Generation of top class Aussie openers Taylor, Hayden, Slater, Langer, Elliot.

[Jono]

I agree with some of what you say, but its no coincidence he failed miserably in the Ashes, and cashed in on the easiest batting track with England's best bowler of the series injured.

Many predicted him to fail in the Ashes because of his flaws, and they were right.

 

[aussie]

That would be my list as well. And I do think Elliott had plenty of potential. What happened to him and how did he go out of the reckoning? I don't seem to recall a prolonged lean patch or anything from him.

yea he did has i mentioned in my first post, he was doing ok but when Taylor retired after the 99 SCG ashes test & Australia went to the West Indies he looked so out of depth againts Walsh & Ambrose to balls outside off it wasn't funny. Plus with the competition to for openers to partner Slater at the time, he was dropped.

altough he did play a test vs SRI in 2004 in darwin.

 

[howardj]

Yeah, regarding the above posts, I used to think that Hayden was (and I hate to use the word) over-rated. And while I do think he struggles against the absolute top-class performers (Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Akhtar) this is a weakness that is not unique to him, among top players. In the end, for me, Hayden's sheer weight of runs and sheer consistency are overwhelming, and are enough to propel him into my all-time best Australian team.

 

[Sanz]

Why do people rate Hayden so low ? He is clearly one of the better openers Australia had in recen times. IMO :-

Hayden
Taylor
Langer
Slater.

 

[kvemuri]

Langer
Hayden
Taylor
Slater
Elliot

 

[Francis]

I agree with some of what you say, but its no coincidence he failed miserably in the Ashes, and cashed in on the easiest batting track with England's best bowler of the series injured.

Many predicted him to fail in the Ashes because of his flaws, and they were right.

I predicted Hyaden would go bad in the Ashes because he sucked at the time. Hayden was in a terrible slump. Him getting a century in New Zealand in an ODI was a massive deal when he accomplished it because it had been so long.

Hayden was in a slump and that's why he failed in my opinion.

He can also be his worst enemy like Kevin Pietersen. Both know their strengths and they know that can hit the ball and long way and their power is a great gift... but if they get impatient and rely on it it gets them out.

 

[Francis]

I thought I should mention that NZ century I mentioned happened in an ODI in Australia last tour before the Ashes.

 

[Richard]

Why do people rate Hayden so low ? He is clearly one of the better openers Australia had in recen times. IMO

As far as I've seen near enough everyone has put him top.
Not that I'd say that's correct.

 

[Richard]

Who do you reckon is the best & who would you rank them?

Bearing in mind that opening is supposed to be about seeing-off the seaming and swinging ball, not blazing away against wayward bowlers who can do little or nothing with the new-ball...
I'd say Taylor, Slater, Langer, Hayden.
I'd not include Elliott, Blewett (wasn't an opener), Hussey, Jaques or anyone else who wasn't a first-team regular (ie 60 or so innings at least as an opener).
Talyor and Slater combatted some superb bowling-attacks.
Langer and Hayden have only rarely done so.
As such, given the lack of chance, I can't say that Langer and Hayden were as good as Slater and Taylor.
Both, of course, were good at what challenges their eras threw-up. Hayden is good at bashing big scores when the going's easy - and that's mostly what his era demanded.

 

[age_master]

Slats was the best to watch

 

[honestbharani]

First off Hayden wasn't found out. Like I said in my examples, most batsmen go out when there's some late swing involved enough times when you pitch the ball on the stumps.
Secondly, Hayden was for a period, the best batsman in the world. He's made over 1,000 runs in a calendar year four times... and that has nothing to do with schedule. Why shouldn't htta be enough? Because he's not graceful? So what? He's effective.



Huh? All that should matter is being effective. Simple as that. Hayden made 130 off 300 balls in the 5th test in the Ashes because that was the fastest he could score the runs. It's simply batting to great bowling. Playing defensive is something I've seen Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting do when they play on tough pitches to good bowling so really I don't know where your coming from.



Yeah because South Africa don't have great bowlers? Because the World XI didn't have the best players? Some of these were on some tough pitches as well.

I wouldn't be caught dead saying Hayden is in the same league as Lara, Tendulkar and now Ponting. But the fact is he's had underrated peaks where people criticise him for being a lfat tarck bully when he's made good runs of tough pitches and racked up centuries so very fast. What was it? 20 centuries from 60 tests before his sudden slump? That's amazing.

It's not about grace or technique. Ponting isn't perfect and is an lbw candidate like Inzi early on... he's also suceptable to balls wide of the off stump when he looks to drive. Tendulkar used to be flawless but around 2000 he started skipping a little across his crease. I personally think Lara is perfect... although there's many who's disagree with me and think he leaps forward when he faces deliveries.

It's not about technique, it's about effectiveness and there have been moments in this century where Hayden was making many more centuries than BCL and SRT and doing it effectively.

Graeme Pollock wasn't an attractive batter and some felt he has weaknesses, but he was effective. Pollock himself only felt that if you pick the line of the ball and put your foot in the right spot... what's the problem?

I have seen all the guys bat and I have no issues about my putting my neck on the line saying Hayden is batting the slowest of them all and has almost given up dominating attacks. Lara was in as a poor a patch as one can get into in 1999 and his 213 was off 340 deliveries, Hayden scored 100 odd off the same no. of deliveries. And I still think McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, MacGill is better than the attack that Hayden faced. To me those three are the greats, Ponting only recently getting into that class. Hayden was very very good against most attacks he faced, but has generally struggled a lot more than some of the other quality players against top class bowlers. But I hate to put that against him too much because it is very probable that he was green when he started and had improved considerably when he came back in 2001. It is really not his fault that the bowling standards were very low when he was perhaps at his best. But I don't recall Ntini or Nel being fully fit in Australia and while he is scoring a lot of runs, I don't think the attacks he has faced recently (Excepting RSA when they were at full strength) were of that great quality.


