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

[DIG]

Quoting the usual Aussie bashing cricinfo opinion pieces does nothing to support your argument.

Fast bowling was stronger in the 90s I agree, but I don't think it was so much stronger to purely explain those increased batting stats, when you consider there's been far more focus on creating pitches that will last 5 days in recent years.

Or maybe just better batsmen...

Spin bowling was also at it's strongest ever in the early '00s IMO.

 

[Plugger35]

Spin bowling was also at it's strongest ever in the early '00s IMO.

Mainly due to Warne and Murali. Of course the Australian batsmen never had to face Warne in test matches, would have been interesting to see how some of them coped with him. Murali troubled them on the few occasions he bowled to them but he didn't really play against Australia all that often in tests, I think he refused to tour here a couple of times.

The Australian batsmen also struggled against Harbhajan and Vettori but again didn't really play them all that often in tests. The two teams that Australia have probably played most recently, England and South Africa, have never really produced decent enough spinners to trouble them.

 

[crownie]

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.





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



[/B]

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

you can take your stats and articles and shove them up your a$$.

i remember cricket in the 90's from 93 onwards so thats my proof.

you said the 90's was so much better then now in terms of bowling, thats wrong and NZ, Sri lanka and India having better bowling attacks now then back then proves how incorrect you are.

to say that suddenly bowling went down hill cause the clock struck over 2000 is evident of someone who hasnt watched cricket in both decades. The inflated runs is due to the era being batting friendly due to ground conditions and the revolution of batting thanks to more one dayers being played and now with 20/20 coming along batsman will be hitting the ball better and more sweetly then ever, what more can the bowlers do? most consistenly bowl around 140, thats not slow and its consistenly quicker then what bowlers were bowlig in the 90's but if you have dead and slow pitches it doesnt matter where they bowl it or how good they are.

 

[Thommo 42]

you can take your stats and articles and shove them up your a$$.

i remember cricket in the 90's from 93 onwards so thats my proof.

you said the 90's was so much better then now in terms of bowling, thats wrong and NZ, Sri lanka and India having better bowling attacks now then back then proves how incorrect you are.

to say that suddenly bowling went down hill cause the clock struck over 2000 is evident of someone who hasnt watched cricket in both decades. The inflated runs is due to the era being batting friendly due to ground conditions and the revolution of batting thanks to more one dayers being played and now with 20/20 coming along batsman will be hitting the ball better and more sweetly then ever, what more can the bowlers do? most consistenly bowl around 140, thats not slow and its consistenly quicker then what bowlers were bowlig in the 90's but if you have dead and slow pitches it doesnt matter where they bowl it or how good they are.

So what you're saying is, that batting is easier now (and in the 00's) than it was in the 90's?

Thanks for agreeing with me, and I've watched plenty of cricket in both decades. I was living in England on the 93 Tour and was at the ground the day Slats debuted instead of Hayden after Hayden arrived in England as the preferred opener, but failed in the ODI's (back when that counted for test selection) and he also failed in the tour matches prior to the first test, against a few of the English test players.

Hayde of course then plundered over 1000 runs for the tour against the County attacks while our Test side smashed them in the Ashes.

PS: I don't know how Sri Lanka and India have better attacks now than what they had in the 90's? NZ would if you include Bond, but he's played less than 20 tests.

 

[Thommo 42]

Quoting the usual Aussie bashing cricinfo opinion pieces does nothing to support your argument.

Fast bowling was stronger in the 90s I agree, but I don't think it was so much stronger to purely explain those increased batting stats, when you consider there's been far more focus on creating pitches that will last 5 days in recent years.

Or maybe just better batsmen...

Spin bowling was also at it's strongest ever in the early '00s IMO.

Spin bowling has been stronger, yes - which is why it was even easier for opening batsmen!

The rest of your post also agrees that batting was easier in the 90's. We can argue the semantics of why, but there is no doubt that it was easier!

I think it's a combination of poor bowling, improved pitches and improved bats. I'd weight it about 50% bad bowling, 35% better pitches and 15% improved bats, but at the end of the day - blokes averaging 50 in test cricket are now dime a dozen, they used to be the very elite of the game.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Spin bowling has been stronger, yes - which is why it was even easier for opening batsmen!

The rest of your post also agrees that batting was easier in the 90's. We can argue the semantics of why, but there is no doubt that it was easier!

