Will Matt Hayden go down as an all-time great?

[Tony]

You have to assume that a star in the 20s would be a star today because if he played today he would have all the preparation, fitness etc etc that they have today. I think cricket is one of the best games to compare people over 100+ years because the nature of the game has changed less than say Aussie rules (AFL).

Also but I dont know why but I feel more comfortable describing openers as pairs like Hayden and Langer who helped each other so much. Haydos aggressive nature enabled Lang to play a more "solid" type of game, but when Haydos struggled and had to graft out scores Lang became more aggressive. Also with Langer some of his very aggressive 40 odd scores in NZ a few years ago where we won a low scoring series 3-0 really had a huge impact. There may be arguments over whether Hayden was an all time great or not but his pairing with Langer is one I am more comfortable rating as an all time great than Hayden individually.

That said, his effort in this series with Jacques as a new partner must almost tip him into all time greatness. If he drags Jacques anywhere near the opening partnership averages he had with Lang then it would be very hard to argue against Haydos being an all time great

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ignoring the different era's argument, of the openers I've seen I would put Gavaskar, Greenidge, Boycott and Barry Richards (dispite unproven Test ability) ahead of Hayden without hesitation. He's still a top class opener though, I don't think the extreme negative views about him sometimes expressed on this site are something that you will see elsewhere.

 

[Perm]

I don't think the extreme negative views about him sometimes expressed on this site are something that you will see elsewhere.

That could possibly be explained by the highly analytical and intellectual nature of Cricket Web.

 

[social]

Haha, the same old crap from social. I'm glad that pasag and Jono are basically ****ting on his argument, it's that ridiculous, hypocritical and biased.

Yeah, their killing me!

20 stone players are everywhere I look because the game is still the same

 

[pasag]

Ignoring the different era's argument, of the openers I've seen I would put Gavaskar, Greenidge, Boycott and Barry Richards (dispite unproven Test ability) ahead of Hayden without hesitation. He's still a top class opener though, I don't think the extreme negative views about him sometimes expressed on this site are something that you will see elsewhere.

I used to think it was just a CW thing, but I have seen it elsewhere most recently in a Australian media article asking how Hayden could criticise a certain bowler who took easy wickets when he made a career from getting easy runs rarely facing a bowler of note (memory is a bit hazy on that, couldn't find the link either). But yeah, I don't think you'll find Hussain, Atherton> Hayden views in many other places.

 

[Jono]

I've heard Australian fans who you wouldn't find on an internet forum call Hayden a bit of a flat track bully.

Its not as rare as you'd think. But point taken, he's definitely held in higher regard off the forum then on it generally.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That could possibly be explained by the highly analytical and intellectual nature of Cricket Web.

I used to think it was just a CW thing, but I have seen it elsewhere most recently in a Australian media article asking how Hayden could criticise a certain bowler who took easy wickets when he made a career from getting easy runs rarely facing a bowler of note (memory is a bit hazy on that, couldn't find the link either). But yeah, I don't think you'll find Hussain, Atherton> Hayden views in many other places.

I was really referring to the extremist view that he's not a Test Class batsman. To be honest I'm sorry I brought it up as this thread has been mainly a good one with sensible debate.

 

[Perm]

I was really referring to the extremist view that he's not a Test Class batsman. To be honest I'm sorry I brought it up as this thread has been mainly a good one with sensible debate.

He's Test Class, but I personally think he would have struggled to be a Test Class opener in a less batsman friendly era.

 

[chaminda_00]

Do people honestly think that all his 30 odd hundred were in bowler friendly conditions and against average bowlers. There were plenty of hundred against some quality bowlers and in tough conditions.

Also if he did play against better bowlers in more seamer friendly conditions and he averages say mid 40s. Wouldn't that make him on par with Greenidge.

 

[Perm]

Do people honestly think that all his 30 odd hundred were in bowler friendly conditions and against average bowlers. There were plenty of hundred against some quality bowlers and in tough conditions.

Far be it from me to be a vocal Hayden-basher, but I'll just do a basic exercise here. Hayden is an excellent player of spin, it's high quality pace bowling he stuggles against, and as an opener, that's pretty poor. A definite sign of the weak bowling and bat-friendly conditions that he is able to average 53 in this era.

Of Matthew Hayden's 30 Test centuries, three have come against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. A further six have come against India, who have lacked a high quality pace bowler in the last decade, let alone one that bowled against Hayden. One century against a pretty weak New Zealand attack, where Australia made almost 500. Another century against Pakistan, in which he hardly faced Wasim and Shoaib, making most of his runs off the other three bowlers. Three more centuries against Sri Lanka (two of which came in 500+ totals), primarily faced by spin bowlers. Two centuries against the West Indies in 2003 and two in 2005 were both against weak bowling attacks, while his maiden ton in 1997 was made in a 500+ total. Three centuries against England in 2002 were against weak bowling attacks, another in 2005 was a good knock, but hardly against great bowlers, and he smashed several rubbish bowlers in 2006. Three centuries at home against South Africa in 2001 were made on flat tracks, and poor attacks. Another in 2002 was made in a total of 600+, while two centuries in 2005 and 2006 were against primarily seam bowlers, but not of the highest quality.

 

[pasag]

Wrt downplaying a score made in a 500+ innings, it's a point I have a lot of time for when discussing middle order batsmen, but I think with openers, the big score was enabled because of their efforts, ie later players were able to come in and hit more freely with less pressure and the opener should get credit for that and not the opposite, imo.

