*Official* Matthew Hayden Career Discussion

[Sanz]

Matthew Hayden for example bullied every single mediocre bowling attack he could find in unprecedented fashion. And yet when he came up against a strong pace bowling outfit in bowler friendly conditions (such as in the 2 Ashes series in England) the guy could barely lay bat on ball. No matter how much we try to ignore them, seamer friendly conditions still exist in cricket and anyone who cant score runs in those conditions needs to have his record looked at under the microscope. When I look at a player like Thorpe, who IMO is one of the most criminally underrated cricketers from the last 2 decades, I will always consider him to be a better player than Hayden. I couldn't care less if Hayden averages 50+, when he was put in unfavorable conditions, he was not even half the batsman as Thorpe was.

Let's completely ignore the fact that Hayden had great success in India where some of his esteemed colleagues performed very poorly.

 

[tooextracool]

Let's completely ignore the fact that Hayden had great success in India where some of his esteemed colleagues performed very poorly.

I dont ignore it. He performed brilliantly in India but the guy couldnt play the seaming ball to save his life until the fag end of his career. Just because he scored on average 10 more runs on a flat track in comparison to some of his contemporaries it doesn't escape the fact that many of them were far more capable of scoring runs in all conditions.

 

[robelinda]

Also, lets please not turn this into a Hayden-specific debate, because I think this thread could be really good if we don't. Whether or not his performances in India in adverse batting conditions make up for his failings in England in adverse batting conditions of a different nature really misses the point of the thread completely.

Agree. I'll also say that its complete garbage about Hayden being found out in 05. He was out of form for months beforehand, from the Indian tour in Oct 04, the Pak home series and the NZ tour right before the UK tour. He was on the verge of being dropped by the end of the Ashes and it wasnt because of 4 poor tests, more like 15 or so very average ones. By the time Flintoff was bowling to him he was miles out of form, forget facing a guy at the top of his bowling game.

 

[Sanz]

I dont ignore it. He performed brilliantly in India but the guy couldnt play the seaming ball to save his life until the fag end of his career. Just because he scored on average 10 more runs on a flat track in comparison to some of his contemporaries it doesn't escape the fact that many of them were far more capable of scoring runs in all conditions.

If they were far more capable than Hayden then why did they not score more runs and 100s than Hayden ?

 

[aussie]

Agree. I'll also say that its complete garbage about Hayden being found out in 05. He was out of form for months beforehand, from the Indian tour in Oct 04, the Pak home series and the NZ tour right before the UK tour. He was on the verge of being dropped by the end of the Ashes and it wasnt because of 4 poor tests, more like 15 or so very average ones. By the time Flintoff was bowling to him he was miles out of form, forget facing a guy at the top of his bowling game.

It was mixture of him being out form & then being exposed in Ashes 05 & earlier in the 04/05 season to Akhtar & Mills. So basically after the trott started in IND 04, him facing the first set of bowlers & conditions since Ashes 01 between NZ/PAK 04/05 - Ashes 05, who could expose his technical flaws, prolonged his form slump.

But of course his Oval hundred, vs SA 05/06 (home & away) & IND 07/08 he corrected that.

 

[aussie]

If they were far more capable than Hayden then why did they not score more runs and 100s than Hayden ?

TEC said, they where far more capable than scoring runs/100s that Hayden in all conditons (flat decks & bowler friendly conditions), instead of just as flat tracks. We are talking about FTB Hayden of Mumbai 01 - Carins 04 here, which needs to be highlighted. Since those faults where eventually corrected @ the back end of his career.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I know I am opening a can of worms here but if Hayden is a Ftb then what about Lillee?Would people say he isn't an Atg or atleast rate him below others who have stellar records home and away,in and out of the sc?

 

[aussie]

I know I am opening a can of worms here but if Hayden is a Ftb then what about Lillee?Would people say he isn't an Atg or atleast rate him below others who have stellar records home and away,in and out of the sc?

Yes you have opened a can of worms. Its one of the more ridiculous assertion is cricket that just because Lillee failed in 4 tests subcontinent and for that reason he is a 'green-top bully' or an 'incomplete' bowler or whatever critics of his record may wish to call him.

For all the talk of Lillee playing in predominant bowler friendl pitches in AUS, ENG, NZ, WI in his time. Flat sub-continent like pitches popped up ever so often in those countries & Lillee bowled well on them. Somehow people fail to realise that.

 

[Sanz]

TEC said, they where far more capable than scoring runs/100s that Hayden in all conditons (flat decks & bowler friendly conditions), instead of just as flat tracks. We are talking about FTB Hayden of Mumbai 01 - Carins 04 here, which needs to be highlighted. Since those faults where eventually corrected @ the back end of his career.

I ask the question again, If they were capable of scoring more runs/100s in all conditions then why didn't they ? Can we get Thrope and Hayden's performance comparison in SA ?

