Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not arguing that, just that he did get out to reverse swing a couple of times in the 2005 Ashes.

Hayden can and always has been able to play seam bowling IMO. His feats on the Gabba when it was a genuinely lethal seamers wicket in the 90s were remarkable, and he's played a number of good inning at test level in trying conditions. Obviously it's not something he dealt with a hell of a lot from 2000-2004 or so when pitches were almost universally extremely flat, but the evidence is there that he can play in such conditions. He has some problems with the ball swinging into him because of his aggressive front foot technique, but he can put that away when necessary, and it's earned him a lot more success than failure anyway.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Gawd please don't tell me, not the Hayden can't play against seam bowling argument again

I remember having this argument with TEC a couple of years and all he could come up with was approximately 6 instances in the 120 odds innings hayden had played at the time of him failing on a seamers pitch.

And that's the crucial point. Just about every batsman struggles to an extent against quality seam bowling in conditions assisting it. Hayden almost never faced the combination of the two outside of the 2005 Ashes. The question is, is it actually a weakness in his game if >95% of the time it can't be exposed? I think not. I think given the conditions predominant in world cricket and the general quality of seam bowling, Hayden's (expected) weakness against swing and seam is not a genuine factor.

 

[Matt79]

To suggest that the Matt Hayden of 1994 or 1996 is the same player as the Hayden of 2001 onwards makes about as much sense as judging Steve Waugh based on his performances up until '93. He went away, he kept working at it, he developed a better understanding of his game, and he came back and found his feet. Other factors have played a part probably, but it is unfair to discount the fact that he has improved his game as he's gone on. That's what good sportspeople do - learn from their experience.

 

[mavric41]

If you're going to start bringing actual information, rather than half-baked stats or crass generalisations, Mav, I'd suggest that you're in the wrong thread...

Sorry

 

[Matt79]

it's alright, I just wanted to quote your post. Thought it deserved to be said twice tbh...

 

[mavric41]

it's alright, I just wanted to quote your post. Thought it deserved to be said twice tbh...

Thanks for that. I took it in the spirit that it was meant.

 

[Zinzan]

And that's the crucial point. Just about every batsman struggles to an extent against quality seam bowling in conditions assisting it. Hayden almost never faced the combination of the two outside of the 2005 Ashes. The question is, is it actually a weakness in his game if >95% of the time it can't be exposed? I think not. I think given the conditions predominant in world cricket and the general quality of seam bowling, Hayden's (expected) weakness against swing and seam is not a genuine factor.

Precisely the point i made to TEC a couple of years ago. If this supposed weakness can be shown statistically just 5% of the time, its hardly a weakness is it.

The other argument that is often used about Hayden is that he wasn't exposed to either the pitches or seam bowlers of the 80s, which is true to an extent. But it must be remembered that all batsmen of Haydens era are the same. You can only play on the pitches and the bowlers that are in front of you. Its probably fair to say that most of the batsmen of this era would have been a good 5-6 runs shy in their batting average had they played in the 80s.

 

[aussie_suporter]

For an opener, no.
Hayden moves his feet decently on the front foot- better than Sehwag. But Sehwag's backfoot play is much stronger than Hayden's. If you are an opener against top notch bowling, your backfoot play *must* be impeccable and whoever has the better backfoot play will eventually win out - this is the category where Hayden is almost dead-set last amongst anyone who's averaging over 40 today.

im just curious have you ever played club cricket on a proper turf pitch?? especially one that is hard and fast and super bouncy??
the rule for any batsmen is to get on the front foot as much as possible that way you eliminate the extra time for the ball to swing and there for less chance of a nick (especially if playing defensively on the stumps) as for matty hayden
he did play against alot of the bowlers mentioned (pollock donald curtly wasim) yes they were great bowlers but hayden had his games every so often where he dominated them and your also forgetting that he is a brilliant gully fielder
i field there for club and its 1 of the hardest spots to field on the ground.

yes hayden isnt the best players in the world but for **** sake cut him some slack once in a while and applaude his performances instead of putting him down because he's proven you wrong for once

 

[Zinzan]

Gilchrist also falls firmly into the ugly category for mine. The only Australian batsmen of the last 5 years who I genuinely enjoyed watching are Damien Martyn, Justin Langer and Mike Hussey.

Well there is a classic example of how we all have different taste in batsmen - a bit like women to an extent - I mean whilst I also enjoyed watching Martyn, I've actually always found Langer an ugly batsmen.

