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

[The_Reaper]

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

That reasoning is flawed

The 1940's can not be considered in the same terms as other decades because it is half the length.
Thus in statistical comparisons it should be discounted.
This does not mean that batting was easier or harder in that era. You would have to look at other evidence for that.
Besides the Don's record is so vastly superior to his peers, that even with standardisation it would still be several standard deviations from the mean.

Regardless, the vast majority of the Don's tests were from about 1928 to World War II. So in reality, even if the 1940's were found to be a nirvana for batsmen, it would not effect his record.

 

[Ill Chicken]

That reasoning is flawed

The 1940's can not be considered in the same terms as other decades because it is half the length.

Thus in statistical comparisons it should be discounted.
This does not mean that batting was easier or harder in that era. You would have to look at other evidence for that.
Besides the Don's record is so vastly superior to his peers, that even with standardisation it would still be several standard deviations from the mean.

Regardless, the vast majority of the Don's tests were from about 1928 to World War II. So in reality, even if the 1940's were found to be a nirvana for batsmen, it would not effect his record.

Clearly the case considering hundreds were made at a rate of 2.3 per test which dropped to 1.3 the next decade. It was post war, the experience of bowlers was extremely limited due to such a long lay off and the batsman capitalised.

Batting has improved remarkably in the last 10 to 15 years and as a result it has become harder for a bowler to be as economical. They haven't gotten worse than their predecessors, the batting has become more adept, has changed significantly along with the pace of the game.

The change in bowling average/batting could easily be attributed to the change in economy rate. Nothing less, meaning test batsman have become more attacking. If bowlers have become worse why are they taking more wickets quicker than any other period?

 

[Lunchtime]

Re: Ponting's fall from stratospheric heights



Yep, he was a quality cricketer, but he is a long way from a great.

He spent the 1990's playing domestic cricket in his prime because he simply wasn't good enough, he played domestic cricket because the likes of Donald, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Younis, Srinath and the rest were roaming the world, and he couldn't cope. He returned a decade later when the new-ball attacks world-wide were pathetic, and he dined out. Funnily enough, on the rare ocassion during that period when he did run into a good quick, he was found wanting, almost without exception.

He's not even as good a cricketer as Slater or Taylor, don't let the stats fool you.

If I'm choosing the best Australian Test team from 1980 onwards...I'm choosing Hayden and Taylor as my opening batsman.

 

[PhatBoy]

Series in which Hayden averaged over 50, aside from the obvious one where he went berserk against India:

2001-02 vs NZ where the new ball attack was Cairns and Dion Nash, with the likes of Chris Drum and Shayne O’Connor in support. And unsurprisingly the test where he struggled was where Shane Bond appeared in Perth.

Same summer against SA. Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Hayward and Klusener. Pollock and Kallis at that stage were big ticks, Ntini was still averaging high 30s, Hayward was hopeless. Klusener was a reasonable back up.

The next series he got a 36 year old Donald in one test, Dave Terbrugge, Andrew Hall, Andrew Nel, Dewald Pretorius, Kallis, and Ntini in one test. It was never close to the same attack twice.

Following that was the ridiculous series in Sharjah and Sri Lanka against Pakistan. He got Waqar, Shoaib, Mohammad Sami and Abdul Razzaq. Sami and Razzaq were hopeless and Waqar was well past his best but Shoaib to be fair was furiously quick at this point and close to the peak of his powers.

Then came England in Australia: late Caddick, early Harmison and Hoggard and a brief appearance from Simon Jones, laughably bad Craig White, even Mark Butcher was bowling seam up in the games where Hayden hit his 3 centuries.

He averaged 250 for a series against Heath Streak, Andy Blignaut and Shaun Ervine

Next came Ajit Agarkar, famous for a one test spell and a knock with the bat, the reliable and certainly test class Zaheer Khan, and the best forgotten Ashish Nehra.

Then he got Vaas, Malinga in his first real appearance on the world stage, and Zoysa in a Top End series

Fidel Edwards, Darren Powell, Corey Collymore, Dwayne Bravo down here. I think Jerome Taylor might have played a few of those tests before Kemar Roach got a look in at Perth.

Finally Irfan Pathan, RP Singh, Ishant Sharma on debut, and bizarrely Sourav Ganguly as the third seam option in a couple of tests in the Monkeygate series.


8 of these 10 series were at home (remembering he also had the huge series in India to start it all so fair play, but it was almost exclusively against spin so deviates from the topic a bit).

Some points:

1. You can’t hold it against a player that opponents didn’t have the ‘right players.’ That’s not his fault. He can’t make them be better. All he can do is bat against whatever they throw up against him.