I think it's a combination of poor bowling, improved pitches and improved bats. I'd weight it about 50% bad bowling, 35% better pitches and 15% improved bats, but at the end of the day - blokes averaging 50 in test cricket are now dime a dozen, they used to be the very elite of the game.

This is a load of crap. Hayden had limited opportunity and there is nothing to say he couldn't have made a significant amount of runs in the 90's had he been given the same opportunity as getting back into the side. He didn't set the world a light immediately on his third selection and it was about getting games under his belt as Border said, giving him a run and it would pay dividends.I would say that bowling is no better or worse than now or in the 90's, what's changed is the way the game is approached by the top three which is a largely a result of Australia's most successful opening combination.

 

[DIG]

Mainly due to Warne and Murali. Of course the Australian batsmen never had to face Warne in test matches, would have been interesting to see how some of them coped with him. Murali troubled them on the few occasions he bowled to them but he didn't really play against Australia all that often in tests, I think he refused to tour here a couple of times.

The Australian batsmen also struggled against Harbhajan and Vettori but again didn't really play them all that often in tests. The two teams that Australia have probably played most recently, England and South Africa, have never really produced decent enough spinners to trouble them.

True - although Murali troubled everyone.

Also Vettori and Harbhajan have actually played Australia HEAPS in tests. We seem to have struggled more against Vettori than other countries but have one of the best records against Harbhajan.

Hayden scored a century vs Murali in Sri Lanka when he took 11-for and has a great record vs Harbhajan and Kumble.

 

[DIG]

Spin bowling has been stronger, yes - which is why it was even easier for opening batsmen!

The rest of your post also agrees that batting was easier in the 90's. We can argue the semantics of why, but there is no doubt that it was easier!

I think it's a combination of poor bowling, improved pitches and improved bats. I'd weight it about 50% bad bowling, 35% better pitches and 15% improved bats, but at the end of the day - blokes averaging 50 in test cricket are now dime a dozen, they used to be the very elite of the game.

Do you mean improved bats or batsmen?

If the former then it's ridiculous to attribute no weighting on the improved batting seen in the 2000s. Batsmen are far more aggressive these days. Openers for years would play survival mode, meekly seeing off the new ball - lately likes of Sehwag and Hayden dominated attacks.

Slater was aggressive also but always looked like going out at any minute and usually did, whereas Hayden at his best would utterly demoralise and demolish opening attacks, plus go on to make big 100s.

In one-dayers 200 used to be a good target, now 300 is chaseable, and this has transferred to superior strike rates in tests. More runs are scored these days, so yes a 50 average is not as considered as magnificent as it once was. But that shouldn't take anything away from the batsmen who still achieve it!

Some facts.
- No-one has averaged 56+ since Graeme Pollock.
- Hayden's 50.7 average is the best by an Australian opener ever.

Ok, pitches are easier these days etc etc but it's irrefutable that he is in the mix when considering the greatest openers we've ever had - he actually would just miss on our best all-time XI for mine but his record and achievements are up there with the best.

 

[Wallaby]

Do not under-estimate the impact of Bat technology. I read Ian Davis's book - he now works for one of the bat-makers. Bats are far better and more powerful today - and it really started late 90's.

Fogetting cow-shots in 20/20, the impact of the bats in test cricket is far subtler.

1. Much bigger sweet spot - easier to time the shot.
2. More powerful - a push through the infield becomes 2 or 3 runs instead of a single. 3s now reach the boundary. Check the percentages of runs made in boundaries now, compared with the eighties.
3. Mis-hits and edges go further and faster - more cheap runs.

 

[skipper kelly]

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

Sorry, wrong.

In the 90's people were saying the bowlers were better in the 80's. Likewise people in the 80's were saying bowlers were better in the 70's. Relive this in 10 years and people will say the same about the 10's and 00's.

Remove Haydens record from the 90's plus his last 2 series where all the experts said he was gone then we arrive at a batting average of 55.13 from 91 Tests with 29 Hundreds. Stacks up quite well considering there is only 12 Tests of his career not included. But I suppose selective editing is only allowed to prove he was average.

 

[skipper kelly]

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

Im agreeing with you crownie.

 

[skipper kelly]

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.

Why overstate things?

First picked on 4/3/94
Picked again on 31/3/00

6 tests in between.

Thats 6 years and 27 days when I went to school.

Quite simply Hayden is in the top 6 opening batsmen for Australia in the history of the game. Some have him top 3. Great? Good? Whatever?

