*Official* Matthew Hayden Career Discussion

[GIMH]

I've read some stupid things on CW, but Thorpe average?

 

[robelinda]

I've read some stupid things on CW, but Thorpe average?

Its the I N T E R N E T.

 

[Sanz]

Nah he was the record breaking batsman of his era, really broke all records since Bradman. Infact every time he visited Australia Sir Don came to airport to receive his highness and Sunil Gavaskar touched Thorpe's feat every time he visited England, as his highness would never tour India.

I hear Vivian Richards requested Beefy for Thrope's shoes, so that he could polish them every time someone told him how great he really was.

 

[Flem274*]

Nah he was the record breaking batsman of his era, really broke all records since Bradman. Infact every time he visited Australia Sir Don came to airport to receive his highness and Sunil Gavaskar touched Thorpe's feat every time he visited England, as his highness would never tour India.

I hear Vivian Richards requested Beefy for Thrope's shoes, so that he could polish them every time someone told him how great he really was.

Geez, way to miss the point. Someone disagrees with you, chill out.

 

[aussie]

I understand Hayden's career, I don't understand your Argument. Did Thorpe perform better than Hayden in South Africa in his entire career ? They both played 10 tests and batted in 18 innings, and not surprisingly, Hayden scored 150+ runs more than Thorpe, 1 century more than Thorpe, 1 50 more than Thorpe, and at a much higher strike rate.

In their entire careers both played similar no. of test matches and Hayden has almost 2000 runs more than Thorpe, 14 100s more than Thorpe. Not to forget the fact that he was also opening the innings, which is a lot harder than batting in the middle order.

You have not presented a single evidence supporting your argument except for repeating like a broken record "Mumbai 2001 and Cairns 2004" .

Firstly why are you stressing on their records in South Africa?. What point are you trying to make here.

One thing thats immediately very noticeable is that the SA attack Hayden faced in SA 2002 was crap. Pollock didn't play Donald was passed it, Ntini was crap & had not peaked yet, Kallis was hot & cold.

While Thorpe faced excellent (95/96) & good (04/05) in his two tours to SA. You take out Hayden's easy runs in that 2002 series & they both average 31 againts competent SA attacks in SA conditions.

But also one can cancel out Hayden failures in SA 96/97. Since he was a totally different batsman between WI 96/97 - WI 2000. Than he was from Mumbai 01 - retirement. So basically both of them have average/decent records in SA.


I dont like comparing openers to middle-order batsmen. But its blantantly obvious that Thope faced far better attacks in his career than Hayden. Some things dont need explaining, this is obvious cricket knowledge. Plus you calling Thorpe average in other posts of yours defies logic...SMH

 

[NUFAN]

Firstly why are you stressing on their records in South Africa?. What point are you trying to make here.

One thing that immediately very noticeable is that the SA attack Hayden faced in SA 2002 was crap. Pollock didn't play Donald was passed it, Ntini was crap & had not peaked yet, Kallis was hot & cold.

FMD. Ntini was made to look 'crap' because of the solid batting and Kallis was cold at times because he's an all rounder and again the batting was good enough to negate him taking wickets all the time.

 

[smash84]

Nah he was the record breaking batsman of his era, really broke all records since Bradman. Infact every time he visited Australia Sir Don came to airport to receive his highness and Sunil Gavaskar touched Thorpe's feat every time he visited England, as his highness would never tour India.

I hear Vivian Richards requested Beefy for Thrope's shoes, so that he could polish them every time someone told him how great he really was.

I dont like comparing openers to middle-order batsmen. But its blantantly obvious that Thope faced far better attacks in his career than Hayden. Some things dont need explaining, this is obvious cricket knowledge. Plus you calling Thorpe average in other posts of yours defies logic...SMH

That much is for sure

 

[Avada Kedavra]

One thing thats immediately very noticeable is that the SA attack Hayden faced in SA 2002 was crap. Pollock didn't play Donald was passed it, Ntini was crap & had not peaked yet

The fault probably lies with Mr and Mrs Hayden.They should have told Mr-Mrs Donald and Mr-Mrs Ntini to time their babies so that Hayden could face both of them at their peaks.