2. He definitely made runs against some good fast bowlers.

4. A big chunk of those series I mentioned came in a cluster where his form was absolutely superb. He was dominating just about everyone.

3. What is undeniably questionable is whether he made consistent runs against any good pace attack. A couple of times he made runs against attacks that were good in name - Pollock, Ntini, Kallis and Klusener for example - but Ntini was big ordinary at that point, and Klusener had long since turned into a mid-120s medium pacer.
I think it is Gough or Cleavy that has pointed out his willingness either in commentary or possibly even his book to espouse how wonderful he felt to score his maiden century at Adelaide against greats like Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop….. when a) it was one of the worst centuries ever scored and b) Ambrose didn’t even play.


Hayden was a really GOOD player, at times a great player, but I don’t think he ever will quite shake the tag that he did his best work when the going was at its most comfortable as far as being an opening batsman goes

 

[Gough]

If we can diminish Cummins' achievements because of his personal opinions then Hayden would have to be one of the worst cricketers in living memory.

 

[ioppolo]

Series in which Hayden averaged over 50, aside from the obvious one where he went berserk against India:

2001-02 vs NZ where the new ball attack was Cairns and Dion Nash, with the likes of Chris Drum and Shayne O’Connor in support. And unsurprisingly the test where he struggled was where Shane Bond appeared in Perth.

Same summer against SA. Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Hayward and Klusener. Pollock and Kallis at that stage were big ticks, Ntini was still averaging high 30s, Hayward was hopeless. Klusener was a reasonable back up.

The next series he got a 36 year old Donald in one test, Dave Terbrugge, Andrew Hall, Andrew Nel, Dewald Pretorius, Kallis, and Ntini in one test. It was never close to the same attack twice.

Following that was the ridiculous series in Sharjah and Sri Lanka against Pakistan. He got Waqar, Shoaib, Mohammad Sami and Abdul Razzaq. Sami and Razzaq were hopeless and Waqar was well past his best but Shoaib to be fair was furiously quick at this point and close to the peak of his powers.

Then came England in Australia: late Caddick, early Harmison and Hoggard and a brief appearance from Simon Jones, laughably bad Craig White, even Mark Butcher was bowling seam up in the games where Hayden hit his 3 centuries.

He averaged 250 for a series against Heath Streak, Andy Blignaut and Shaun Ervine

Next came Ajit Agarkar, famous for a one test spell and a knock with the bat, the reliable and certainly test class Zaheer Khan, and the best forgotten Ashish Nehra.

Then he got Vaas, Malinga in his first real appearance on the world stage, and Zoysa in a Top End series

Fidel Edwards, Darren Powell, Corey Collymore, Dwayne Bravo down here. I think Jerome Taylor might have played a few of those tests before Kemar Roach got a look in at Perth.

Finally Irfan Pathan, RP Singh, Ishant Sharma on debut, and bizarrely Sourav Ganguly as the third seam option in a couple of tests in the Monkeygate series.


8 of these 10 series were at home (remembering he also had the huge series in India to start it all so fair play, but it was almost exclusively against spin so deviates from the topic a bit).

Some points:

1. You can’t hold it against a player that opponents didn’t have the ‘right players.’ That’s not his fault. He can’t make them be better. All he can do is bat against whatever they throw up against him.

2. He definitely made runs against some good fast bowlers.

4. A big chunk of those series I mentioned came in a cluster where his form was absolutely superb. He was dominating just about everyone.

3. What is undeniably questionable is whether he made consistent runs against any good pace attack. A couple of times he made runs against attacks that were good in name - Pollock, Ntini, Kallis and Klusener for example - but Ntini was big ordinary at that point, and Klusener had long since turned into a mid-120s medium pacer.
I think it is Gough or Cleavy that has pointed out his willingness either in commentary or possibly even his book to espouse how wonderful he felt to score his maiden century at Adelaide against greats like Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop….. when a) it was one of the worst centuries ever scored and b) Ambrose didn’t even play.


Hayden was a really GOOD player, at times a great player, but I don’t think he ever will quite shake the tag that he did his best work when the going was at its most comfortable as far as being an opening batsman goes

I'm of the mindset that you can only play who's in front of you. People would be upset if he averaged 40 against some of these listed attacks. He averaged over 50 and people might still be upset.

Can only beat who's in front of you.

 

[cricketnut14]

i think if a guy has played 100+ tests, pretty much means he's played all around the world and his record stacks up.

it'll be interesting how we view T20I statistics with 80+ countries playing etc. and essentially some no names (no disrespect to them) racking up tons etc.

 

[Rabish Binney]

100+ tests
8600+ runs
30 centuries
50.73 average

Of course he is one of our greats.