 

[Damon_3388]

Do not under-estimate the impact of Bat technology. I read Ian Davis's book - he now works for one of the bat-makers. Bats are far better and more powerful today - and it really started late 90's.

Fogetting cow-shots in 20/20, the impact of the bats in test cricket is far subtler.

1. Much bigger sweet spot - easier to time the shot.
2. More powerful - a push through the infield becomes 2 or 3 runs instead of a single. 3s now reach the boundary. Check the percentages of runs made in boundaries now, compared with the eighties.
3. Mis-hits and edges go further and faster - more cheap runs.

Kind of goes hand-in-hand with points 1 and 2, but more batsman use really heavy bats nowdays as well. Some of the bats that are wielded these days look like the user is carrying half a tree out into the middle.

As well as that, would the (now regular) use of ropes on the boundary have any impact on the amount of runs being scored? What I mean is, do the ropes make the boundaries shorter and therefore easier to hit? I remember when I first began watching cricket as a kid in the mid-90s, the fence was still considered the boundary most of the time.

 

[Wallaby]

Hayden should have played in England '93. He was picked in the squad as the second opener to Taylor - no doubt he was it, with Slater being the 'Young Kid getting experience'.

Unfortunately, the two county games before the first test, Hayden sort-of failed, and Slater got runs. Slater was picked for the first test - made 50, kept in for the 2nd test and made 150. That was it.

There's a brilliant photo in one of the tour books. Hayden's parents made plans to come over to watch the tests - preferrably Lords. The photo shows them sitting in the stands with their son, and the angle of the photo shows the scoreboard - 0/210, Slater (No 2) 120. They're all sitting back with a look on their face that says 'Bugger'.

The in 96-97 they picked Elliott ahead of him (Hayden's test deput in SA was just an injury fill-in). People forget that when Elliott did his knee, he was 78*. So Hayden got in again as an injury fill-in.

He kept at it - had a lot of knock-backs from the selectors.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Do not under-estimate the impact of Bat technology. I read Ian Davis's book - he now works for one of the bat-makers. Bats are far better and more powerful today - and it really started late 90's.

Fogetting cow-shots in 20/20, the impact of the bats in test cricket is far subtler.

1. Much bigger sweet spot - easier to time the shot.

Attributing a players success to better bats is ridiculous. The top players always got the best range of bats. If you are going to argue that the bat's mean the ball goes further then obviously it means a short push is sometimes caught rather than falling just short.

2. More powerful - a push through the infield becomes 2 or 3 runs instead of a single. 3s now reach the boundary. Check the percentages of runs made in boundaries now, compared with the eighties.

Check the amount balls left in comparison to ones now hit.

3. Mis-hits and edges go further and faster - more cheap runs.

As previously stated, mis-hits and edges go further, meaning that being dismissed is still just as relevant as ever before. Going faster is only because every bowler these days bowls 140+ in comparison to the 80's & 90's when only a handful of players bowled over 140 at the top level.

As with everything, you forgetting that all facets of the game have improved, ie player fitness and physique, fielding, batting and bowling, quality of surfaces, training and coaching methods and so on. To neglect these improvements meaning a player is more likely to chase a ball down inside the rope or get a hand on it or a fast bowler like McGrath is more likely to take a screamer on the edge of the boundary, is to marginalise the efforts all players that have played the game.

 

[Belnakor]

As well as that, would the (now regular) use of ropes on the boundary have any impact on the amount of runs being scored? What I mean is, do the ropes make the boundaries shorter and therefore easier to hit? I remember when I first began watching cricket as a kid in the mid-90s, the fence was still considered the boundary most of the time.

Ropes definately do make boundaries easier to hit, and i'm pretty sure there was an article on Cricinfo about how they had worked out how it was making a difference as well.

The other thing is higher quality outfields, which means the balls reach the boundary along the ground much easier.

 

[Belnakor]

Mainly due to Warne and Murali. Of course the Australian batsmen never had to face Warne in test matches, would have been interesting to see how some of them coped with him. Murali troubled them on the few occasions he bowled to them but he didn't really play against Australia all that often in tests, I think he refused to tour here a couple of times.

Murali's stats against Australia are terrible. We play Murali better than anyone, i mean he averages 75 in Australia and while he did opt out on a couple of tours, he came over in his prime in 07 and got carted.