 

[GIMH]

Nah he was the record breaking batsman of his era, really broke all records since Bradman. Infact every time he visited Australia Sir Don came to airport to receive his highness and Sunil Gavaskar touched Thorpe's feat every time he visited England, as his highness would never tour India.

I hear Vivian Richards requested Beefy for Thrope's shoes, so that he could polish them every time someone told him how great he really was.

Thorpe was a very good batsman. Not an ATG and not average. Very good.

But whatever, keep making stupid posts that attempt to be witty, you're cool, I wish I was you

 

[Sanz]

Thorpe was a very good batsman. Not an ATG and not average. Very good.

But whatever, keep making stupid posts that attempt to be witty, you're cool, I wish I was you

I know the Thorpe was the only Shining light for england in the 90s but try to know the context first before getting all emotional. If Hayden is an FTB then sure are guys like Thorpe average.

 

[Uppercut]

Well Hayden wasn't a FTB. That's just a particularly crap Richardism. Hayden was awesome.

And Thorpe was a healthy cut above average. Obviously.

 

[aussie]

FMD. Ntini was made to look 'crap' because of the solid batting and Kallis was cold at times because he's an all rounder and again the batting was good enough to negate him taking wickets all the time.

No sir. Ntini in 2001/02 vs AUS was a piss poor test bowler. This is how i'd summarise Ntini's test career:

In the early years of his career between 98-2003 Ntni averaged (evening leaving out ZIM & BANG) 29. Now this i found very suprising since i remember seeing Ntini bowl live vs ENG 98, AUS 2001/02 & WI 20001 & he was really a nothing test bowler, i was expecting an average of in the mid 30s or something. I don't know if because during the period he was able to carried behind Donald/Pollock etc, but IMO stats of those early days dont reflect his career well at all.

- Then From Lord's 2003 - Georgetown 2005 this is when he first qualified as test quality. Before then he anything special in test cricket.

- Then from Trinidad 2005 - Nagpur 2008. He peaked & at point here was arguably the best fast bowler in the buisness, especially when SA where playing AUS around 05/06.

- Then from England 2008 - England 2010. He declined significantly & was dropped.

So based on that it fairly clear Ntini was crap when he faced AUS in 2001/02. You compare that Ntini back then to the one AUS encounted in 2005/06 when he seriously tested all our batsmen & the gap in quality is super significant.

 

[aussie]

Well Hayden wasn't a FTB. That's just a particularly crap Richardism. Hayden was awesome.

And Thorpe was a healthy cut above average. Obviously.

No Hayden was a FTB, but later corrected his faults. Saying Hayden was never a FTB shows a complete lack of understanding of how Hayden's career evolved unfortunately.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nup, sorry, not having that. Hayden smashed too many good attacks in Brisbane in the 90's to be called a flat-track bully. Just because a fault crept into his game doesn't mean it was always there.

Hayden, when he was dominating domestic cricket in the early/mid 90's, was always an extremely patient player, solid as a rock in defense and not really a fast scorer. Preferred to wait for the right ball than just work the ball around, similar zones to Phil Jaques. Made him a bit limited for the top level and goes some way to explaining why he wasn't picked for so long.

Putting more shots into his game gave him more scoring opportunities but also gave the opposition more to work with and, for a bit, he struggled to find that compromise between the patient game he had and wanting to score quickly too, especially since those shots and working the ball around more got him into the Test side.

Calling him a flat-track bully badly mis-characterises his evolution into one of the best Test openers Australia ever had. As it does for most players, tbh. One thing which did characterise him was that he was always pretty badly under-estimated, didn't play much under-age rep cricket, didn't go to the academy, etc. Look at him now.