I find it really annoying when people continue to make idiotic comments about Hayden by calling him an FTB and even attempt to put some average English batsmen in the same or higher league.

 

[tooextracool]

I ask the question again, If they were capable of scoring more runs/100s in all conditions then why didn't they ? Can we get Thrope and Hayden's performance comparison in SA ?

I find it really annoying when people continue to make idiotic comments about Hayden by calling him an FTB and even attempt to put some average English batsmen in the same or higher league.

I mentioned that Thorpe was capable of scoring runs in all conditions. I never said he was capable of scoring more runs than Hayden on all tracks

Look even if we filter it out and look at Thorpe's record from 2000 onwards which is the same era in which Hayden scored all of his runs, their records are comparable:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

To call Thorpe an average batsman is quite frankly insulting. As far as I'm concerned, he went all over the world and scored runs against attacks that Hayden would wet himself in his dreams about. And this is while his personal life and his marriage were falling apart and he was struggling to keep his emotions on the field in check. Get a grip on yourself.

 

[Sanz]

I mentioned that Thorpe was capable of scoring runs in all conditions. I never said he was capable of scoring more runs than Hayden on all tracks

Look even if we filter it out and look at Thorpe's record from 2000 onwards which is the same era in which Hayden scored all of his runs, their records are comparable:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Filter works, when nothing else does.

 

[GIMH]

I ask the question again, If they were capable of scoring more runs/100s in all conditions then why didn't they ? Can we get Thrope and Hayden's performance comparison in SA ?

I find it really annoying when people continue to make idiotic comments about Hayden by calling him an FTB and even attempt to put some average English batsmen in the same or higher league.

wat

 

[aussie]

Filter works, when nothing else does.

He is right. Unfortunately i dont think you understand Hayden's career.

Since take if from me & man who say all Hayden test live in this 2000s era & who is big fan of his, who i always pick him to open in Australia's ATXI. Hayden was a supreme FTB from Mumbai 2001 - Cairns 2004, that is without question. He never faced a quality pace bowling attack in bowling friendly conditons during that period, he just dominated qulaity spin on turners & joke pace attacks on roads.

The only time in that Mumabi 01 - Cairns 04 period he faced a quality pace attack in bowler friendly condtions was Ashes 01 & while all the other AUS batsmen did well. Hayden was the only inf from batsman who didn't score a hundred & struggled againts the swing.

His failures in Ashes 05 was a direct consequence of it being the first time since Ashes 01 that he faced a quality pace attack & those old technical flaws where readily exposed. But he corrected that flaw with his Oval hundred, runs vs SA 05/06, MCG 06 & IND 07/08.

 

[Flem274*]

Guys, I'm pretty sure Sanz was referring to the Atherton>Hayden argument.

 

[GIMH]

Guys, I'm pretty sure Sanz was referring to the Atherton>Hayden argument.

Thorpe was the guy mentioned, though, wasn't he?

 

[Sanz]

Guys, I'm pretty sure Sanz was referring to the Atherton>Hayden argument.

Not Just Artherton but Hussain, Thorpe, Artherton> Hayden argument.

They were all average and would never be considered for a Top XI of their era (well except for a English XI), Whereas Hayden would easily be considered among the top batsmen of his era.

 

[robelinda]

Have to say I always Thorpe was great, though his absence during the 2000's vs Australia hurt him, even in the 98/99 Ashes he only played one test. His debut ton was full of class, and how he faced WI in 94 and 95 was pretty good. Lack of really big scores hurt him, but then again rarely do batsmen from Eng, Aus, NZ and SA make lots of 250+ scores like you see from the SC guys seemingly often.

 

[Sanz]

He is right. Unfortunately i dont think you understand Hayden's career.

I understand Hayden's career, I don't understand your Argument. Did Thorpe perform better than Hayden in South Africa in his entire career ? They both played 10 tests and batted in 18 innings, and not surprisingly, Hayden scored 150+ runs more than Thorpe, 1 century more than Thorpe, 1 50 more than Thorpe, and at a much higher strike rate.

In their entire careers both played similar no. of test matches and Hayden has almost 2000 runs more than Thorpe, 14 100s more than Thorpe. Not to forget the fact that he was also opening the innings, which is a lot harder than batting in the middle order.

You have not presented a single evidence supporting your argument except for repeating like a broken record "Mumbai 2001 and Cairns 2004" .

 

[Flem274*]

Graham Thorpe was far from an average player, and several light years above Hussain and Atherton.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also, lets please not turn this into a Hayden-specific debate, because I think this thread could be really good if we don't. Whether or not his performances in India in adverse batting conditions make up for his failings in England in adverse batting conditions of a different nature really misses the point of the thread completely.

*sigh*

Oh well, the thread would probably be dead by now if it wasn't for the Hayden-specific stuff anyway so I guess it doesn't really matter.