 

[C_C]

he did play against alot of the bowlers mentioned (pollock donald curtly wasim) yes they were great bowlers but hayden had his games every so often where he dominated them and your also forgetting that he is a brilliant gully fielder

You don't have to make up stuff ya know.
Hayden back when he played them failed to average 30. Nuff said, really.

the rule for any batsmen is to get on the front foot as much as possible that way you eliminate the extra time for the ball to swing and there for less chance of a nick (especially if playing defensively on the stumps) as for matty hayden

Utter nonsense. You try that against opening fast bowlers of Curtley/Wasim/Waqar callibre and you will die on the pitch. One of the reasons openers have traditionally been weak against spinners is openers = backfoot play specialists. For spin, you need front foot mastery.

yes hayden isnt the best players in the world but for **** sake cut him some slack once in a while and applaude his performances instead of putting him down because he's proven you wrong for once

Proven me wrong ? err i don't think so.
Hayden = good flat track front foot bully against mediocre medium pacers. Ambrose had him for lunch. And that certainly wasn't bad patch or anything- he simply is NOT a test class opener against quality fast bowling ( emphasis on FAST).
Like i said before, if the opposition is any excellent pace bowling side (such as Pakistan from 80s-late 90s, WI from 70s to late 90s, S.Africa from mid 90s to early 2000s, etc) and my option is to have Hayden open or bump Healy up as makeshift opener and get an extra middle order bat, i'd do so 9 times out of 10.

Here's the list of Aussie openers off the top of my head who i think are/were better than Hayden : Taylor, Slater, Elliott, Langer, Lawry, Simpson, etc etc.
Well..practically 90% of aussie openers really.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know who was saying about Ambrose and Tendulkar never playing each other, but here they are:


http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/IND_IN_WI/IND_WI_T1_06-10MAR1997.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/IND_IN_WI/IND_WI_T2_14-18MAR1997.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/IND_IN_WI/IND_WI_T3_27-31MAR1997.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/IND_IN_WI/IND_WI_T5_17-21APR1997.html

His scores in the four matches were: 7, 15*, 88, 92, 4, 83.

All four took place IN West Indies against both Walsh and Ambrose. That's an average of 57.

 

[Matt79]

he simply is NOT a test class opener against quality fast bowling ( emphasis on FAST).

Hmmm...

A century when no-one else passed 50 against a couple of guys who are meant to be good FAST bowlers. Looks like the pitch might have been doing a bit too...

doesn't look like Bond bothered him much here

 

[silentstriker]

To be fair, Waqar Younis circa 2002-2003 was hardly top class.

EDIT: In any case, Hayden is a good player. Best opener of this century.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmmm...

A century when no-one else passed 50 against a couple of guys who are meant to be good FAST bowlers. Looks like the pitch might have been doing a bit too...

doesn't look like Bond bothered him much here

Fixed, Matt

 

[Matt79]

Fixed, Matt

Thanks - I'd hoped I'd fixed it before anyone noticed... So THAT'S how the fiddle with the links thingy works!!!

 

[C_C]

By 'good' fast bowling attacks, i do not mean a near-retirement medium pace 80mph Waqar Younis or an erratic Akhtar. Nor do i mean one-bowler in an attack who barely plays more than 5 matches a year and the rest are dibbly dobbly medium pacers.
If thats the standard, then Paddles-led Kiwi attack was monstrously good. One bowler does not make a bowling attack, unless said bowler is bowling 50-60 overs an innings with success !

 

[Matt79]

To be fair, Waqar Younis circa 2002-2003 was hardly top class.

EDIT: In any case, Hayden is a good player. Best opener of this century.

He'd still be a quality fast bowler though... And I suppose Shoiab is a mediocre medium pacer?

 

[C_C]

He'd still be a quality fast bowler though... And I suppose Shoiab is a mediocre medium pacer?

No, Waqar was not a quality fast bowler in the new millenia. Hell, he was not even fast in the new millenia and relied on swing more than anything else.
Akhtar is a decent fast bowler- nothing extraordinary really.

Since i do not consider a Hadlee + 3 nobodies as a 'quality fast bowling attack', why on earth will i consider a mediocre + fading Waqar + Akhtar + 2 nobodies as a quality fast bowling attack ?

Does that get anywhere close to Curtly-Cuddy/two Ws/ Donald-Pollock/Gillespie-McGrath/Lillee-Thommo/WI plethora of four prongs, etc etc ?!?

 

[silentstriker]

He'd still be a quality fast bowler though... And I suppose Shoiab is a mediocre medium pacer?

Eh? I am not the one who said those things.

 

[Matt79]

By 'good' fast bowling attacks, i do not mean a near-retirement medium pace 80mph Waqar Younis or an erratic Akhtar. Nor do i mean one-bowler in an attack who barely plays more than 5 matches a year and the rest are dibbly dobbly medium pacers.
If thats the standard, then Paddles-led Kiwi attack was monstrously good. One bowler does not make a bowling attack, unless said bowler is bowling 50-60 overs an innings with success !

Hmmmm... interesting. So unless a team has four all-time greats (which has happened, what once in 110 years of test cricket) at once, they're no good. I specifically looked for Bond because you mentioned him as the one decent fast bowler - in your estimation - with whom Hayden has had to contend. And actually, you mentioned "quality fast bowling (full stop)" - not "fast bowling on the day in that bowler's life when he was feeling at his absolute peak and took 5-20" or "fast bowling from a bowler who was part of an all-time great attack". Your point clearly suggested that you feel he's technically incapable of dealing with genuinely quick bowling. I'd suggest those examples show there are occasions when he's done precisely that.

right back at you...