Sachin Tendulkar vs Matthew Hayden

[CricAddict]

Here's the TL;DR for this argument:

For modern (1970 and later debut) openers I've got only Gavaskar above Hayden, all else are far below.

For modern middle order bats above Tendulkar:

Definitely Brian Lara, Steve Smith, Viv Richards, Sangakkara
Possibly Javed Miandad, Joe Root, Jacques Kallis, Greg Chappell, Rahul Dravid, Kane Williamson.

Basically, he doesn't separate himself from the pack of his competitors, the way that one of the 2 great openers of the modern era does.

And no, to me inconsistent longevity (aided by predominantly flat pitches), is not a way to separate yourself from batsmen with the similar or higher levels of production than you.

That's the strongest case I can make against Sachin. In honesty, I don't feel THAT strongly, other than I don't think he provides all this excess value over any other of these top tier batsmen, and a small grouping of them I'm pretty sure are clearly better, controlling for era/conditions, etc.

I seriously laughed out loud on reading this post.

This is a classic example of deciding first and reasoning next.

 

[ankitj]

You forgot Chanderpaul, ABD, Sehwag and Younis Khan

Also Yousuf, Jayawardene, Laxman, De Silva, Clarke, Pietersen, Amla, Inzamam.

 

[shortpitched713]

I seriously laughed out loud on reading this post.

This is a classic example of deciding first and reasoning next.

It's not really. Hayden, as an opener was exceptionally uncommon in his run scoring.

On face value looking at averages, for a contemporary middle order bat of Hayden to equal him would be equal to the formula 50.73 * ( 1/.894) =

56.745

which is about 3 points higher than Sachin's actual average of 53.78 .

People just aren't understanding how highly I'm rating Hayden's performance, due to him being an opener.

 

[ataraxia]

On face value looking at averages, for a contemporary middle order bat of Hayden to equal him would be equal to the formula 50.73 * ( 1/.894) = 56.745

why

 

[shortpitched713]

why

This is such a good question, and here's my historical reasoning as to why it should be the first factor (degree of difficulty in opening), and this is the higher factor by a large margin.

Here's the different averages by each position, for reference:

Full Test History (1877-Present):
Op) 35.71
01) 36.85
02) 34.56
03) 39.48
04) 40.84
05) 38.08
06) 32.61
07) 27.73
08) 21.31
09) 15.53
10) 11.57
11) 8.55
3-5) 39.49
Op/3-5) 0.904

Modern Era (1970-Pres):
Op) 35.92
01) 36.96
02) 34.88
03) 39.46
04) 41.66
05) 39.41
06) 34.11
07) 29.24
08) 21.91
09) 15.53
10) 11.40
11) 8.29
3-5) 40.18
Op/3-5) 0.894

Inter/Post Wars (1914-1969):
Op) 36.74
01) 38.49
02) 35.01
03) 41.86
04) 41.50
05) 36.21
06) 30.23
07) 24.89
08) 20.05
09) 15.89
10) 11.87
11) 8.70
3-5) 39.93
Op/3-5) 0.920

Pre World Wars (1877-1913):
Op) 28.69
01) 28.85
02) 28.53
03) 30.53
04) 27.54
05) 27.98
06) 22.55
07) 19.56
08) 18.60
09) 14.27
10) 12.62
11) 10.72
3-5) 28.70
Op/3-5) 1.000

If you look at the breakdown by eras, you'll notice that the gap between production of true middle order (I define as 3-5, but you can go with 3-4) is greatest in the modern era, but decreases in size progressively until you get to the earliest Pre World Wars eras where it's basically a negligible difference. It makes sense as well, as the absolute highest producing run-scorers of earlier eras were openers (think Hobbs, Sutcliffe). Thinking about it conceptually, if all else is equal and it's not really harder to open and bat up the order than further down then of course you'd want to put your best run scorers as high up the order as possible because it gives them the maximum ability to score the most runs possible, and minimizes the chance that they run out of batting partners.

So what changed from those early days of cricket to the modern era, with the highest run scorers of the side generally needing to be shielded from the new ball? Fast bowling technique with the new ball, developed and then exploded to become the defining feature of the game. This was really in it's infancy in the earlier eras of Test cricket for mine, and now that it's a given for any aspiring great side to be able to attack with their most skilled fast bowling resources with the first new ball to effect, it's clear to me that the most difficult specialist batting role in the side by far is that of the openers.

I mean, you don't need a ****ing in depth stats analysis for that, when we can all just ****ing watch the game and it should be clear, but it's nice to see the evolution broken down in numbers as well.

PS:
The original reason that I wanted to get this breakdown is to try and determine, in the modern game, the best spot for your best middle order bat, between the 3 or 4 positions. And assuming that that position should be where that best batsman can maximize his run-scoring potential (because why the **** wouldn't you want him to), then I think that is clearly the number 4 position in the modern game. I think it ends up being in that Goldilocks zone where you're both the vast majority of the time avoiding the first new ball ( something the number 3 will see often enough to impact his scoring ), and early enough to make their mark on the game before you've lost the majority of your best batting resources (like a bat coming in at 5 would deal with) and are not in much danger of running out of partners either. Of course, individual comfort and preferences of this best bat in the side will also effect the batting spot decision, but if in doubt I think 4 is the best spot*.

