sure if he was Captain then. I know he came back when World Series Cricket was on in the 70's and captained Australia.

Steve Waugh is another who went 41 innings before his 1st test hundred. How times have changed.

Made two tons as well!

Just checked, he was captain at the time. Also checked his bowling, he took a 5 wicket haul before he scored his first ton...

I've always liked how it took Steve so long to get his first ton, and Mark tonned up in his first innings.

 

[skipper kelly]

Made two tons as well!

Just checked, he was captain at the time. Also checked his bowling, he took a 5 wicket haul before he scored his first ton...

I've always liked how it took Steve so long to get his first ton, and Mark tonned up in his first innings.

Mark had the raw talent but Steve had the guts. Thats how it turned out anyway.

 

[Thommo 42]

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.

You just have to look at the averages of cricketers from both eras. Apart from the remarkable Tendulkar, who averaged 58 in the 90's, only 2 other test batsmen averaged 50 in that decade, Waugh and Lara.

In the 2000's over 30 batsmen averaged 50+ and if you exclude those that played less than 20 tests, still a remarkable 22 batsmen averaged over 50, with 13 of them averaging over 55. As compared to 3 and 1 respectively in the 90's.

Further, if you drill deeper into the numbers and pick out the blokes that played a significant amount of cricket in both the 90's and 00's you will find that most of them averaged 10+ more runs in the 00's than the 90's, with many of them averaging 15+ more. This is the basis of my initial premise, Hayden's statistics are aided by the fact that for a majority of the 90's, he wasn't even good enough to be playing test cricket, yet people want to class a bloke who spent more than half of his career out of the side, as an all-time great?

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.

No you don't. You just need to make allowances for the inflated stats of modern batsmen. I'm not sure you'd find many avid cricket followers accepting that the likes of Jayawardene and Sangakarra are better players than Aravinda De Silva, yet they average a full 10 more than him.

Just I doubt you'd find many that think Chanderpaul is better than Richie Richardson, despite the 10 run difference in averages, or that Hussey is better than Mark Waugh. There are many many more examples of these sort of statistical anomalies.

Had Hussey been hit my a bus after 30 tests, he would have died with a test average of close to 80 and been mistakenly regarded as a great of the game. This is my point, you need to take into account era of cricket. In the first 30 tests of Hussey's career, he averaged 80. Ponting on the same pitches, against the same attacks averaged 92. But he had 10 years of test cricket anchoring his overall numbers, something Hayden also lacked when cashing in during the 00's.

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?

I reckon Langer was a better cricketer in the 90's, batting #3 against the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Donald, De Villiers, Akram, Younis gets him way more credits in the bank with me than opening the batting against whatever pie throwers he faced in tha period.

You have to give age and experience a bit of credit, but the sheer overall disparity of numbers between the 90's and 00's makes it undeniable that the conditions for batsman, both in relation to the pitches and the ability of bowling attacks improved greatly from 2000 onwards, almost overnight.

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.

He wasn't a flat track bully, he was a very good opener, nothing more, nothing less. He cashed in during the easiest period for batting in recent memory, and good on him. But to be considered an all-time great when 90% of your innings were played during the 00's, in my view you probably need to averaged at the very least 55, and most likely 57+

The one thing that elevates him above others around his level, is that he was one of the best players of spin for an opening batsman we've seen. Given the dearth of quality fast bowling, he had to be too, because he faced alot of it.

I maintain that Slater, who averaged 48 in the 90's before he lost his mind, was a much better player. Which is why he was preferred to Hayden all those years ago on that fateful 93 Ashes tour, despite Hayden being the preferred opener when they landed at Heathrow. The 1993-1998 version of Slater would have slaughtered modern attacks in a manner similar to what Sehwag does now. There is no chance Sehwag could do what he does in the current game, circa 1995.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Slater's own overseas record makes for some pretty darn ugly reading Thommo.

 

[DIG]

Yeah i'm finding it hard to see how Slater could be rated ahead of Hayden in any way.

I remember watching him flay attacks early only to throw his wicket away time and time again. Ended up averaging 42 odd. 90s bowling wasn't that much better.

Plus, and this is slightly irrelevant i suppose, but he was never able to transfer his game to the one-day format even though he seemed suited to it, while Hayden dominated one-dayers for years also.