 

[Perm]

Also if he did play against better bowlers in more seamer friendly conditions and he averages say mid 40s. Wouldn't that make him on par with Greenidge.

He would have to be extremely lucky to average around 45 if he played in the same era that Greenidge did. Facing fast bowlers the quality of Walsh, Ambrose, Garner, Marshall, Holding, Dev, Willis, Botham and Hadlee, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Hayden's average closer to 35.

That's not to say he wouldn't have suceeded against the Indian spinners, and other good slow bowlers of that era, because nobody is questioning him as a player of spin.

 

[Perm]

Wrt downplaying a score made in a 500+ innings, it's a point I have a lot of time for when discussing middle order batsmen, but I think with openers, the big score was enabled because of their efforts, ie later players were able to come in and hit more freely with less pressure and the opener should get credit for that and not the opposite, imo.

Perhaps, but it does give some indication that batting wasn't especially difficult if your team was able to make 500+ scores consistently. And against poor bowlers.

 

[chaminda_00]

He would have to be extremely lucky to average around 45 if he played in the same era that Greenidge did. Facing fast bowlers the quality of Walsh, Ambrose, Garner, Marshall, Holding, Dev, Willis, Botham and Hadlee, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Hayden's average closer to 35.

That's not to say he wouldn't have suceeded against the Indian spinners, and other good slow bowlers of that era, because nobody is questioning him as a player of spin.

He wouldn't face potentially the best of that lot in Walsh, Ambrose, Garner, Marshall and Holding, if we are comparing him to Greenidge. So you don't think he wouldn't be able to play innings were he would gets past Dev, Wills, Botham and Hadlee and dominate the rest who were that good especially in India's and New Zealand's case. In 80s there might have been some top bowler, but there was a lot of average attacks especially when it came to depth outside West Indies. I would be surprised if Hayden wouldn't average mid 40s.

 

[Perm]

He wouldn't face potentially the best of that lot in Walsh, Ambrose, Garner, Marshall and Holding, if we are comparing him to Greenidge. So you don't think he wouldn't be able to play innings were he would gets past Dev, Wills, Botham and Hadlee and dominate the rest who were that good especially in India's and New Zealand's case. In 80s there might have been some top bowler, but there was a lot of average attacks especially when it came to depth outside West Indies. I would be surprised if Hayden wouldn't average mid 40s.

Okay, let's pretend that Hayden played in place of Greenidge. Personally I don't think Hayden's technique would stand up to bowlers like Lillee, Hadlee, Willis, Imran, Botham, Kapil, Thomson, Hendrick, Hogg etc. Certainly as an opener, that would be his main challenge. If he somehow managed to score enough runs against those bowlers to justify his place in the side, then I think he'd score heavily against the numerous high-quality spinners that were around in the 70's and 80's.

 

[social]

Perhaps, but it does give some indication that batting wasn't especially difficult if your team was able to make 500+ scores consistently. And against poor bowlers.

Or maybe Hayden beat them into submission and others took advantage

Some of your arguments are so biased against Hayden it's a joke (e.g. he scored a hundred against Shoaib and Waqar whilst omitting the fact that the wicket was so bad that Pakistan were dismissed twice in the game for 50!!!!!!)

But hey, at least you've admitted a guy with 30 hundreds (and being easily the fastest to reach that figure) is test class

 

[social]

Okay, let's pretend that Hayden played in place of Greenidge. Personally I don't think Hayden's technique would stand up to bowlers like Lillee, Hadlee, Willis, Imran, Botham, Kapil, Thomson, Hendrick, Hogg etc. Certainly as an opener, that would be his main challenge. If he somehow managed to score enough runs against those bowlers to justify his place in the side, then I think he'd score heavily against the numerous high-quality spinners that were around in the 70's and 80's.

And average 45 - which surely ranks him as a great, despite being nearly 10 behind his current record. Or do you think different rules should apply to him than apply to Greenidge and Haynes?

 

[river end]

Some of your arguments are so biased against Hayden it's a joke (e.g. he scored a hundred against Shoaib and Waqar whilst omitting the fact that the wicket was so bad that Pakistan were dismissed twice in the game for 50!!!!!!)

Problem is, we're talking about Pakistan here - not necessarily the wicket was bad. There was nothing poor about that wicket. Not a 'normal' team. One that suffers more regularly from "shock" or erratic performances and gets beaten by the likes of Ireland and Bangladesh more regularly than a traditional side. Pakistan traditionally can be both brilliant and atrociously poor with the same team.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Hobbs was Bradman's hero

Who considers Hayden their hero ?

I'd say a lot of kids in Australia would. Who knows, maybe one will go on to be the next Bradman? Everyone has a hero.

 

[mavric41]

Problem is, we're talking about Pakistan here - not necessarily the wicket was bad. There was nothing poor about that wicket. Not a 'normal' team. One that suffers more regularly from "shock" or erratic performances and gets beaten by the likes of Ireland and Bangladesh more regularly than a traditional side. Pakistan traditionally can be both brilliant and atrociously poor with the same team.

Did you see that match? It was 54 degrees out in the middle. The conditions were extremely oppressive. Pakistan used the same ball for most of the innings. It was a soft, misshapen piece of leather that hardly rolled. Yet Hayden scored a hundred, much more than any other batsmen. It so disheartened the Pakistani batsmen that they lost the will to fight and collapsed in both innings. It was outstanding batting.

Surely the number of times that Hayden has reinvented himself should prove that he would have overcome the challenge of bowlers in the 90's if he was given the chance. Don't forget he was kept out by the NSW collective. (two quite good batsmen in Taylor and Slater )