 

[Thommo 42]

.I would say that bowling is no better or worse than now or in the 90's, what's changed is the way the game is approached by the top three which is a largely a result of Australia's most successful opening combination.

Batting was easier, whether it was pitches, bowlers, or whatever - scores have gone through the roof, and so have averages. The numbers are clear as day in the article, there hasn't been a decade as good for batting since the 1940's. (where the numbers were probably skewed by a certain D.Bradman)

have a look again http://www.cricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/441892.html

Do you mean improved bats or batsmen?

If the former then it's ridiculous to attribute no weighting on the improved batting seen in the 2000s. Batsmen are far more aggressive these days. Openers for years would play survival mode, meekly seeing off the new ball - lately likes of Sehwag and Hayden dominated attacks.

because they have faced meek bowling on flat wickets with massive bats that weigh only 2 pounds. Didn't see too much domination of the likes of McGrath, except maybe from Lara.

More runs are scored these days, so yes a 50 average is not as considered as magnificent as it once was. But that shouldn't take anything away from the batsmen who still achieve it!

Why shouldn't it. What was once rare, now is not.

Some facts.
- No-one has averaged 56+ since Graeme Pollock.

So what? He only played 20 odd tets anyway. He averaged less in first class cricket.

- Hayden's 50.7 average is the best by an Australian opener ever.

Yep, which distorts the esteem which he is held in.

Ok, pitches are easier these days etc etc but it's irrefutable that he is in the mix when considering the greatest openers we've ever had - he actually would just miss on our best all-time XI for mine but his record and achievements are up there with the best.

I might squeeze him into the best 5 openers we've had if I gave him the benefit of a few doubts, but I wouldn't have him under consideration for the XI. I've given clear justification why. You'd probably need to be irrefutably the best opener during your career for a start, he was not.

Why overstate things?

First picked on 4/3/94
Picked again on 31/3/00

6 tests in between.

Thats 6 years and 27 days when I went to school.

He toured in 1993 and went as the 2nd opener. He didn't secure his spot on a permanent basis until 2001. That is 9 years, but I'll give you 8.5 cause it was mid 2001.

[quoteQuite simply Hayden is in the top 6 opening batsmen for Australia in the history of the game. Some have him top 3. Great? Good? Whatever?[/quote]

Yep, Top 6 over, thats probably fair. alot of people would read his average and put him straight in our best ever XI, this is what I'm trying to push against, as it's just not that simple. esus, we'd end up with Hussey in there using that formula, and he's not in our best 50 batsmen ever!

Kind of goes hand-in-hand with points 1 and 2, but more batsman use really heavy bats nowdays as well. Some of the bats that are wielded these days look like the user is carrying half a tree out into the middle.

Correction, they use huge bats, that are no longer heavy. This is the key improvement in bat technology. As recently as the 90's a batsman had to balance his choice between size, power and weight and find something that works for them. These days you can get a massive powerful bat that doesn't compromise on weight, every time I go to a sports store I pick up one of these massive trees and can't believe how easy the basic pickup is.

As well as that, would the (now regular) use of ropes on the boundary have any impact on the amount of runs being scored? What I mean is, do the ropes make the boundaries shorter and therefore easier to hit? I remember when I first began watching cricket as a kid in the mid-90s, the fence was still considered the boundary most of the time.

Yes, but I don't think this has made much difference to test averages, maybe a decimal point here and there.

 

[Thommo 42]

Hayden should have played in England '93. He was picked in the squad as the second opener to Taylor - no doubt he was it, with Slater being the 'Young Kid getting experience'.

Completely agree, he went over there with a spot in the first test his to lose. He lost it comprehensively with poor performance against English test players in both the early tour matches and the ODI series. Slater stepped straight in and played exceptionally. Although I would disagree on the 'young kid getting experience' bit, they were both essentially the same age and had both earnt their place on the tour.

Unfortunately, the two county games before the first test, Hayden sort-of failed, and Slater got runs. Slater was picked for the first test - made 50, kept in for the 2nd test and made 150. That was it.

Slats still only averaged 41 in the test series, which was a good # in those days. The main thing that kept Hayden out was his inept performances when he first encountered international bowling.

Hayden actually plundered 1000+ runs on the tour in 1st Class cricket at 50+, but the selectors correctly ignored him as he failed so dismally against all the quality attacks and bullied 2nd division county sides.