 

[Lunchtime]

Series in which Hayden averaged over 50, aside from the obvious one where he went berserk against India:

2001-02 vs NZ where the new ball attack was Cairns and Dion Nash, with the likes of Chris Drum and Shayne O’Connor in support. And unsurprisingly the test where he struggled was where Shane Bond appeared in Perth.

Same summer against SA. Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Hayward and Klusener. Pollock and Kallis at that stage were big ticks, Ntini was still averaging high 30s, Hayward was hopeless. Klusener was a reasonable back up.

The next series he got a 36 year old Donald in one test, Dave Terbrugge, Andrew Hall, Andrew Nel, Dewald Pretorius, Kallis, and Ntini in one test. It was never close to the same attack twice.

Following that was the ridiculous series in Sharjah and Sri Lanka against Pakistan. He got Waqar, Shoaib, Mohammad Sami and Abdul Razzaq. Sami and Razzaq were hopeless and Waqar was well past his best but Shoaib to be fair was furiously quick at this point and close to the peak of his powers.

Then came England in Australia: late Caddick, early Harmison and Hoggard and a brief appearance from Simon Jones, laughably bad Craig White, even Mark Butcher was bowling seam up in the games where Hayden hit his 3 centuries.

He averaged 250 for a series against Heath Streak, Andy Blignaut and Shaun Ervine

Next came Ajit Agarkar, famous for a one test spell and a knock with the bat, the reliable and certainly test class Zaheer Khan, and the best forgotten Ashish Nehra.

Then he got Vaas, Malinga in his first real appearance on the world stage, and Zoysa in a Top End series

Fidel Edwards, Darren Powell, Corey Collymore, Dwayne Bravo down here. I think Jerome Taylor might have played a few of those tests before Kemar Roach got a look in at Perth.

Finally Irfan Pathan, RP Singh, Ishant Sharma on debut, and bizarrely Sourav Ganguly as the third seam option in a couple of tests in the Monkeygate series.


8 of these 10 series were at home (remembering he also had the huge series in India to start it all so fair play, but it was almost exclusively against spin so deviates from the topic a bit).

Some points:

1. You can’t hold it against a player that opponents didn’t have the ‘right players.’ That’s not his fault. He can’t make them be better. All he can do is bat against whatever they throw up against him.

2. He definitely made runs against some good fast bowlers.

4. A big chunk of those series I mentioned came in a cluster where his form was absolutely superb. He was dominating just about everyone.

3. What is undeniably questionable is whether he made consistent runs against any good pace attack. A couple of times he made runs against attacks that were good in name - Pollock, Ntini, Kallis and Klusener for example - but Ntini was big ordinary at that point, and Klusener had long since turned into a mid-120s medium pacer.
I think it is Gough or Cleavy that has pointed out his willingness either in commentary or possibly even his book to espouse how wonderful he felt to score his maiden century at Adelaide against greats like Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop….. when a) it was one of the worst centuries ever scored and b) Ambrose didn’t even play.


Hayden was a really GOOD player, at times a great player, but I don’t think he ever will quite shake the tag that he did his best work when the going was at its most comfortable as far as being an opening batsman goes

I reckon his technique against the moving ball (swing/seam) could be suspect at times. He didn't do so well in England.

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm of the mindset that you can only play who's in front of you. People would be upset if he averaged 40 against some of these listed attacks. He averaged over 50 and people might still be upset.

Can only beat who's in front of you.

100 per cent

I reckon his technique against the moving ball (swing/seam) could be suspect at times. He didn't do so well in England.

Averaged 33 across 24 tests in England, New Zealand and South Africa. The numbers agree.

 

[ioppolo]

i think if a guy has played 100+ tests, pretty much means he's played all around the world and his record stacks up.

it'll be interesting how we view T20I statistics with 80+ countries playing etc. and essentially some no names (no disrespect to them) racking up tons etc.

No different to viewing career statistics of international soccer players. Dele Ali of Iran holds the record for most international goals, having the luxury of playing Asian minnows like Sri Lanka, Guan, Taiwan, Nepal, Maldives etc.

 

[10Dulkar]

I think you mean Ali Daei I remember him briefly at Bayern. Pretty sure he has been surpassed now.

 

[sabso]

No different to viewing career statistics of international soccer players. Dele Ali of Iran holds the record for most international goals, having the luxury of playing Asian minnows like Sri Lanka, Guan, Taiwan, Nepal, Maldives etc.

It was Ali Daei, and his record was recently smashed by Cristiano Ronaldo. Lionel messi has gone past him too

 

[ioppolo]

I even preemptively googled him to make sure I got the name right and still posted the wrong name

 

[sabso]

I even preemptively googled him to make sure I got the name right and still posted the wrong name

I mean how hard is it to get the name right? It’s not like there are 150 other bf users with a generic Karl urban avatar

 

[010203]

I think you mean Ali Daei I remember him briefly at Bayern. Pretty sure he has been surpassed now.

