Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[BoyBrumby]

Hayden did play a seriously impressive innings today & I don't think too many would dispute he's been a world-class performer for well over a lustrum now. He was absolutely in his metier today tho: a flat pitch with up-and-down bowling short of express pace.

There is a grain of truth in the oft-repeated criticism that he can struggle with the ball swinging into him, but as a leftie he's hardly unique in that.

 

[C_C]

Having good hand eye coordination is all well and good but if your back leg isn't in line with the ball and your head isn't in line like Sehwag the most likely result is going to be dismissed especially on a seaming pitch.

where the legs are is irrelevant really. Where the body is at the point of contact and how still it is is what matters. Most people use their legs to bring their body behind line- Sehwag uses his superior hand-eye coordination to reach over and bring his body in line.

Sehwag has one of the 'still-est' heads in cricket actually when making contact.

he is far from a perfect opener but he's far better an opener than Hayden is actually.
I can see Sehwag averaging low 40s in the 80s or 90s. I cannot see Hayden averaging more than low 30s in any era bar amatuer era and today's horrible bowling.

 

[open365]

I don't think it's fair to rubbish Hayden as much as people are doing by what he wouldn't have acheived in past eras.

A) We don't know conclusively how he would have performed, you can make all the technical comments you want but it's no where near conclusive. Whoever would have though someone who holds a cricket bat as closed as Greame Smith could make a career as a test opener?

B) Hayden has better stats than most people in his era, if Hayden would have failed against these great Windies attacks and so on, wouldn't these lesser players have done so to? I don't think the sterotype of being a flat track bully accounts for the big difference in pure stats that Hayden has over a lot of players

C) In case anyone gets carried away, Hayden doesn't acctualy play in past eras, he plays in the present, and he does a bloody good job of it. Even if he may have failed against better attacks, he has still contributed a hell of a lot to Australia becoming the team they are today and proven himself against who he has to face.

 

[Anil]

because Hayden is nothing more than a slightly taller and buffer version of Srikkanth (another exclusive front-foot bully opener). We all know how his career went when real bowlers were around.

1. hayden is definitely better than srikkanth.
2. srikkanth was not really just a front foot bully, he used to play some pretty good forcing shots off his backfoot too(the square cut, the pull, the hook...)...and he was fearless too(so whether the bowlers were "real" or not, he took them on and on occasion, he won the fight...)...his problem was that he just didn't have any defensive technique, any temperament whatsoever...really where did you come up with this comparison??!! hayden is not really like him at all!

 

[archie mac]

I was not impressed with Hayden when he first played for Aust. but he went away and worked hard. Anyone who watched him against India on some pretty spin helpful pitches could see he had improved.

If he is so poor why aren't the 'top' players averaging signifantly higher?

 

[Pup Clarke]

If he is so poor why aren't the 'top' players averaging signifantly higher?

Who's saying he's a poor player?.:

 

[Dick Rockett]

Isn't it generally accepted that the bowling stocks these days are pretty light? In that case there are many batsmen who are cashing in to the same extent that Hayden is. I hate to defend the man as I can't stand him, but objectively, he's no more overrated than quite a few others.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Who's saying he's a poor player?.:

I cannot see Hayden averaging more than low 30s in any era bar amatuer era and today's horrible bowling.

I think one could possibly infer it from C_C's post there. Low 30s not flash for an opening bat in any era.

 

[Richard]

I was not impressed with Hayden when he first played for Aust. but he went away and worked hard. Anyone who watched him against India on some pretty spin helpful pitches could see he had improved.

Being an opener he's supposed to be good against more than just spin.

 

[Richard]

Hayden did play a seriously impressive innings today & I don't think too many would dispute he's been a world-class performer for well over a lustrum now.

It depends completely on what you consider a World-class performer - he's not demonstrated the ability to do what an opener is supposed to be able to do - repel quality seam and swing with the new-ball. He has demonstrated that he's better than almost anyone at bashing rubbish bowling.

There is a grain of truth in the oft-repeated criticism that he can struggle with the ball swinging into him, but as a leftie he's hardly unique in that.

There's far more than a grain of truth in it - even by your standards that's appalling sitting on ' fence.

Very few left-handers have had such a glaring weakness that's been so abysmally poorly exposed. Mark Richardson was another - surprise surprise, he had a pretty similar career to Hayden.

 

[archie mac]

Being an opener he's supposed to be good against more than just spin.

Well he is averaging 53, so it suggests that he has to face pace before the spinners come on

 

[Richard]

A) We don't know conclusively how he would have performed, you can make all the technical comments you want but it's no where near conclusive. Whoever would have though someone who holds a cricket bat as closed as Greame Smith could make a career as a test opener?

Quite a few people actually, though TBH the Smith and Hayden cases have just a bit in common.

Hayden has better stats than most people in his era, if Hayden would have failed against these great Windies attacks and so on, wouldn't these lesser players have done so to?

No, because they're not lesser players, they're just not so good at relentlessly accumulating runs against poor bowling. In other areas, the likes of Damien Martyn and Michael Clarke are superior.

In case anyone gets carried away, Hayden doesn't acctualy play in past eras, he plays in the present, and he does a bloody good job of it. Even if he may have failed against better attacks, he has still contributed a hell of a lot to Australia becoming the team they are today and proven himself against who he has to face.

