Matt the bat now Matt the great

[social]

Like him or not, Hayden is compiling one of the greatest records in the history of cricket.

Ive no problem with him being named the best batsman of the last decade because his record demands consideration.

Likewise, if it were Lara or Tendy, I couldnt argue with them either.

However, when one considers that one of the criteria was how well your team has done, he's out there with Ponting and probably no-one else.

Hayden is criticised because he's not technically correct but he is a running scoring machine par excellence and he plays in a winning team.

As for Kallis i technically brilliant but plays for himself (funny how he's not been missed in the current ODIs)

 

[Barney Rubble]

All I can say is that if we're putting Hayden into the pantheon of great batsmen on the back of his outstanding stats (which I have no problem with) then by the end of his career, Marcus Trescothick will be there too. Trescothick is apparently on course to become England's highest ever run-scorer.

If we're basing it on technique and flair at the crease, though, they're both hardly among the most fluid and elegant of all time.

 

[howardj]

People toss the word 'great' around so readily.

 

[social]

All I can say is that if we're putting Hayden into the pantheon of great batsmen on the back of his outstanding stats (which I have no problem with) then by the end of his career, Marcus Trescothick will be there too. Trescothick is apparently on course to become England's highest ever run-scorer.

If we're basing it on technique and flair at the crease, though, they're both hardly among the most fluid and elegant of all time.

Hayden averages nearly 10 runs more per innings - Tresco has got a long way to go.

 

[social]

People toss the word 'great' around so readily.

Richards, Chappell, Gavaskar, Crowe, Harvey, etc, etc, etc were all supposedly "great"

Hayden's record is better than all.

People criticise him because he plays with Warne and McGrath. In that case, they need to dismiss Richards at least (who is the best player Ive ever seen BTW).

 

[Barney Rubble]

Hayden averages nearly 10 runs more per innings - Tresco has got a long way to go.

True, but if he ends up England's highest-ever run-scorer few would be able to deny that he's a great batsman - there's a lot of brilliant players who've not got near being their country's number one run-scorer.

 

[social]

True, but if he ends up England's highest-ever run-scorer few would be able to deny that he's a great batsman - there's a lot of brilliant players who've not got near being their country's number one run-scorer.

Don't get me wrong - Tresco's developing into a very fine player.

However, Hayden, on figures to date, is monumentally better and one of the greatest players of all time.

Just how far up the list he is open to debate.

 

[howardj]

Richards, Chappell, Gavaskar, Crowe, Harvey, etc, etc, etc were all supposedly "great"

Hayden's record is better than all.

People criticise him because he plays with Warne and McGrath. In that case, they need to dismiss Richards at least (who is the best player Ive ever seen BTW).

It's not all about one's record, though. My only reservation with Hayden - and, I repeat, he is an outstanding player - is what has happened when he's come up against absolute top-class fast bowling - Ambrose; Walsh; Ashes 2005.

 

[Mister Wright]

It's not all about one's record, though. My only reservation with Hayden - and, I repeat, he is an outstanding player - is what has happened when he's come up against absolute top-class fast bowling - Ambrose; Walsh; Ashes 2005.

He came accross Ambrose and Walsh during the start of his career while they were in their prime, and when he was selected in 1996 he wasn't in the greatest domestic form anyway - Are you forgetting his 47 in Perth when all the other batsman hardly made double figures? Again, he didn't go to the Ashes in the greatest of form. Ashes 2007 will be a different story for one Matthew Hayden.

 

[Slifer]

Richards, Chappell, Gavaskar, Crowe, Harvey, etc, etc, etc were all supposedly "great"

Hayden's record is better than all.

People criticise him because he plays with Warne and McGrath. In that case, they need to dismiss Richards at least (who is the best player Ive ever seen BTW).