Boon>Slater too.

 

[crownie]

Im not sure if he was Captain then. I know he came back when World Series Cricket was on in the 70's and captained Australia.

Steve Waugh is another who went 41 innings before his 1st test hundred. How times have changed.

The Aussie team was at the lowest of lows when Steve Waugh came in, it was a situation where they choose him to be the one to groom for the future like Michael Clarke was 5 years ago.

The selectors made the right choice although you still get some people bagging it, those same people though are quite happy to throw him in the best aussie team ever.

 

[Thommo 42]

Slater's own overseas record makes for some pretty darn ugly reading Thommo.

NO doubt. I haven't actually looked at his stats, but I'd imagine it's not flash OS, especially as his meltdowns late in his career all ocurred on tour.

I'm merely basing it on watching them both bat. Hayden was completely lost against topline quicks, just looked out of his depth. Slater on the other hand attacked, and had great success many times against the likes of Donald and Ambrose.

Both of them had serious issues with swing bowling, which Tubby didn't have when he was at his zenith. Obviously, we all know now that Tubby had issues with any sort of bowling later on!

I remember watching him flay attacks early only to throw his wicket away time and time again. Ended up averaging 42 odd. 90s bowling wasn't that much better.

Boon>Slater too.

Boon was a #3, didn't open all that much, probably 30% of his career at a guestimate.

90's bowlin was THAT much better, look at the numbers. 3 blokes averaged 50 in the 90's, and 22 averaged 50's in the 00's.

Pitches improved, bats got lighter and bigger, ropes were brought in, and bowling declined. Combine all these factors and bat dominated ball in the 00's.

The world needs more Dale Steyns.

 

[Wallaby]

The Aussie team was at the lowest of lows when Steve Waugh came in, it was a situation where they choose him to be the one to groom for the future like Michael Clarke was 5 years ago.

So what you're saying is he essentially failed when the going was tough, and once the rest of the batting line-up arrived (Taylor, Boon, Jones) he started making scores coming in when it was 4/300.

Anyone can be made out to be a 'flat-track bully' or 'only makes runs when it's easy'. I don't worry about averages, aggregates etc - I look at critical performances that contribute to wins, draws etc. It is better for a batsman to make 150, 0, 0 than 3 straight 50's in my view.

Hayden has his share of critical performances.

 

[skipper kelly]

Funnily enough in the 90's people were saying the wickets were a lot better to bat on and the bowlers were better in the 80's.

Funnily enough in the 80's people were saying the wickets were a lot better to bat on and the bowlers were better in the 70's.

Its a nostalgia thing.

 

[skipper kelly]

The Aussie team was at the lowest of lows when Steve Waugh came in, it was a situation where they choose him to be the one to groom for the future like Michael Clarke was 5 years ago.

The selectors made the right choice although you still get some people bagging it, those same people though are quite happy to throw him in the best aussie team ever.

Im not bagging Steve Waugh. My point is that today and in the early to late 90's players werent given the same opportunity to develop at Test level. Even the great Tendulkar took until his 9th Test to make a century. One wonders if he would be given the same leeway today. I doubt he would if he played for Australia. The media and supporters of today want instant success.

Hayden got dropped after 1 test. He was picked again 3 years later and made his 1st ton against the Windies with Walsh and Bishop bowling. He failed against SA and was dropped. He came back again against the Windies, did OK, dominated India in India then was off and running. Maybe if he was given the leeway that many others had been given then his story might be even better. Dropped twice in 7 tests is hardly confidence from the selectors.

So looking deep into the Hayden story its fair to say that he survived the pressure of being dropped twice, came back the 3rd time under enormous pressure and went on to established himself in the top 5 or 6Australian openers of all time. He did it the hard way.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Im not bagging Steve Waugh. My point is that today and in the early to late 90's players werent given the same opportunity to develop at Test level. Even the great Tendulkar took until his 9th Test to make a century. One wonders if he would be given the same leeway today. I doubt he would if he played for Australia. The media and supporters of today want instant success.