 

[aussie]

Yes i'm very much aware of what he did for queensland batting @ Brisbane in the 90s. But he quite clearly didn't translate that composed patient style of batting he showed in domestic cricket until the back end of his test career after is Oval 2005 hundred until retirement. When Hayden first appered in the 90s between WI 96/97 - WI 2000 he looked a real joke player.

I guess one can say he feel back on his early style of 90s domestic batting, after being exposed technically while he plundered joke pace attacks on roads during his peak period Mumabi 01 - Cairns 04. Since for most other batsmen they way he was exposed in Ashes 05 would have killed careers.

I fully accept Hayden one of AUS greatest openers as i said before & always pick him in my AUS ATXI

Simpson
Hayden
Ponting
Bardman
G Chappell
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

 

[Top_Cat]

Bit revisionist. That 'joke' player came back into the side after a 3-year break and scored a ton against a strong WI attack in Adelaide after having his thumb broken by Donald in his first Test (had 3948629423 catches dropped off him in that knock against the WI, but). Then, a couple of months later, he fronted up against South Africa again, now number 2 and with a great pace attack to boot. No pressure.

Hayden struggled a bit but so did Taylor. With the impending Ashes tour, Elliott was in form and obviously they weren't going to drop Taylor, despite woeful form, so they dropped Hayden from the touring squad and picked Slater as the reserve opener. Not on the basis of a fairly unspectacular Shield season that year but because he'd done well on the previous tour pretty much. The ironic part? There were questions (unfairly, tbh) about Hayden's mental stability/strength when compared to Slater. Rumours at the time suggest Taylor just preferred Slater and he was obviously going to get a sympathetic hearing from Simpson come selection time.

There were (legitimate) questions about Hayden's ability to turn over the strike back then too and certainly Slater was just considered the better bat (I know I thought so at the time, mainly because I like really attacking players). Taking him on tour was a way to get him back into the set-up as a good backup for Taylor/Elliott but still, don't think Hayden wasn't given much of a chance to show what he had to offer. QLD'ers definitely felt, with som justification, that he was shafted because Australia just didn't want to make the hard choice to drop Taylor and give the captaincy to Waugh.

 

[robelinda]

Yep. Hayden only became aggressive as an opener once he fully established himself, even during his killer 01/02 season he was still very patient and waited for the bad balls. From the 02/03 season ( v Pak in sharjah) and the Ashes he really started to do some crazy things in test cricket, hitting fats bowlers down the ground for 6's for instance, and being really cavalier.

 

[Sanz]

Yes i'm very much aware of what he did for queensland batting @ Brisbane in the 90s. But he quite clearly didn't translate that composed patient style of batting he showed in domestic cricket until the back end of his test career after is Oval 2005 hundred until retirement. When Hayden first appered in the 90s between WI 96/97 - WI 2000 he looked a real joke player.

I guess one can say he feel back on his early style of 90s domestic batting, after being exposed technically while he plundered joke pace attacks on roads during his peak period Mumabi 01 - Cairns 04. Since for most other batsmen they way he was exposed in Ashes 05 would have killed careers.

I fully accept Hayden one of AUS greatest openers as i said before & always pick him in my AUS ATXI

Simpson
Hayden
Ponting
Bardman
G Chappell
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

First call Hayden joke of a player and then select him in your all time XI. This is the biggest pile of crap.

 

[aussie]

Bit revisionist. That 'joke' player came back into the side after a 3-year break and scored a ton against a strong WI attack in Adelaide after having his thumb broken by Donald in his first Test (had 3948629423 catches dropped off him in that knock against the WI, but). Then, a couple of months later, he fronted up against South Africa again, now number 2 and with a great pace attack to boot. No pressure.

Firstly that ton vs WI was one of the most unconvincing centuries ever & probably the most unconvincing i have seen in my time of watching cricket.

A made a slight mistake with the first time period. I meant SA 94 - WI 2000, where looked a woeful test player. I even & many thought Elliot was the better player ATT.

