Best Test opener of the 21st Century?

[subshakerz]

Donald broke down after Hayden had smashed him all over the park and scored a 100. Ntini was also bowling ~90mph in that series and averaged 24 in South Africa. Kallis was still in the phase of his career where he was averaging under 30 with the ball at that point as well.

The South African bowling lineups Hayden faced in South Africa were better then over half the attacks that Smith faced at home.

It's pretty well documented that Donald was on his last legs. Ntini was still raw and before his peak. Overall Hayden averaged 34 which is about right but some way behind Smith, but no need to conveniently pretend Hayden didn't fail in the 90s to make his record seem better there.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

It's pretty well documented that Donald was on his last legs. Ntini was still raw and before his peak. Overall Hayden averaged 34 which is about right but some way behind Smith, but no need to conveniently pretend Hayden didn't fail in the 90s to make his record seem better there.

The point isn't to ignore Hayden's failures in the 90s it was to compare Hayden's record in South Africa during the timeline of Smith's career.

Hayden was the most prolific batsmen in the world from 2001-2004. If Herschelle Gibbs could average 50 as an opener in South Africa during the 2000s then Hayden definitely would've averaged 50 there.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's pretty well documented that Donald was on his last legs. Ntini was still raw and before his peak. Overall Hayden averaged 34 which is about right but some way behind Smith, but no need to conveniently pretend Hayden didn't fail in the 90s to make his record seem better there.

What about the argument that Hayden became a better batsman, through, I dunno practice, application and that sort of lark.

We use peaks to supplement our understanding of other player's careers, then why can't the same be applied to Hayden?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm starting to get why all the Indian brahs get annoyed at shubshakerz

 

[subshakerz]

The point isn't to ignore Hayden's failures in the 90s it was to compare Hayden's record in South Africa during the timeline of Smith's career.

Hayden was the most prolific batsmen in the world from 2001-2004. If Herschelle Gibbs could average 50 as an opener in South Africa during the 2000s then Hayden definitely would've averaged 50 there.

Comparing someone's peak period in a country with another's entire career is an unfair comparison, no? You ignore the earlier tests because Hayden was too green but then Smith doesn't get that luxury.

 

[subshakerz]

What about the argument that Hayden became a better batsman, through, I dunno practice, application and that sort of lark.

We use peaks to supplement our understanding of other player's careers, then why can't the same be applied to Hayden?

No doubt Hayden was a better player 2001 onwards but conditions were also easier and attacks were not as strong. It doesn't have to be one factor or the other.

The exact same thing happened with Smith against Australia who peaked against them after their ATG attack had ended.

Again, don't compare a peak of Hayden's with an entire career of Smith's. Perhaps compare their peaks if you want to do such a thing.

 

[Burgey]

What about the argument that Hayden became a better batsman, through, I dunno practice, application and that sort of lark.

We use peaks to supplement our understanding of other player's careers, then why can't the same be applied to Hayden?

It's pretty well documented that Hayden essentially worked his arse off from the mid-90s onward to improve in every way possible at FC level. He still ended up having issues with lateral movement but some of the adjustments he made to his game were fantastic tbh.

I remember in 93/94 he played in the ODI series at home against SA and got in strife playing the pull shot - got out a couple of times spooning it to mid on. He went away and worked on it and became a really good player of the short ball. Just one example of how he changed up his game. Guy was so prolific in the Shield during the 90s, used to basically make a thousand runs every year and then some.

Slater got the jump on him on the 93 Ashes tour which set him back quite a bit too. Easy to forget how long he was out of the side for and how sporadic his appearances were until Waugh took over the captaincy. Even then, Spud Elliott got the nod for the 99 WI tour. He was about as useful as a marzipan dildo against Ambrose and Walsh on that tour.

 

[ashley bach]

It's pretty well documented that Hayden essentially worked his arse off from the mid-90s onward to improve in every way possible at FC level. He still ended up having issues with lateral movement but some of the adjustments he made to his game were fantastic tbh.

I remember in 93/94 he played in the ODI series at home against SA and got in strife playing the pull shot - got out a couple of times spooning it to mid on. He went away and worked on it and became a really good player of the short ball. Just one example of how he changed up his game. Guy was so prolific in the Shield during the 90s, used to basically make a thousand runs every year and then some.

Slater got the jump on him on the 93 Ashes tour which set him back quite a bit too. Easy to forget how long he was out of the side for and how sporadic his appearances were until Waugh took over the captaincy. Even then, Spud Elliott got the nod for the 99 WI tour. He was about as useful as a marzipan dildo against Ambrose and Walsh on that tour.

Lol never seen a marzipan dildo before, easy to imagine them not having much use.
Hayden was a beast before he played regularly for Australia, he could have/should have played much more than what he did.

 

[subshakerz]

It's pretty well documented that Hayden essentially worked his arse off from the mid-90s onward to improve in every way possible at FC level. He still ended up having issues with lateral movement but some of the adjustments he made to his game were fantastic tbh.