Hayden got dropped after 1 test. He was picked again 3 years later and made his 1st ton against the Windies with Walsh and Bishop bowling. He failed against SA and was dropped. He came back again against the Windies, did OK, dominated India in India then was off and running. Maybe if he was given the leeway that many others had been given then his story might be even better. Dropped twice in 7 tests is hardly confidence from the selectors.

So looking deep into the Hayden story its fair to say that he survived the pressure of being dropped twice, came back the 3rd time under enormous pressure and went on to established himself in the top 5 or 6Australian openers of all time. He did it the hard way.

On debut broken thumb against SA, unfortunate. Then his next tour there after failing in SA, they dropped him for the Ashes because Taylor was being carried.

 

[Belnakor]

Its hard to forget some of Haydos really good innings, such as

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63919.html

The famous Mumbai test, #16 in the steak, Haydos makes 119.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63921.html

The 203 vs India out of 391, almost carries us to Victory

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63964.html

Haydos makes 131 in the 2nd innings after game evenly posed against a world class attack featuring Pollock at his peak, tear away quick Haywood, Kallis, Ntini and Kluenser, when SA were a hairs breath away from No.1

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63965.html

Makes 138 in the next test, same attack.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64002.html

Obviously his famous 119 in 50+ heat in Sharjah

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64009.html

Hundred in both innings against a decent English attack, first test of the Ashes no less.

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/221840.html

underrated 111 by Hayden against the World XI, the first innings won the match for us, and Haydos made the only ton of the match against a world class attack on a pitch doing a bit.


Looking through his tons, its amazing how many he made when Australia were setting a declarlation target and there was no pressure on.

 

[crownie]

NO doubt. I haven't actually looked at his stats, but I'd imagine it's not flash OS, especially as his meltdowns late in his career all ocurred on tour.

I'm merely basing it on watching them both bat. Hayden was completely lost against topline quicks, just looked out of his depth. Slater on the other hand attacked, and had great success many times against the likes of Donald and Ambrose.

Both of them had serious issues with swing bowling, which Tubby didn't have when he was at his zenith. Obviously, we all know now that Tubby had issues with any sort of bowling later on!



Boon was a #3, didn't open all that much, probably 30% of his career at a guestimate.

90's bowlin was THAT much better, look at the numbers. 3 blokes averaged 50 in the 90's, and 22 averaged 50's in the 00's.
Pitches improved, bats got lighter and bigger, ropes were brought in, and bowling declined. Combine all these factors and bat dominated ball in the 00's.

The world needs more Dale Steyns.

no it wasn't, Sri Lanka,New Zelands and Englands bowling attacks are better now and Indians spinners now are better. Its mostly due to the pitches being lifeless and better quality outfields.

 

[crownie]

So what you're saying is he essentially failed when the going was tough, and once the rest of the batting line-up arrived (Taylor, Boon, Jones) he started making scores coming in when it was 4/300.

Anyone can be made out to be a 'flat-track bully' or 'only makes runs when it's easy'. I don't worry about averages, aggregates etc - I look at critical performances that contribute to wins, draws etc. It is better for a batsman to make 150, 0, 0 than 3 straight 50's in my view.

Hayden has his share of critical performances.

no, im trying to point out why selectors gave Waugh a lot of chances at the start to see if he could have a test career.

 

[crownie]

Im not bagging Steve Waugh. My point is that today and in the early to late 90's players werent given the same opportunity to develop at Test level. Even the great Tendulkar took until his 9th Test to make a century. One wonders if he would be given the same leeway today. I doubt he would if he played for Australia. The media and supporters of today want instant success.

im not bagging him, im trying to tell people why selectors stuck with him.

 

[Belnakor]

Steve Waugh was playing as an allrounder anyway, he batted as low as 8.

 

[Thommo 42]

Funnily enough in the 90's people were saying the wickets were a lot better to bat on and the bowlers were better in the 80's.

Funnily enough in the 80's people were saying the wickets were a lot better to bat on and the bowlers were better in the 70's.

Its a nostalgia thing.

no it wasn't, Sri Lanka,New Zelands and Englands bowling attacks are better now and Indians spinners now are better. Its mostly due to the pitches being lifeless and better quality outfields.

Why do people post such rubbish, when the evidence is absolutely crystal clear?