Hayden struggled a bit but so did Taylor. With the impending Ashes tour, Elliott was in form and obviously they weren't going to drop Taylor, despite woeful form, so they dropped Hayden from the touring squad and picked Slater as the reserve opener. Not on the basis of a fairly unspectacular Shield season that year but because he'd done well on the previous tour pretty much. The ironic part? There were questions (unfairly, tbh) about Hayden's mental stability/strength when compared to Slater. Rumours at the time suggest Taylor just preferred Slater and he was obviously going to get a sympathetic hearing from Simpson come selection time.

There were (legitimate) questions about Hayden's ability to turn over the strike back then too and certainly Slater was just considered the better bat (I know I thought so at the time, mainly because I like really attacking players). Taking him on tour was a way to get him back into the set-up as a good backup for Taylor/Elliott but still, don't think Hayden wasn't given much of a chance to show what he had to offer. QLD'ers definitely felt, with som justification, that he was shafted because Australia just didn't want to make the hard choice to drop Taylor and give the captaincy to Waugh.

Yes all true & i dont deny these factual circumstances. Only thing i'd qustion is even if the unthinkable had occured circa 97 when Tubby had his struggleds & was dropped for Hayden. I question whether he would have been dominant or as complete a batsman like he was from India 2001 to SRI 2004. Since as you should know, he couldn't play spin like he did post 2001 as he did during the 94-2000 period. He stated in learnt to play spin which made him so dominant in IND 2001, due to trip he went with some AUS academey team or something of the sort in the late 90s, which improved his batting vs spin. So he probably would have failed if he was the main opener in India 98 & SRI 99, then who knows maybe he would been banised to domestic cricket forever. Or probably most likely got his chance back in the AUS test team in the middle of the 2000s era instead of a recall vs NZ 2000.

This is why putting all those speculations of what could have been with Hayden in the 90s a side as a test cricketer & his domestic battting on a green brisbane deck againts quality state attacks. The safest guide we have is what he did as a test cricketer during his peak from IND 2001 - SRI 2004, in which he was a FTB. Although i accept he adapted to a FTB due to joke attacks around.

He then struggled in Ashes 01, Ashes 05, Akhat/Mills 04, just like he did vs SA & WI in 90s to quality bowling who exposed his technical flaws. To replicate his ability he showed in domestic cricket to bat againts the moving ball for reasons you said here (which i have always accepted):

Hayden, when he was dominating domestic cricket in the early/mid 90's, was always an extremely patient player, solid as a rock in defense and not really a fast scorer. Preferred to wait for the right ball than just work the ball around, similar zones to Phil Jaques. Made him a bit limited for the top level and goes some way to explaining why he wasn't picked for so long.

Putting more shots into his game gave him more scoring opportunities but also gave the opposition more to work with and, for a bit, he struggled to find that compromise between the patient game he had and wanting to score quickly too, especially since those shots and working the ball around more got him into the Test side.

Only until his Oval 05 hundred, runs vs SA 05/06, IND 07/08. Was that patient style of batting seen from Hayden in tests. Which is why i always pick him in my AUS ATXI, since i he showed that key adaptability, that alot of other FTBs in the 2000s era didn't.. Which makes me feel if the post Ashes 05 Hayden would have been a very solid opener if he had to face quality pace bowling consistently.

 

[aussie]

First call Hayden joke of a player and then select him in your all time XI. This is the biggest pile of crap.

SMH, what ignorance is this.

With all due respect stay out of this discussion sir, you have conclusively proven you total lack of understanding of Hayden career & while totally misunderstanding the above post. All you are doing now is trolling me now, so for both our sakes & sanity lets not have anything more to say to each other on this matter in this thread.

Leave this Hayden discussion to people like myself, Top Cat, Robellina. AUS fans who definately saw most of Hayden tests matches live & would this have the proper judgement of his career, unlike the average observer of AUS cricket matters like yourself.