My point, while he is very very good, I don't rate him as "great", which most others seem to do here. I am not saying he hasn't played well against good attacks or anything like that. It is just that he has not succeeded against quality attacks enough times to be called "great". I rate him as the second best Aussie opener I have seen. I don't really know what else to say if you guys still think I have an agenda against him or anything like that.

 

[howardj]

Slats was the best to watch

Hell yeah. That 123 he made against the England in 1999 (out of a team total of 180) was to die for. Such a passionate player too.

 

[Richard]

Slats just had to go one better (that Test had more records broken than any other, but he nearly broke the oldest Test record remaining).

 

[aussie]

But I don't recall Ntini or Nel being fully fit in Australia and while he is scoring a lot of runs, I don't think the attacks he has faced recently (Excepting RSA when they were at full strength) were of that great quality.

wa?, well i can assure up to when Ntini & Nel got injured in Australia they were fully fit. In Nel's case that was for sure since he was bowling 135 mph regulary while in the return series in SA where he played 3 test off a foot injury that wasn't the case. So the South African attack yes was of great quality vs Australia in testing conditions.

 

[aussie]

Bearing in mind that opening is supposed to be about seeing-off the seaming and swinging ball, not blazing away against wayward bowlers who can do little or nothing with the new-ball...
I'd say Taylor, Slater, Langer, Hayden.
Talyor and Slater combatted some superb bowling-attacks.
Langer and Hayden have only rarely done so..

Yea i know Taylor & Slater faced more superb-bowling attacks that Hayden & Langer, i'm willing to agree that Slater suceeded a bit better againts the top attacks of the 90s but in Taylor's case mainly he didn't really suceed vs them all the time.

For example the West Indies, he did very well in his 1st series in 90/91 then in subsequent series vs in 94/95, 96/97 he failed mainly due to Amborse. Also i reckon after he became skipper in 95 he wasn't as effective as before 95 although he managed that magnificent 334, he declined a bit after 95 coincentally when he became captain.

Note: I'm not saying captaincy was a burden since it couldn't due to Australia's success under him, but just that he declined.

Taylor before he became captain played 54 test, scored 4275 @ 46.97
Taylor as captain played 50 test, scored 3250 @ 39.63. Not bad but nothing like his early career form.

[/QUOTE]

 

[marc71178]

Secondly, Hayden was for a period, the best batsman in the world. He's made over 1,000 runs in a calendar year four times... and that has nothing to do with schedule.

Bearing in mind he went through what 30+ innings without a ton spanning over 2 years, I'd suggest that he only got there 2004 and 2005 because of the schedule.

 

[Richard]

Yea i know Taylor & Slater faced more superb-bowling attacks that Hayden & Langer, i'm willing to agree that Slater suceeded a bit better againts the top attacks of the 90s but in Taylor's case mainly he didn't really suceed vs them all the time.

For example the West Indies, he did very well in his 1st series in 90/91 then in subsequent series vs in 94/95, 96/97 he failed mainly due to Amborse. Also i reckon after he became skipper in 95 he wasn't as effective as before 95 although he managed that magnificent 334, he declined a bit after 95 coincentally when he became captain.

Note: I'm not saying captaincy was a burden since it couldn't due to Australia's success under him, but just that he declined.

Taylor before he became captain played 54 test, scored 4275 @ 46.97
Taylor as captain played 50 test, scored 3250 @ 39.63. Not bad but nothing like his early career form.

As with the Hussain case, you've got to realise that the captaincy might've affected him for a short period, but after that period was over he recovered.
In any case - I hardly see that taking the captaincy in the first place can really be blamed, as there was considerable lag-time between his taking-over the captaincy and the start of his period of wretched form.

 

[aussie]

In any case - I hardly see that taking the captaincy in the first place can really be blamed, as there was considerable lag-time between his taking-over the captaincy and the start of his period of wretched form.

yea thats true, but i'm not really saying that i'm saying that even though he faced a superior bowling attack to Hayden over his career, after 95 he failed againts the majority of them. So that should be considered as well.

 

[Francis]

I don't think you have anything against Hayden HonestB, you're entitled to your opinion.

I am suprised that you argued that Hayden isn't great because he scores slow. If that makes you great then when Gilchrist was averaging over 50 and striking over 80 runs for every hundred he was the best. I mean to many great batsmen scored slowly... I don't now if Hyaden is any slower than Len Hutton or Sunil Gavaskar. When you have five days, which is becomming more than enough time these days, you don't have to score fast, you just need to be effective.

While I would say he was the best batsman in the world for a period in this century, I'd in no way compare his peak to that of Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting's current peak.

I wouldn't be caught dead putting Hayden in the same league as Lara or Tendulkar or now Ponting... but he was the best batsman in the world for a while around 2001-2002. And yes Richard he went for over a year not getting a ton, but before that he looked amazing.

Bearing in mind that opening is supposed to be about seeing-off the seaming and swinging ball, not blazing away against wayward bowlers who can do little or nothing with the new-ball...

Myth.

Hayden's strike-rate indicates he bats in tests similar to others, just recently he's been very paritent. There's plenty of guys faster than him. I think the imagery of him walking down pitches and flicking balls off his hip for six in ODI's sort of influences their opinion on how he bats. Hayden can be very patient... or at least he has been in the last few months.

 

[Richard]

yea thats true, but i'm not really saying that i'm saying that even though he faced a superior bowling attack to Hayden over his career, after 95 he failed againts the majority of them. So that should be considered as well.

Not true.
Between Trent Bridge 1997 and The WACA 1998\99 he averaged over 60.
Then, like near enough everyone, he had the end-of-career comedown.