• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hayden vs Hussain

Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
I dont like these 'who is better' debates really, but this is one that has started to take over the one regarding Sobers, and I thought it might be better to take it away from that thread.

The basic gist of it is, Richard is of the opinion that Nasser Hussain was a better batsman Hayden is. He has said that Haydos is a flat track bully and would get exposed on the pitches and vs the bowling Hussain had to face.

My arguement is that for about 50 tests each , both players careers overlapped, and during that over lap, Haydens performance way way way outstripped Hussains.

Here are the stats

From 1 jan 2000 (around when Hayden became a more regular test cricketer) to the end of Nassers career (24/5/2004), this is the comparison:

Hussain:
51 tests , 90 innings
2846 runs, 6 100s, 20 50s, average 34.70

Hayden:
47 tests, 80 inings
4547 runs, 17 100s, 15 50s, average 63.52

So in 10 less innings, Hayden scored in that time 1701 more runs, 11 more hundreds, and averaged not far off double.

Richard has said that is meaningless, given that someone playing this decade could conceivably average over 40 runs more than a batsman playing in the 1990s and still be a worse batsman.

I have questioned how massive a jump the domination of bat over the ball was in 2001 onwards, and supplied the following figures:

these figures are total runs scored divided by wickets taken by bowlers (so run outs not included)
1997: 34.0
1998: 31.2
1999: 32.9
2000: 30.9
2001: 35.2
2002: 33.5
2003: 37.5
2004: 36.7
2005: 34.4
2006: 36.0
2007: 30.1

So in the last 10 years , this year is the worst for batsmen!!!!

1997 through to 2000
32.2

2001 to now
35.4

So roughly, since the end of 2000, the amount the bat has got one over the ball has increased by 10%. Is that a massive amount? Not so sure myself.

So going by that, you average 60 now, that is roughly the equivalent of averaging 54 back in 1997.

For me, it doesnt stack up well for Hussain. Others may disagree!!!!

What do you guys think? Is the difference between the 1990s and now so great that an average performing batsman could be better than one of the most prolific batsmen of the present?
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
If I recall correctly, Richard is of the opinion that you cannot compare players across eras. If the difference is that marked between the nineties and this century, then surely the comparison is meaningless?

In any case, Hayden > Most players this century.

In terms of batsmen post 2001 or so, I'd have:

  1. Ponting
  2. Hayden
  3. Dravid
  4. Kallis
  5. Inzamam
  6. Gilchrist


In roughly that order.
 
N

Nishant

International 12th Man
going by the stats, i would definitly say hayden>Hussain....but even b4 i looked at the stas i was still of this opinion.
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
Anil said:
you are giving this way too much importance man...this is a ridiculous comparison...
Click to expand...
I think it brings up an interesting point however.
The common concensus is that its way too easy for batsmen these days, and obviously some people think that average batsmen are making hay whilst the sun shines, thus inflating the way people will view them in the future.

Now I have worked out that the last 5 years has seen a 10% increase in scoring averages when compared to the 1997/2000 period. 10% to me isnt that much, given that in those two periods there have been years where the averages have gone up and down a bit. 2007 represents the lowest batting average for all of the 11 years I have worked out.

Could it be that really the bowling these days is not as bad as is being made out, or maybe the pitches arent as flat as is being made out.

What I would say is that the old benchmark of an average of 40 being a good average is probably more like 44-45ish now...and say someone like Ponting who has been averaging something mad like 65 since 2001, still is pretty incredible, as this would be the 90s equivalent of maybe 58, which would have placed Ponting probably as the best batsman of the 90s as well.

Its all speculation of course!!!:)
 
S

startin2reverse

Banned
Either pure idiocy or just plain bias from Richard (again), who is rapidly becoming the board clown and a bit of a laughing stock.

Hayden is on a different level to Hussain altogether. It's almost like they play different games entirely when you look at the two of them and compare.

Hayden does things in virtually any innings that the stodgy zero power, poor average, poor strike rate Nasser can only dream of.
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
startin2reverse said:
Either pure idiocy or just plain bias from Richard (again), who is rapidly becoming the board clown and a bit of a laughing stock.

Hayden is on a different level to Hussain altogether. It's almost like they play different games entirely when you look at the two of them and compare.

Hayden does things in virtually any innings that the stodgy zero power, poor average, poor strike rate Nasser can only dream of.
Click to expand...
I aint saying anything:laugh:
 
nightprowler10

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
In terms of batsmen post 2001 or so, I'd have:

  1. Ponting
  2. Hayden
  3. Dravid
  4. Kallis
  5. Inzamam
  6. Gilchrist


In roughly that order.
Click to expand...
That list is totally screwed. For starters, you have no Yousuf in there, who has averaged more than 65 post 2001. Then you rank Hayden higher than Dravid and Kallis, which just blows my mind. Anyway, keeping in mind that Yousuf has yet to prove himself against some of the best teams out there, here is my list (strictly post 2001):

1) Ponting
2) Kallis
3) Dravid
4) Yousuf
5) Lara
6) Hayden
7) Inzamam
8) Tendulkar
9) Gilchrist
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
nightprowler10 said:
That list is totally screwed. For starters, you have no Yousuf in there, who has averaged more than 65 post 2001. Then you rank Hayden higher than Dravid and Kallis, which just blows my mind. Anyway, keeping in mind that Yousuf has yet to prove himself against some of the best teams out there, here is my list (strictly post 2001):

1) Ponting
2) Kallis
3) Dravid
4) Yousuf
5) Lara
6) Hayden
7) Inzamam
8) Tendulkar
9) Gilchrist
Click to expand...
Yousuf would be the next person on my list, but I rate Inzamam higher, even post-2001. In any case, the only real difference you have is the removal of Hayden and inclusion of Lara in the top 5. Not a big change IMO :).

Post 2001, Kallis averages 61 with 55 matches and 15 centuries. Dravid averages 63 with 54 matches and 14 centuries. Their records are so amazingly similar, except Dravid has more doubles.

Also, Dravid has a better bowling average post 2001 than Kallis. :ph34r: But yea, I could switch them around and it would be about the same really.
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
PY said:
Nice try but pretty poor given you already indicated that you knew Richard has previous for this. :dry:
Click to expand...
what you trying to say, its not another multiple account case that Richy is going to hunt down is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top