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

[river end]

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 )

The more Oppresive the heat conditions the more it favours batting sides not bowling/fielding sides.

Hayden's batting "Disheartened the Pakistani batsmen" - I've heard of their immediate opponents (bowlers) disheartening them but that's a fair stretch.

"If he was given the chance" - Hayden had opportunities. 13 tests between his debut and his first test against the spin-heavy Indians in 2001, yet he still averaged only 24.
I'd like to know how many of the great batsmen had an average that low after their first 13 tests.
As far as I'm concerned, a "great" is a player who has that something special about them from a young age and pretty much displays it straight away in test cricket.

 

[social]

The more Oppresive the heat conditions the more it favours batting sides not bowling/fielding sides.

Hayden's batting "Disheartened the Pakistani batsmen" - I've heard of their immediate opponents (bowlers) disheartening them but that's a fair stretch.

"If he was given the chance" - Hayden had opportunities. 13 tests between his debut and his first test against the spin-heavy Indians in 2001, yet he still averaged only 24.
I'd like to know how many of the great batsmen had an average that low after their first 13 tests.
As far as I'm concerned, a "great" is a player who has that something special about them from a young age and pretty much displays it straight away in test cricket.

13 591 66 29.55 0

Slightly higher average can be attributed to being a lower order batsman and therefore not faced with the new ball

Guess who

2 hints

1. Better than anyone metioned in this thread

2. Picked as a bowler before coming to the fore as a batsman

 

[Jono]

I was going to answer, but you just said "better than anyone mentioned in this thread"

That may put my answer in jeapordy.

 

[social]

Sir Garfield Sobers

Steve Waugh

14 22 4 503 79* 27.94

Graham Gooch

12 473 91* 24.89 (including plenty of tests against teams without Packer players)

 

[Jono]

Ah Sobers, I thought your first one was Steve Waugh.

 

[slowfinger]

I thought in 2000/2001 there were already many great cricketers in the Australia team,they were not needed of more players, but after the likes of Warne and McGrath and others also gone they needed some people to keep they're strength in there team ( I got to admit they haven't got just as good team as then..)

But now a phew others have fitted into the team but Hayden one of the best fitted.


Answer : No, not they're yet....

 

[Nate]

Matthew Hayden is a chef and hence cannot be rated as an all-time great.

 

[subshakerz]

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?

What makes you so sure he would average 45? He struggled against the few quality quicks he played against in his time, I find it hard to believe his "smash the bowlers from the front foot" appraoch would work so well in an era when every team had at least one world class paceman, and conditions were much more bowler-friendly. He simply hasn't displayed that ability often enough, the only two knocks I can really say were class were against Pakistan in 2002 (where only Shoaib was any real threat), and against England in 2005, when Simon Jones didnt even play.

 

[Perm]

Or maybe Hayden beat them into submission and others took advantage

Not as likely.

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!!!!!!)

Maybe it was good bowling, because Australia didn't have a huge amount of difficulty in scoring rates. Go and look at the scorecard, Hayden mostly faced the spinners in that game, you can't deny that.

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

He's Test class because of the era he played in. If he was to play in another era that wasn't quite so bat-friendly, then I don't think he would have been a Test class batsman.

 

[Perm]

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?

Why would Hayden average 45? Maybe if he played India for most of his career, but even then there was the threat of Kapil Dev. Face it, Hayden's technique would not stand up to inspection by the fast bowlers that were roaming around in the 70's and 80's, and subsequently, he wouldn't score enough runs to retain his place in the side often enough to play against great spinners.

 

[subshakerz]

He's Test class because of the era he played in. If he was to play in another era that wasn't quite so bat-friendly, then I don't think he would have been a Test class batsman.

I agree with all your points, but I think it's a bit harsh to say he wouldn't be considered a test class batsman in the 70s and 80s. I rather think he would be considered in the David Gower, Kim Hughes and Gus Logie class of batsman than all-time greats like Gavaskar or Border.