Yes, and no-one's denying such a thing. There have, however, been better players in the time for Australia - many of them.

 

[C_C]

In case anyone gets carried away, Hayden doesn't acctualy play in past eras, he plays in the present, and he does a bloody good job of it.

He did play briefly when pitches and bowling quality wasnt so abysmal. Utterly bombed and was dropped for years.

We don't know conclusively how he would have performed, you can make all the technical comments you want but it's no where near conclusive.

Fair enough. We don't really know if he'd have died on the pitch trying front-foot nonsense against Marshall-Bishop-Ambrose-Walsh or if he'd have just had a string of single digit scores.
Either way, we can safely say he'd have utterly failed with his style of play because his style of play is almost exclusively front foot stuff- exclusive front foot play will get you owned against any fast and accurate bowler. Almost every single time - worse than how Vaas owns Gayle almost every single time.

if Hayden would have failed against these great Windies attacks and so on, wouldn't these lesser players have done so to?

There arnt many 'stats-heavy' openers around with zero backfoot play like Hayden.
I'd take Langer, Sehwag, Smith, Tresco, Jayasurya, Gayle, etc. over Hayden as an opener simply because backfoot play is paramount for openers against quality opening bowling and Hayden is dead-set last amongst that group in backfoot play.
Hayden's stats are super-inflated, more than any one else's because his strength really suits the horrible bowling standards of today better than most's and his weakness ( accurate FAST bowling that you MUST play on backfoot) is hidden better than most people's weaknesses.

Hell, if my options were to take Hayden against the two Ws or bump up the wicket-keeper to be a makeshift opener and open up a middle order spot, i'd do the latter 9 outta 10 times.

 

[Richard]

Well he is averaging 53, so it suggests that he has to face pace before the spinners come on

He's faced seamers, but he hasn't faced a great deal in the way of quality seamers. Usually, when he has, he's come-up short.

 

[Richard]

I'd take Tresco over Hayden as an opener

Better hope the dropped catches come often, then - that's mostly been the only way Trescothick's ever scored many.

 

[archie mac]

He's faced seamers, but he hasn't faced a great deal in the way of quality seamers. Usually, when he has, he's come-up short.

Still an average of 53 suggests that he has performed well enough against almost every world attack.

a lot is made of his early dropping but you can throw in Clarke, Ponting, Langer, Martyn etc who have also been dropped and had to come back as better players

 

[Richard]

Still an average of 53 suggests that he has performed well enough against almost every world attack.

Yes, but way to miss ' point - almost all those attacks have been routinely poor.

a lot is made of his early dropping but you can throw in Clarke, Ponting, Langer, Martyn etc who have also been dropped and had to come back as better players

Certainly, that applies to near enough every Australian of the 1990s and 2000s bar Mark Waugh and Gilchrist, but I don't believe Hayden has ever come back any better against seam than he had been previously.

 

[archie mac]

Yes, but way to miss ' point - almost all those attacks have been routinely poor..

I am not missing it I just don't agree, compare his average against other openers and against the other Australian batsman and he has done very well. You must compare he against his peers and he has done very well.

Certainly, that applies to near enough every Australian of the 1990s and 2000s bar Mark Waugh and Gilchrist, but I don't believe Hayden has ever come back any better against seam than he had been previously.

Mark Waugh was also dropped, and I have no doubt he came back a much better player after the 'rest'

 

[BoyBrumby]

It depends completely on what you consider a World-class performer - he's not demonstrated the ability to do what an opener is supposed to be able to do - repel quality seam and swing with the new-ball. He has demonstrated that he's better than almost anyone at bashing rubbish bowling.

There's far more than a grain of truth in it - even by your standards that's appalling sitting on ' fence.

Very few left-handers have had such a glaring weakness that's been so abysmally poorly exposed. Mark Richardson was another - surprise surprise, he had a pretty similar career to Hayden.

I really can't be bothered to look up the statistics, but I bet since he's returned to the test team Hayden's averaged nigh-on 55 in tests. Even allowing for the decline in the quality of bowling & the general deadness of the tracks in this decade I'd say that qualifies as world-class. You, clearly, do not. No need to labour your point by replying to this.

I can think of one left hander who is infinitely more susceptible to the ball that comes back into him: your own beloved Mr Smith. He's far more bottom handed than Hayden so tends to play across the line more. On our last tour Hoggard had his number so much he went & hid in the middle order. Yet he's still managed to average in the high 40s.

As for Richardson having a similar career to Hayden. Well, in what way? Aside from being left-handed openers who breathe oxygen I can't think of much else they have in common. Rigor was that archetypal stone-waller; I don't think that's an accusation that's levelled at Hayden too often.

 

[Richard]

I am not missing it I just don't agree, compare his average against other openers and against the other Australian batsman and he has done very well. You must compare he against his peers and he has done very well.

Compare his average in the 1990s and very early 2000s when there were some decent attacks and he's done very poorly. Taylor and Slater for starters were far better.

Mark Waugh was also dropped, and I have no doubt he came back a much better player after the 'rest'

Mark Waugh was only dropped once in his career. Indeed, he only missed 1 game out of 129 - when he was presumably unavailable against India in 1991\92.