Another one of those A vs B threads

[Shri]

Matthew Hayden Vs Sourav Ganguly [ODI Cricket]

Who was the better batsman in ODIs when we compare Ganguly and Hayden?

Ganguly played almost twice as many games as Hayden and yet averages almost the same as Hayden. He has over 11,000 ODI runs to his name and also has a strike rate that is only slightly lesser than Hayden's strike rate. Who is better in your opinion?

Cricinfo Statsguru - SC Ganguly - One-Day Internationals - Batting analysis

Cricinfo Statsguru - ML Hayden - One-Day Internationals - Batting analysis

 

[Pratters]

Hayden. Better over all S/R and average and better away record. Ganguly struggles in comparison with an away average of 36. I am not implying that Ganguly is not an ODI great for that he certainly is.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmm, I reckon Ganguly. Did it for such a long time.

 

[bagapath]

actually a very intereting question. never seen this done before. pretty sensible question too since both are openers.

 

[Shri]

actually a very intereting question. never seen this done before. pretty sensible question too since both are openers.

Both left handed too.

 

[martin88]

Very valid and sensible comparison. I'd reckon Ganguly for the sheer longetivity.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Interesting too that both were probably the lesser valued wicket of their opening partnerships. Contrasting players, with Ganguly so good square of the wicket, whilst Hayden's strength lay mainly down the ground.

To elaborate further on my choice, because of the strength of the opposition within his own country, Hayden got games when he was at his best. Plus the fact that he managed to strike his purest form at a time when Australia played a large number of ODIs, allowing his purple patch to bolster his record.

Ganguly, due to his early success, was always going to have a bit more leeway with selectors, thus he was carried through some periods where he wasn't quite as successful. Thus, he had to endure a few more troughs, and hence why managing to maintain his record over such a time is admirable.

 

[Uppercut]

Hayden for me. Personal preference.

 

[Richard]

Ganguly, absolutely no question. Hayden was actually an absolutely brilliant ODI opener for a year or so (which was far more than he ever was in Tests), starting from that tour of New Zealand in 2006/07. Ganguly, on the other hand, was such a thing for 6 years 1996-2002. He then lost his place at the top of the order as Tendulkar insisted on batting there and Sehwag was retained for 6 years of utter uselessness based on 1 year of brilliance.

Even plenty of Australians didn't think that much of Hayden the ODI player until that tour. He'd had the odd good spell (2002/03) but mostly had done precious little of note.

Hayden's average is so high because, like Paul Collingwood, when he was hot he was so sensationally hot it disguised the fact that when he was moderate he was actually moderate for a very long time indeed. Though clearly Hayden > Collingwood as when he was good he was better, for longer.

On the relatively rare occasions Ganguly got to open again after 2002, he was nowhere near the force he had been.

Obviously we'll never know how Hayden would've fared had he batted three and four (or even six and seven) because he virtually never had to do it.

 

[oitoitoi]

Yeah AWTA, Ganguly's longevity was fantastic. Also I think he was one of the few players in world cricket who understood how to play the long one day innings, that said he was versatile and could bring the blitz when needed. Personally I believe he was a much better batsmen than he had ever been after coming back from the Greg Chappell saga, he'd finally had the time to sort out his technique. If he hadn't had the captaincy so young he may well have done this earlier and I honestly believe he could have been a test great.

With all Australian players of this era we have to take into account the fact that Hayden had the license to cut loose pretty much from ball one because the middle and lower order were so strong. Also I think while Hayden was a pretty good one day batsmen for most of his international career it was one incredible year that gave his stats a big boost.

 

[Richard]

Yeah AWTA, Ganguly's longevity was fantastic. Also I think he was one of the few players in world cricket who understood how to play the long one day innings, that said he was versatile and could bring the blitz when needed. Personally I believe he was a much better batsmen than he had ever been after coming back from the Greg Chappell saga, he'd finally had the time to sort out his technique.

Certainly he was a far better Test batsman after coming back in 2006/07 than he'd ever been, but in ODIs after coming back he wasn't the same. He still scored runs, but he was one-paced; it was anchor only. Where, as you say, previously he'd been capable of both anchoring and blitzing (as of course had his partner).

There was only one occasion in Ganguly's post-Greg ODI career where he truly set the hairs on edge like the Ganguly of old, and it was this game. I reported on the game, in fact, and I had this to say:

The Indian chase was a fine team effort, with contributions from Gautam Gambhir and Mahendra Dhoni, who stuck with Uthappa as the required-rate touched 10-an-over. Ganguly and Tendulkar, however, had put their side well on track with yet another superlative opening stand. Unlike previous opening salvos in this series, the experienced pair were forced to play strokes virtually from the word go, and they recaptured all their old glories in the first and second Powerplays.