 

[NUFAN]

I agree with all your points, but I think it's a bit harsh to say he wouldn't be considered a test class batsman in the 70s and 80s. I rather think he would be considered in the David Gower, Kim Hughes and Gus Logie class of batsman than all-time greats like Gavaskar or Border.

Strange bunch of players, because David Gower class was a class above Gus Logie class.

 

[Perm]

I agree with all your points, but I think it's a bit harsh to say he wouldn't be considered a test class batsman in the 70s and 80s. I rather think he would be considered in the David Gower, Kim Hughes and Gus Logie class of batsman than all-time greats like Gavaskar or Border.

Let me rephrase. I think Hayden's shortcomings against the new ball and quality seam bowlers would have meant that he would not retain his place in the side for long enough to prove himself against top quality spinners, which I certainly think he was capable of.

Personally, I think David Gower was a class above Kim Hughes and Gus Logie, both of whom were fairly mediocre Test batsmen. I certainly wouldn't expect Hayden to average 44, like Gower did, and unless he played a reasonable amount of Tests against India, I would think that an average of around 30 would be fitting.

 

[NUFAN]

Around 30, harsh..

 

[Perm]

Around 30, harsh..

On the basis that he didn't play India a huge amount.

 

[pasag]

Let me rephrase. I think Hayden's shortcomings against the new ball and quality seam bowlers would have meant that he would not retain his place in the side for long enough to prove himself against top quality spinners, which I certainly think he was capable of.

Personally, I think David Gower was a class above Kim Hughes and Gus Logie, both of whom were fairly mediocre Test batsmen. I certainly wouldn't expect Hayden to average 44, like Gower did, and unless he played a reasonable amount of Tests against India, I would think that an average of around 30 would be fitting.

Hughes 'mediocre'? Are you basing that on his average? I know he wasn't the greatest ever but he did play in very difficult times politically, with WSC (most matches came either with a sub-standard side or with the Aussie legends that made his life hell) and he played one of the greatest innings of all time as well. People who saw more of him can correct me here, but mediocre isn't what I'd use to describe Hughes.

 

[subshakerz]

Let me rephrase. I think Hayden's shortcomings against the new ball and quality seam bowlers would have meant that he would not retain his place in the side for long enough to prove himself against top quality spinners, which I certainly think he was capable of.

Personally, I think David Gower was a class above Kim Hughes and Gus Logie, both of whom were fairly mediocre Test batsmen. I certainly wouldn't expect Hayden to average 44, like Gower did, and unless he played a reasonable amount of Tests against India, I would think that an average of around 30 would be fitting.

Fair enough, I also think he'd end up averaging around the mid-30s as well. I don't think he's completely hopeless against top quality pacemen, but suspect enough to not be able to score against them consistently.

 

[grecian]

Utter nonsense (on the mid-thirties argument), no-ones remotely become close to proving a 17 run differential in a ten year period.

 

[pasag]

Man, was just thinking of the polarising views Hayden evokes here, on the one hand you have people saying he wouldn't be Test standard in other eras, at the same time we have someone who says he would be (is) better than Hobbs and co

 

[Perm]

Hughes 'mediocre'? Are you basing that on his average? I know he wasn't the greatest ever but he did play in very difficult times politically, with WSC (most matches came either with a sub-standard side or with the Aussie legends that made his life hell) and he played one of the greatest innings of all time as well. People who saw more of him can correct me here, but mediocre isn't what I'd use to describe Hughes.

To an extent, yes. His contributions as a player were no doubt very impressive, as he played during tough times. Purely as a batsman though, I don't think he was that good at all. I meant medioce in comparison to some of the other names that were being tossed around too, because by all means Hughes was very good for the side he was in. Compared to other batsman from other eras, he wasn't that good. Ofcourse, that 100* against the West Indies was absolutely magnificent. Not for a moment would I try and deny that.