He scored the goal that made Johnny Warren cry at the MCG in 1997. Mark Bosnich and the pitch invader didn't help either.

 

[revo333]

I'm of the mindset that you can only play who's in front of you. People would be upset if he averaged 40 against some of these listed attacks. He averaged over 50 and people might still be upset.

Can only beat who's in front of you.

Fair enough if he only played 50 tests but if you play 100 tests and average 50 then I think you were more than handy holding a cricket bat and consistent enough to be more than a flat track bully.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I'd be more interested in his daughter and not him these days. Wowee

 

[Gethelred]

I think it's an interesting thing to discuss post career, if only because there's no recency bias at play. Hayden was a torrid opponent to bowl to during his career; where most quicks would back themselves to be able to put the fear lf god into their opponents, Hayden's size, reputation and bloody-mindedness had a number of the touring bowlers a bit scared to bowl at him. From one story I heard, if he didn't like you or thought your bowling below his standard, he'd aim to belt it straight back at you and good luck reacting to a straight or on drive from that bloke, such were his timing and strength. You saw it in games; I can clearly remember an ODI in which he had some unlucky putz from NZ bowling at him and the ball went flying past the bowler's head before he'd even got it up, and you saw on his face that it shook him.

I really don't know. At the time, Hayden was the most intimidating prospect on cricket to bowl to. Lara and Tendulkar were more sublime and harder batters to dismiss and Ponting was harder to stop scoring, but Hayden staring at you through the grill of his helmet, chewing fiendishly at you while you're at the top of your mark; knowing you can't overpitch because if you give him one in his half you're a chance to cop one in your followthrough or - debatably worse - get hit for six back over your own head. And then it happens and he's still staring at you, into your soul.

It's like the intimidation of it beat people before he even hit the thing. They bowled wide of his stumps and back a length to prevent him hitting straight, didn't for the longest time even contemplate bouncing him or trying to force him to bat uncomfortably. It toom until 2005 for anyone to really work out he had no answer to a ball back a length from around the wicket, because he would slash anything through there coming across him either side of cover off the front foot brutally from a right hander bowling over the wicket. He didn't have a cut shot or any drives off the back foot on the off side; he never needed them.

What I think is definitely forgotten is how much he worked on his game. People talk up his attitude to the sweep and 2001, but they seemingly ignore how much work he did post 2005 to work on that error. By next summer he had a proper english cut shot and could and would dab to backward point or third man balls that in his early pomp would get plastered to or through cover; it didn't mean he never played those shots anymore, just that he had alternatives. You look at the cricketer he was in the 90's, and you realise just how much he did to improve, get the best from himself.

If he's not the best opener I've ever seen, it's because Rahul Dravid and Graeme Smith shared an era with him, and being eclipsed by either of those two blokes is no slight.

 

[Rabish Binney]

I cant understand why there is this fixation and the overwhelming need to compare every player from every era and critique them down to the minutest detail?

Why cant we just celebrate those who played for Australia (and indeed those from all other test playing nations) who have great records?

Hayden averages 50 in test cricket after playing 100 tests. That puts him right up there with the greats of Australian cricket IMHO, regardless of whether or not he only averaged 38 in South Africa.

 

[cricketnut14]

I cant understand why there is this fixation and the overwhelming need to compare every player from every era and critique them down to the minutest detail?

Why cant we just celebrate those who played for Australia (and indeed those from all other test playing nations) who have great records?

Hayden averages 50 in test cricket after playing 100 tests. That puts him right up there with the greats of Australian cricket IMHO, regardless of whether or not he only averaged 38 in South Africa.

yeah, whichever way you slice it and dice it - he's up there as one of our greats.

i doubt there are many players who struggled in one country or another for one reason or another.
this can also be because of the smaller sample size eg. a player may have only toured a country once etc.

 

[corbies]

If he's not the best opener I've ever seen, it's because Rahul Dravid and Graeme Smith shared an era with him, and being eclipsed by either of those two blokes is no slight.

Would we consider Rahul Dravid an opener? Only opened the batting 23 times in Test cricket.

 

[Gethelred]

Would we consider Rahul Dravid an opener? Only opened the batting 23 times in Test cricket.

Even given the low sample size, he's a better opener than Hayden, imo.

 

[Lunchtime]

I may have said it in this thread and/or on another thread, but if I were asked to choose the best Australian Test team from 1980s onwards then my two opening batsman would be Matthew Hayden and Mark Taylor.