*Unless you're a Pakistani bat circa the 2000s, and senior players would want to get as far away from the possibility of facing the new ball as much as possible, (i.e. Inzamam playing 5) because the openers were utterly incompetent and would put you in that position constantly.

 

[ataraxia]

Ok so how much of that do you think is due to the best batters batting in the middle / how much do you actually believe the conditions Hayden played were difficult?

And, btw, Tendulkar averaged 59 for a longer time than Hayden's effective test career.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It's not really. Hayden, as an opener was exceptionally uncommon in his run scoring.

On face value looking at averages, for a contemporary middle order bat of Hayden to equal him would be equal to the formula 50.73 * ( 1/.894) =

56.745

which is about 3 points higher than Sachin's actual average of 53.78 .

People just aren't understanding how highly I'm rating Hayden's performance, due to him being an opener.

Hayden is an ATG (definitely better than Kohli) but couldn't hack test cricket in the 90s when young and pace bowling was amazing worldwide, came back in the 2000s (up with the 30s as the easiest batting era) and dominated.

 

[ma1978]

It’s laughable we are even discussing this. A better debate would be Sehwag vs Hayden.

If we maintained this line of argument though, Gavaskar would miles ahead of Richards which is equally ridiculous.

 

[BazBall21]

I definitely don't think he's better than Kohli but to be fair he played seven tests in the 90s due to the extreme competition he had. He would have had a proper run of tests for virtually anyone else.

 

[BazBall21]

I'm no Hayden fan but I think he's definitely better than Sehwag. Sehwag's record outside Asia is poor. He was better at daddy hundreds but equally Hayden has an amazing conversion rate.

 

[Coronis]

It’s laughable we are even discussing this. A better debate would be Sehwag vs Hayden.

If we maintained this line of argument though, Gavaskar would miles ahead of Richards which is equally ridiculous.

I have him ahead. Not by miles and not for this silly reasoning though ofc. (and saying Gavaskar > Richards is far from comparable to saying Hayden > Tendulkar c’mon).

 

[number11]

Sachin is obviously the greater absolute bat BUT he faces much closer competition for his slot. Hayden is one of the better openers in recent times & would probably be shortlisted if not locked in for his slot.

Sachin has a fair few batsmen as successful as him. Viv, Smith, Lara and Ponting are ahead for me. A few others there or there abouts.

I was surprised SRT never hit 900 rating points in any format [unless I overlooked the data], which reflects that he never dominated anyone for a sustained period. Consistent excellence but no scaling the proverbial mountain.

 

[ma1978]

I have him ahead. Not by miles and not for this silly reasoning though ofc. (and saying Gavaskar > Richards is far from comparable to saying Hayden > Tendulkar c’mon).

Gavaskar was widely seen as the second best bat during the 70s and 80s after Viv.

In the period they overlapped (and remember Sachin had sustained periods of excellence in before Hayden was even able to make the Aus side and after he retired), Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara were all notably ahead of Hayden. It’s arguable Hayden wasn’t even the second best bat in the Aus side.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Gavaskar was widely seen as the second best bat during the 70s and 80s after Viv.

In the period they overlapped (and remember Sachin had sustained periods of excellence in before Hayden was even able to make the Aus side and after he retired), Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara were all notably ahead of Hayden. It’s arguable Hayden wasn’t even the second best bat in the Aus side.

Muh Peer rating.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sachin is obviously the greater absolute bat BUT he faces much closer competition for his slot.

This isn't true is it? In any ATG XI selection, Hayden's name won't come up for consideration before Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe for anyone who has some sense. Tendulkar is in that initial shortlist for sure.

Hayden isn't a clearly better batsman than Graeme Smith or Sehwag imo (and even if you think he's better it's marginal) if we're looking at openers for only the last 20 years. And unless we want to get into Graeme Smith > Sachin Tendulkar arguments we should probably just stop.

 

[Coronis]

This isn't true is it? In any ATG XI selection, Hayden's name won't come up for consideration before Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe for anyone who has some sense. Tendulkar is in that initial shortlist for sure.

Hayden isn't a clearly better batsman than Graeme Smith or Sehwag imo (and even if you think he's better it's marginal) if we're looking at openers for only the last 20 years. And unless we want to get into Graeme Smith > Sachin Tendulkar arguments we should probably just stop.

Smith had much harder home conditions than Tendulkar tbh…. Plus Sehwag was going big much more often than Sachin… clearly more of a match winner imo.

 

[number11]

This isn't true is it? In any ATG XI selection, Hayden's name won't come up for consideration before Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe for anyone who has some sense. Tendulkar is in that initial shortlist for sure.

Hayden isn't a clearly better batsman than Graeme Smith or Sehwag imo (and even if you think he's better it's marginal) if we're looking at openers for only the last 20 years. And unless we want to get into Graeme Smith > Sachin Tendulkar arguments we should probably just stop.

My post clearly stated IN RECENT TIMES. You are deliberately misrepresenting the position of my post.

 

[ma1978]

Smith had much harder home conditions than Tendulkar tbh…. Plus Sehwag was going big much more often than Sachin… clearly more of a match winner imo.

I am sure you make many of your life decisions based on feeling and emotion rather than fact

 

[ma1978]

My post clearly stated IN RECENT TIMES. You are deliberately misrepresenting the position of my post.

It was still utter nonsense

 

[number11]

FTR Smith is the best opener of recent times for me [in this particular context post 2000], 2nd place is contested with Hayden the most likely pick.