This is the thing - opening is supposed to be about such things. For most of the last 6 years, it hasn't been - opening bowlers have been rubbish, pitches have barely offered a thing and balls have been almost as-a-rule refusing to swing much or for that long.
Now, it's no coincidence that there've been any number of openers who've cashed-in - and been able to bat far more aggressively, not just as the ball's got older, but with it virtually brand-new. Hayden and Langer, Smith and Gibbs, Gayle, Sehwag, Trescothick, Strauss, etc. - all strokeplayers who very possibly wouldn't succeed against top-class opening bowling.
In the 1990s, there were perhaps 2 openers who succeeded by attacking quality new-ball bowling: Saeed Anwar and Michael Slater. All other top-class openers (Taylor, Kirsten, Atherton, Atapattu, Hudson for a time, etc.) were defensive players. Same applies to the 1980s: Gooch and Greenidge were two in a crowd that featured the likes of Gavaskar, Marsh, Haynes, Mudassar, etc. Same in the 1970s too: Fredericks and Greenidge again contrasted with Boycott, Gavaskar again, Edrich, the list goes on.
Now, Matthew Hayden has, as far as I'm concerned, been exposed every (very rare) occasion he's come-up against quality swing-and-seam bowling, especially inswing. The greater part of this came earlier on in his career. Hence, I don't really count him as that good an opening batsman, and it's my opinion that he'd have struggled to average 30 and wouldn't have been around very long in almost any other era of cricket, bar maybe the 1930s when batting was also often pretty easy.