 

[Uppercut]

Ganguly, absolutely no question. Hayden was actually an absolutely brilliant ODI opener for a year or so (which was far more than he ever was in Tests), starting from that tour of New Zealand in 2006/07. Ganguly, on the other hand, was such a thing for 6 years 1996-2002. He then lost his place at the top of the order as Tendulkar insisted on batting there and Sehwag was retained for 6 years of utter uselessness based on 1 year of brilliance.

Even plenty of Australians didn't think that much of Hayden the ODI player until that tour. He'd had the odd good spell (2002/03) but mostly had done precious little of note.

Hayden's average is so high because, like Paul Collingwood, when he was hot he was so sensationally hot it disguised the fact that when he was moderate he was actually moderate for a very long time indeed. Though clearly Hayden > Collingwood as when he was good he was better, for longer.

Hmm, the only difference you've described is Hayden having a lot of his good games concentrated in one era while Ganguly had them spread out across several. I don't see what's better about the latter tbh.

Ganguly's still probably slightly better on account of longevity- I'm just going for Hayden because i can barely remember Ganguly at his peak to the extent i can Haydos.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, the only difference you've described is Hayden having a lot of his good games concentrated in one era while Ganguly had them spread out across several. I don't see what's better about the latter tbh.

It's more the fact that Ganguly's amounted to 150 over 6 years and Hayden's to 30 or so over 1 than that they were concentrated.

I'd tend to regard the former as >>>>>>> the latter in any case (even in one where I don't have a wrongly-acquired reputation for hating the player in the latter case).

BTW I only remember the tail-end of Ganguly's awesome plateau (not like it was just a peak like Hayden's was) myself. But it was quite clear just how good he was.

 

[Pratters]

Ganguly, absolutely no question. Hayden was actually an absolutely brilliant ODI opener for a year or so

Not just a year. He was a solid opener for a fair bit. Just because Ganguly played more doesn't automatically make him better. Hayden was the more solid of the two.

 

[Richard]

I'm really not sure he was. He may have been the more solid physically but I don't think he was more solid in either his strokeplay or his defence. As I say, if Daniel Vettori had taken that catch in the VB Series game where Hayden was gifted that century that saved his career, and Hayden had not toured New Zealand in 2006/07, then he'd have gone down as a poor ODI batsman who had 1 great season (2002/03). Even there it was only really the first half of the season. EDIT: please don't throw the toys out of the cot about me mentioning a dropped catch, because even Hayden himself has acknowledged how this miss shaped his destiny. I am not mentioning it to degrade him as he fully earned what happened 181*-onwards, no fielders dropping catches will be being mentioned in that time. I am simply pointing-out how thin the line was between success and failure.

Up to the end of 2002, Hayden averaged 33.68 (and even this was still all-eggs-in-one-basket-ism - he'd had a good series in NZ in 1999/2000 and a good one in India in 2000/01, and done next to nothing aside from those). Between WC2003 and the England tour of 2005 he averaged 34.97. These are certainly not dreadful, though they are poor, but until 2006/07 (and specifically that 181*) that was how things were.

Then came that 181*, and from there to the end of his career he averaged 60.81. But that was what turned his career from pretty moderate to pretty good.

 

[Pratters]

That low average is because of his poor start to international cricket where he played 13 ODIs with little success.

year 1993 5 5 1 102 50* 25.50 220 46.36 0 1 0 10 0 view innings
year 1994 8 7 0 184 67 26.28 313 58.78 0 1 1 20 0 view innings

His second jab at ODI cricket was far more successful -

year 2000 6 6 1 191 64* 38.20 230 83.04 0 3 2 27 3 view innings
year 2001 8 7 0 311 111 44.42 351 88.60 1 2 2 27 5 view innings
year 2002 21 20 4 878 146 54.87 1069 82.13 1 6 0 87 17 view innings
year 2003 32 31 5 1037 88 39.88 1316 78.79 0 5 1 104 13 view innings
year 2004 23 23 0 946 126 41.13 1259 75.13 2 6 2 87 6 view innings
year 2005 16 16 1 482 114 32.13 684 70.46 1 2 0 57 6 view innings
year 2006 2 2 0 103 54 51.50 143 72.02 0 1 0 14 0 view innings
year 2007 32 30 3 1601 181* 59.29 1795 89.19 5 6 1 168 35 view innings
year 2008 8 8 0 298 82 37.25 387 77.00 0 3 0 35 2