Hayden made 150 in the opening tour game against an amateur XI, didn't play the Duchess game (which was a golden oldies team anyway), made 122 against Middlesex which was his one good innings of note, and all but cemented his test spot, but then failed vs Worcester, while Salter made 122 against Somerset that at the time essentially contained the English pace attack. Hayden then failed dismally in all 3 ODI's which was a big black mark, they both played Leicester and Sussex and Slats outplayed him in both games and that was that.

The most memorable aspect of that tour apart from Haydn scoring 1000 runs on tour without playing a test was that the youthful D.Martyn scored 900 runs at about 70 on the same tour, now there is a bloke that was hard done by and a wasted talent!

There's a brilliant photo in one of the tour books. Hayden's parents made plans to come over to watch the tests - preferrably Lords. The photo shows them sitting in the stands with their son, and the angle of the photo shows the scoreboard - 0/210, Slater (No 2) 120. They're all sitting back with a look on their face that says 'Bugger'.

I was at the game, me and my father basically followed the entire tour.

The in 96-97 they picked Elliott ahead of him (Hayden's test deput in SA was just an injury fill-in). People forget that when Elliott did his knee, he was 78*. So Hayden got in again as an injury fill-in.

Elliot jumped him, not because he failed in his fill-in jobs, but because of how he failed. If he came in, looked comfortable and got out, you wouldn't think alot of it, openers get good balls and get out. But he came in and looked out of his depth, people see these things and it counts big time.

Just look at Phil Hughes recently when he filled in, he made a duck and 37, but in the process all he did was raise even more questions on his technique at that level, he simply looked out of his depth, which is exactly how Hayden appeared in the 90's. Lucky for Hughes, there are no Elliots, Coxes, Langers, Blewetts, Slaters etc to compete with like there was for Hayden.

 

[BluesInTheSky]

Hayden was way over rated.

 

[DIG]

Batting was easier, whether it was pitches, bowlers, or whatever - scores have gone through the roof, and so have averages. The numbers are clear as day in the article, there hasn't been a decade as good for batting since the 1940's. (where the numbers were probably skewed by a certain D.Bradman)

have a look again http://www.cricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/441892.html



because they have faced meek bowling on flat wickets with massive bats that weigh only 2 pounds. Didn't see too much domination of the likes of McGrath, except maybe from Lara.



Why shouldn't it. What was once rare, now is not.


So what? He only played 20 odd tets anyway. He averaged less in first class cricket.

Yep, which distorts the esteem which he is held in.



I might squeeze him into the best 5 openers we've had if I gave him the benefit of a few doubts, but I wouldn't have him under consideration for the XI. I've given clear justification why. You'd probably need to be irrefutably the best opener during your career for a start, he was not.

So what?? You said earlier Hayden would need to average 57 to be great, something no-one's achieved for decades! Yet you're satisfied with a dismal 42 average from Slater because everything was "so" much harder back then.

And now Hussey, a man with 11 test centuries and who dominated world cricket before his form slump doesn't even make our top 50? Not top 20 sure but not even top 50??

You know what, I'm going to save my efforts for people who've got a clue about the game - not those who ramble on like Gunnar Longshanks, rely on exaggeration and the distortion of stats to suit them and whose opinions are formed by either cricinfo editorials or just personal likes/dislikes of players.

 

[DIG]

you can take your stats and articles and shove them up your a$$.

Early nomination for cricket board post of the year crownie! Even if it was at me I would've cracked up.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Batting was easier, whether it was pitches, bowlers, or whatever - scores have gone through the roof, and so have averages. The numbers are clear as day in the article, there hasn't been a decade as good for batting since the 1940's. (where the numbers were probably skewed by a certain D.Bradman)

have a look again http://www.cricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/441892.html

So the numbers in the 40's are skewed by Don Bradman, you're not attributing that to batting got easier?

Again,the bowling hasn't gotten worse besides Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, the batting has gotten better.

 

[The_Reaper]

So the numbers in the 40's are skewed by Don Bradman, you're not attributing that to batting got easier?

Again,the bowling hasn't gotten worse besides Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, the batting has gotten better.

Numbers in the 40s are also skewed in that in cricket terms it was only half a decade. 1946-1949

 

[Ill Chicken]

Numbers in the 40s are also skewed in that in cricket terms it was only half a decade. 1946-1949

Exactly, the batting got easier therefore the Don's and anyone's record from this period should be defunct going by Thommo's reasoning.