I remember in 93/94 he played in the ODI series at home against SA and got in strife playing the pull shot - got out a couple of times spooning it to mid on. He went away and worked on it and became a really good player of the short ball. Just one example of how he changed up his game. Guy was so prolific in the Shield during the 90s, used to basically make a thousand runs every year and then some.

Slater got the jump on him on the 93 Ashes tour which set him back quite a bit too. Easy to forget how long he was out of the side for and how sporadic his appearances were until Waugh took over the captaincy. Even then, Spud Elliott got the nod for the 99 WI tour. He was about as useful as a marzipan dildo against Ambrose and Walsh on that tour.

Not denying that Hayden was a better player since he returned to the side. Just that this was the only factor in him scoring so many runs.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Comparing someone's peak period in a country with another's entire career is an unfair comparison, no? You ignore the earlier tests because Hayden was too green but then Smith doesn't get that luxury.

You have one bad series in a country and it completely wrecks your stats in that country because of how fewer Tests you play in that country compared to playing at home. The same thing happened to Kallis in England where he had one bad series in 2008 when he was grossly out of form.

Yes, it was his peak years but it's a fair comparison because equally Hayden didn't get the luxury of facing minnow bowling attacks in South Africa like Smith did. He always had to play against South Africa who were always a Top 2/3 side in the world.

 

[Gob]

No doubt Hayden was a better player 2001 onwards but conditions were also easier and attacks were not as strong. It doesn't have to be one factor or the other.

The exact same thing happened with Smith against Australia who peaked against them after their ATG attack had ended.

Again, don't compare a peak of Hayden's with an entire career of Smith's. Perhaps compare their peaks if you want to do such a thing.

Eh Smith was one of the best openers going around when he played Aust home and away in 05-06 and sucked. You don't get appointed as ROW captain if you weren't

 

[Gob]

I'm starting to get why all the Indian brahs get annoyed at shubshakerz

Haha yeah. The problem is that he is way too much obsessed with away records but in a robotic way. Failed in 3 tests in nz so you can't play the moving ball let's tick that box. Need context ffs

 

[subshakerz]

You have one bad series in a country and it completely wrecks your stats in that country because of how fewer Tests you play in that country compared to playing at home. The same thing happened to Kallis in England where he had one bad series in 2008 when he was grossly out of form.

Well, that's just test cricket. Injuries are an excuse, but poor form is no excuse.

You want to decrease an already small sample of tests for Hayden in SA, exclude the time he actually faced top bowlers and make a big statement about it.

Kallis by the way failed in England in 2003 and 2008, so he really only has himself to blame for his record.

Yes, it was his peak years but it's a fair comparison because equally Hayden didn't get the luxury of facing minnow bowling attacks in South Africa like Smith did. He always had to play against South Africa who were always a Top 2/3 side in the world.

Peak years of 6 tests versus 60 tests at home of an entire career, including his debut, early years, peak and decline? Not fair at all.

 

[subshakerz]

Haha yeah. The problem is that he is way too much obsessed with away records but in a robotic way. Failed in 3 tests in nz so you can't play the moving ball let's tick that box. Need context ffs

Strawman there. I wouldn't make that statement about a single country's performance.

The problem is many posters here say the exact same thing I do, weighing away performances more heavily, talking about ideal strikerates, etc. Yet a few posters like to de-contextual a single point and get into a fuss about it which is just a constant problem.

 

[Gob]

Well that's a relief

 

[Burgey]

The problem is many posters here same the exact same thing I do, weighing away performances more heavily

Except, of course, when it comes to Allan Border, who averaged the small matter of 55 away from home.

 

[subshakerz]

Except, of course, when it comes to Allan Border, who averaged the small matter of 55 away from home.

What's your point? I supported Border.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Well, that's just test cricket. Injuries are an excuse, but poor form is no excuse.

You want to decrease an already small sample of tests for Hayden in SA, exclude the time he actually faced top bowlers and make a big statement about it.

Kallis by the way failed in England in 2003 and 2008, so he really only has himself to blame for his record.



Peak years of 6 tests versus 60 tests at home of an entire career, including his debut, early years, peak and decline? Not fair at all.

It wouldn't be fair if Smith didn't get to face attacks like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies at home.

My original point of contention was you saying Hayden wouldn't of even averaged 40 South Africa if he played there as a home batsman. Which to me is asinine, as Hayden proved during the 2000s that he could average 49 in South Africa against above average bowling attacks.

Likewise, Smith averaged 39 as an opener in Australia but had he played for Australia he probably definitely would've averaged ~50 as an opener in Australia.

 

[Gob]

From 2004 onwards (excluding early career here), Smith averaged 33 at home against non minow plus WI (who were **** anyway) for ten years with 3 tons. Probably explains why I always felt the bloke was like a walking wicket at home whenever I saw him.

His away performances were great but being mediocre at home for so long puts him on par at best with Hayden and Sehwag for me

 

[Gob]

And I really value away performances