 

[bagapath]

I'm really not sure he was. He may have been the more solid physically but I don't think he was more solid in either his strokeplay or his defence. As I say, if Daniel Vettori had taken that catch in the VB Series game where Hayden was gifted that century that saved his career, and Hayden had not toured New Zealand in 2006/07, then he'd have gone down as a poor ODI batsman who had 1 great season (2002/03). Even there it was only really the first half of the season. EDIT: please don't throw the toys out of the cot about me mentioning a dropped catch, because even Hayden himself has acknowledged how this miss shaped his destiny. I am not mentioning it to degrade him as he fully earned what happened 181*-onwards, no fielders dropping catches will be being mentioned in that time. I am simply pointing-out how thin the line was between success and failure.

Up to the end of 2002, Hayden averaged 33.68 (and even this was still all-eggs-in-one-basket-ism - he'd had a good series in NZ in 1999/2000 and a good one in India in 2000/01, and done next to nothing aside from those). Between WC2003 and the England tour of 2005 he averaged 34.97. These are certainly not dreadful, though they are poor, but until 2006/07 (and specifically that 181*) that was how things were.

Then came that 181*, and from there to the end of his career he averaged 60.81. But that was what turned his career from pretty moderate to pretty good.

history is full of such reprieves. it is what one does after a stroke of luck than a random moment itself that defines a career. even bradman was given not out during his first important post WW2 knock on 10. he went on to score 187 and a lot of commentators wrote he would have retired if he had failed in that innings. he went on to score runs. the commentators were just writing. hayden had a career that would be considered awesome in every possible way. it is not a mediocre one like, say, atherton's.

 

[bagapath]

btw, between hayden and ganguly i prefer ganguly as an ODI opener.

 

[Richard]

history is full of such reprieves. it is what one does after a stroke of luck than a random moment itself that defines a career. even bradman was given not out during his first important post WW2 knock on 10. he went on to score 187 and a lot of commentators wrote he would have retired if he had failed in that innings. he went on to score runs. the commentators were just writing. hayden had a career that would be considered awesome in every possible way. it is not a mediocre one like, say, atherton's.

I'll ignore that patently deliberately provocative comment, as any fool could tell Hayden was a superior ODI batsman to Atherton even before 2006/07.

I fully well realise that how a batsman capitalises on breaks which have come his way due to good fortune is indeed to his own credit. For example, Kumar Sangakkara played one of the best innings' I've ever seen at Bellerive Oval in the second-innings of a Test against Australia not so very long ago. Had he not got several let-offs in a dreadful first-innings 50-odd, I doubt he'd have managed to get into nick to play that second-innings knock. How a player capitalises on breaks which have come his way due to good fortune is indeed a huge part of how they shape their destiny. I tried, did I not, to emphasise that I fully agree with this in the above post which you quote?

 

[Richard]

That low average is because of his poor start to international cricket where he played 13 ODIs with little success.

year 1993 5 5 1 102 50* 25.50 220 46.36 0 1 0 10 0 view innings
year 1994 8 7 0 184 67 26.28 313 58.78 0 1 1 20 0 view innings

His second jab at ODI cricket was far more successful -

year 2000 6 6 1 191 64* 38.20 230 83.04 0 3 2 27 3 view innings
year 2001 8 7 0 311 111 44.42 351 88.60 1 2 2 27 5 view innings
year 2002 21 20 4 878 146 54.87 1069 82.13 1 6 0 87 17 view innings
year 2003 32 31 5 1037 88 39.88 1316 78.79 0 5 1 104 13 view innings
year 2004 23 23 0 946 126 41.13 1259 75.13 2 6 2 87 6 view innings
year 2005 16 16 1 482 114 32.13 684 70.46 1 2 0 57 6 view innings
year 2006 2 2 0 103 54 51.50 143 72.02 0 1 0 14 0 view innings
year 2007 32 30 3 1601 181* 59.29 1795 89.19 5 6 1 168 35 view innings
year 2008 8 8 0 298 82 37.25 387 77.00 0 3 0 35 2

As I say, I choose to look at it in a different way. You choose to look at it this way, and that's fair enough if you want to. But I'd say between WC2003 and English season 2005 Hayden was a very average ODI batsman.

One thing I am not remotely disagreeing with anyone on is that Hayden was superb from February 2007 onwards.