"A time to loot and plunder" http://www.cricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/442008.html

Here are some key points from the article if you don't want to read it all.

A study of the top batting averages for the decade reinforces the point. In the 1990s only four batsmen averaged over 50 (among those who played over 20 Tests) - Sachin Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Brian Lara and Graham Gooch. The 20th batsman on the list, Allan Border, averaged 43 for the decade. Contrastingly, in the last decade, 20 batsmen averaged more than 50 and the 20th man in the rankings, Younis Khan, scored 50.09 per innings.

Not so long ago an average of 50 was regarded as the definition of batting greatness. Only the very finest batsmen the game has known surpassed 50 in Test cricket. Few doubted that the ones who did were the outstanding batsmen of the era, and the only debate concerned their relative merits. Not even wonderful players like Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes made the grade. Indeed, they did not come close. Now batsmen are expected to average 45 and can hope to pass 50

Some really telling quotes...especially in relation to Hayden

Meanwhile the strongest countries have also run out of high-class bowling. Not so long ago opening batsmen faced all sort of formidable opponents. Pakistan fielded Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram, West Indies had a veritable array of experts.... Now the pace attacks are respectable but they lack venom. Opening batsmen have an easier time. Far more front-foot cricket is played.

And yet, how many great batsmen emerged in the noughties? Lara, Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Ricky Ponting, and even Shiv Chanderpaul took guard in the previous decade. Virender Sehwag is the standout, and various other candidates spring to mind as possibilities, including Kumar Sangakkara, Kevin Pietersen and Graeme Smith, but at this stage none has been universally acclaimed by the cognoscenti. Among the Australians, cases can be made for several batsmen, not least Matthew Hayden, but locals are not convinced he faced enough imposing new-ball bowling to prove he was a better batsman even than immediate predecessors such as Mark Taylor and Michael Slater.

Here is another good article, "Why 55 is the new 50" http://www.cricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/441892.html

and the most relevant quote for those that can't be bothered reading it

The biggest indicator of batting dominance in the last decade is the number of batsmen who averaged more than 50 in Tests. There used to be a time when an average of 50 separated the truly great batsmen from the merely good ones, but going by the numbers in the 2000s, the definitions need to change. Among batsmen who played 30 or more innings in the top seven in the 2000s, 21 had an average of over 50. (It would have been 22 had Kevin Pietersen scored a run more - he finished with an average of 49.98.) Given that 116 batsmen qualified under these criteria in the decade, more than 18% of all batsmen averaged on the right side of 50. In the 1990s, only five out of 94 batsmen qualified, a percentage of 5.32. In the 2000s, seven averaged more than 55, which suggests that 55 is perhaps the new 50 in terms of a benchmark for the truly great.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Semantics but..... that doesn't provide any evidence that lifeless pitches didn't contribute.

Oh and a generic "but locals are not convinced he faced enough imposing new-ball bowling to prove he was a better batsman even than immediate predecessors such as Mark Taylor and Michael Slater." is a fairly broad brushed statement without any names to the opinion.

 

[Thommo 42]

I agreed that lifeless pitches contributed, whatever the reason - there is absolutely no question that life as a batsman during the period Hayden played 95% of his international cricket was indeed an armchair ride, and as such, an average of 50 is not good enough to rate him as high as some do. Had he played through the 90's averaging 40, then cashed in with 60 in the 00's to balance out at 50, then I'd rate him higher - but he simply wasn't even up to it in the 90's.

All-time greats get dropped from time to time, and certainly can find themselves out of the test side for short periods, but they simply do not spend 9 years regarded as being outside the best payers in the country during their career.

He is merely a very good batsman, nothing more and nothing less. Had he averaged in the vicinity of 55+, then I believe his apparent standing would have some merit, and he did average close to 58 until he ran into Flintoff, Jones, Steyn etc.

Oh and a generic "but locals are not convinced he faced enough imposing new-ball bowling to prove he was a better batsman even than immediate predecessors such as Mark Taylor and Michael Slater." is a fairly broad brushed statement without any names to the opinion.

It's not my article, take it up with the cricinfo editors. I share that opinion though, and I'm a local. I mix a fair bit with cricketing types, and it's the prevaling view amongst those I socialise with, but most of us are cricket tragics or cricketers.