Does Cricket need a strong Australia?

[Red]

Went a lot further than that. Basically said he wouldn't have been test standard in another era.

I wouldn't go that far, he was a very good batsman, but he struggled against the better quicks most of the time. His record against England, NZ and South Africa away if pretty mediocre, and overall his record away is not great tbh. FTB and all that makes sense here.

Truth is, early in his career, Donald, Ambrose and Pollock had his measure, and by the time he came back into the team, there was a dearth of great quicks outside of the Australian team. He also went completely missing in the 2005 Ashes when England put together a well functioning pace attack.

If you are to go thru his hundreds, very few of them were made against good quicks. Something I value pretty highly when assessing who the great openers have been.

 

[Burgey]

There was an utterly brilliant piece written about Hayden on here when he retired.

The Colossus of Roads | Cricket Web

 

[honestbharani]

utterly brilliant self promotion too..

 

[Gob]

I wouldn't go that far, he was a very good batsman, but he struggled against the better quicks most of the time. His record against England, NZ and South Africa away if pretty mediocre, and overall his record away is not great tbh. FTB and all that makes sense here.

Truth is, early in his career, Donald, Ambrose and Pollock had his measure, and by the time he came back into the team, there was a dearth of great quicks outside of the Australian team. He also went completely missing in the 2005 Ashes when England put together a well functioning pace attack.

If you are to go thru his hundreds, very few of them were made against good quicks. Something I value pretty highly when assessing who the great openers have been.

By the time he came back, he was a far better batsman.

 

[stephen]

Hayden was pretty poor early in his career. It's a shame we never got to see 2003 era Hayden vs 1996 era Ambrose. That would have been a fascinating match up. But by the time Hayden was a complete batsman and was able to force his way into a very strong Australian side Ambrose, Donald and Walsh were all gone, so Hayden only had Pollock, Akhtar and Steyn as opponents who could be considered in the "potential ATG" class.

 

[stephen]

Just having a look over his record, Hayden made 3 tons in 4 matches against a 2001/02 Donald and made a ton in Sharjah against Waqar and Akhtar.

I think his "poor" record in SA is underrated too. He basically batted us to victory against a very strong SA attack in 05/06 when they were at home. He went missing in the dead rubber which dragged his series average down.

His 05 Ashes series was on the back of a bad run of form where he hadn't scored a century in 4 series against India, Sri Lanka and 2x New Zealand - not exactly countries known for their ATG fast bowling attacks. The fact that he was able to pull it together to make the career -saving hundred in the last test speaks as testament to his determination and ability to adapt.

Unfortunately by the time Steyn was in the SA team Hayden was on his last legs as a batsman. 03 Hayden vs 11 Steyn would have been a fascinating contest.

But my strongest memory of Hayden was in the 07 WC in the qualifier vs South Africa. Pollock was the number 1 rated bowler in ODI cricket at the time. Hayden took him apart, brutally smashing 18 off one over and hitting him out of the attack. I've never seen a single over set the tone for an entire tournament like that before.

 

[stephen]

Basically Hayden between 2001 and July 2008 was the greatest opener I've ever seen. Averages 57 over those years despite having an awful 2004 where he averaged mid 30s. The end of his career when his eye and give and the start of his career when he was too raw really shouldn't be held against him. In the 82 tests he played after he cemented his spot and before he got old he made 29 hundreds and averaged 57. Nobody can ask more of an opener.

Incidentally in those years he averaged 49 in SA against Donald, Pollock and Ntini and even more against them at home.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Oh boy is this Matthew Hayden chat fresh and interesting and never before rehashed fifty-thousand times on the site

 

[GIMH]

Oh boy is this Matthew Hayden chat fresh and interesting and never before rehashed fifty-thousand times on the site

Who do you prefer, him or Hussain?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Oh boy is this Matthew Hayden chat fresh and interesting and never before rehashed fifty-thousand times on the site

Probably because he'd be an easy guy to dislike from an outsiders perspective, so people look for reasons to discredit him, which leads to people defending him

 

[DriveClub]

I need a strong coffee

 

[stephen]

The Hayden discussion has redeemed the thread. It was Fox News opinion piece levels of bad beforehand.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Who do you prefer, him or Hussain?

Hussain solely on the basis of commentary.

 

[mr_mister]

It's funny how some of the most mediocre 90s players like Atherton and Hussain became such smart insightful commentators

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

It's funny how some of the most mediocre 90s players like Atherton and Hussain became such smart insightful commentators

In the case of those two guys specifically, both are obviously very intelligent both in regular and cricketing terms. Both were good cricketers who really got a lot out of themselves and their careers, and I think that helped them a lot in the way they think about the game at large. Both players who had to grind for every inch of their careers who made it to ~100 tests each including long stints as captains of their country, I think it makes sense that they'd both be very good commentators.

 

[Daemon]

It's funny how some of the most mediocre 90s players like Atherton and Hussain became such smart insightful commentators

Yep. Pretty sure we'll see Lyon in there when he's done.

 

[Compton]

It's funny how some of the most mediocre 90s players like Atherton and Hussain became such smart insightful commentators

Perhaps for the same reason that it's relatively rare in sport for the top, top players to become the best coaches.

Players who are deemed "mediocre" but who played long spells at the highest level are often those who extracted most from their talent, and accomplished just about everything that their talent was capable of. A player that does that is in a much better position to coach than one who is supremely talented, and to whom everything comes comparatively easy.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yep. Pretty sure we'll see Lyon in there when he's done.

If he's not double-dropping ecstacy and trying to pick up obviously married women in his post-cricketing career I'll be shocked tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hayden's always been under-rated. Missed out on the academy because no one thought he was going to make it. Part of it was bias against QLDers back in the day I think, the mental gymnastics people had to perform to claim that Bichel, Kasper, etc. were over-rated because they had helpful decks to work with in Shield cricket but that Hayden was also a flat-track bully was always amusing to watch.

He benefited from flatter decks worldwide post-2000 at the same time as he came of age, sure. So I doubt he'd have averaged 50+ in another time. But he had the game to be one of the better openers of his time whenever he played.

 

[Top_Cat]

Perhaps for the same reason that it's relatively rare in sport for the top, top players to become the best coaches.

Players who are deemed "mediocre" but who played long spells at the highest level are often those who extracted most from their talent, and accomplished just about everything that their talent was capable of. A player that does that is in a much better position to coach than one who is supremely talented, and to whom everything comes comparatively easy.

Hear this a lot but have always thought it was a bit of a cop-out by the guys concerned. To play Test cricket, you have to be both talented and resilient so I don't buy that they have less insight into their own games. Just think they don't wanna be good coaches and commentators. Greg Chappell isn't a poor coach because he doesn't understand how to impart technical advice to batsmen, for example.