Yes but at the very least Richards faced some very good attacks in his time much better than what Hayden has had to face (during his purple patch). for example from Australia he faced the likes of Lillee, Thompson and Hogg, from Pakistan Qadir, Imran and Akram, he faced the mighty indian spin quartet, and also tangled with the great pair of Chatfield and Hadlee from NZL.

 

[Slifer]

I still dont get how he can be considered batsman of the last decade when he has only played consistently in the aussie team for half of that time period. His record over this period is no t much better (if at all better) than the likes of Ponting, Kallis, and Dravid to name a few.Oh well id like to see who Wisden chooses for the bowling award; I wouldnt b surprised if they chose Warne.

 

[Top_Cat]

He came accross Ambrose and Walsh during the start of his career while they were in their prime, and when he was selected in 1996 he wasn't in the greatest domestic form anyway - Are you forgetting his 47 in Perth when all the other batsman hardly made double figures? Again, he didn't go to the Ashes in the greatest of form. Ashes 2007 will be a different story for one Matthew Hayden.

He first played against the WI in 1996 and Ambi and Walsh were definitely NOT at their prime. hey were still bowling well but especially in Ambi's case, his prime had passed him by.

 

[honestbharani]

Richards, Chappell, Gavaskar, Crowe, Harvey, etc, etc, etc were all supposedly "great"

Hayden's record is better than all.

People criticise him because he plays with Warne and McGrath. In that case, they need to dismiss Richards at least (who is the best player Ive ever seen BTW).

You are willing to consider people with better "records" to have been actually better players than those names you mentioned?


That means Murali > Warne, quite comfortably at that.

 

[Mister Wright]

He first played against the WI in 1996 and Ambi and Walsh were definitely NOT at their prime. hey were still bowling well but especially in Ambi's case, his prime had passed him by.

Maybe not in their prime, but they were still a feared opening bowling partnership by many teams. Just ask Elliot if he thought Walsh was past his prime in 1999.

 

[Top_Cat]

Maybe not in their prime, but they were still a feared opening bowling partnership by many teams. Just ask Elliot if he thought Walsh was past his prime in 1999.

People already have and he's said in a few interviews his failures against those two were mostly a function of what was going on in his own head rather than outstanding bowling.

Anyway, you just had to watch them bowl; By 1995, Ambi was a shadow of his best and Walsh was still bowling well but again, hardly a world-beater anymore.

 

[Slifer]

And even while below par Hayden still struggled. what does that say about the big man.

 

[open365]

Finally,someone proves something i've been to scared to say for a long time, Haydos is by far and away the best batsman in the world!

 

[Mister Wright]

And even while below par Hayden still struggled. what does that say about the big man.

And Steve Waugh took 28 tests to score a test century. What does that say about one of the greatest batsman of all time?

 

[Slifer]

I dont see the relevance of that post. Atleast when Waugh came good he did against respectable attacks (see Wi vs Aust '95). And for the umpteenth time Hayden has consistently been in cricket for 5 years, what about the 5 years b4 that? Im almost certain that if one was to calculate the stats of other batsmen over this same 5 year period there would be others with comparable records to Hayden. So as such he doesnt really stand out. He has been devastating yes but thats only been for 5 years out of a whole decade. What about men like SRT who have been comin up with the goods for a decade and more?

 

[Mister Wright]

I dont see the relevance of that post. Atleast when Waugh came good he did against respectable attacks (see Wi vs Aust '95). And for the umpteenth time Hayden has consistently been in cricket for 5 years, what about the 5 years b4 that? Im almost certain that if one was to calculate the stats of other batsmen over this same 5 year period there would be others with comparable records to Hayden. So as such he doesnt really stand out. He has been devastating yes but thats only been for 5 years out of a whole decade. What about men like SRT who have been comin up with the goods for a decade and more?

No other batsman has scored 1000 runs five years straight, this includes Ponting, Langer, Martyn and Gilchrist who have all faced the same attacks. Hayden is only 2nd to Bradman in hundreds per innings, and Bradman had his fair share of weak attacks, no body ever mentions that.