Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[andyc]

Have to admit that I thought it was a bad idea picking him for the World Cup. Shows how much I know.

 

[Jono]

Without me arguing for or against Hayden, I must admit I do find it curious that people who are arguing against Hayden's flat track bully nature are using three centuries (which were extremely good in terms of modern ODI cricket mind you) he's scored on some of the flattest tracks around as proof that he's not a FTB. That confuses me.

 

[thierry henry]

You know another thing- I recently watched some footage of Hayden batting against NZ (Morrison, Pringle, De Groen etc) in 1993-94. He was playing mediocre medium pacers, and guess what- he didn't look half the player he does today. This really started to convince me that he simply improved as a batsman from 1994-2000. Perhaps his technique didn't change much, but his confidence and ability to use his amazing natural hand-eye might have.

Another point, perhaps the most important of all- since when was a player merely judged on his ability to play the BEST bowlers? It seems that Hayden has no trouble smashing the bottom 90% of bowlers but maybe struggles against the top 10%.

(1) Isn't it a given that this applies for everyone?

(2) Surely the ability to play 90% of bowlers would have made Hayden a success in any era? There has never been an era of cricket where every bowler from every team was a fearsome 150kph quick with pinpoint accuracy. In every era you have good quicks, average quicks, and poor quicks. You also have various injuries and unavailabilities. I think Hayden has amply proved that, apart from the maybe 10-20% of the time where all of the stars align or whatever, and he comes up against an attack firing on all cylinders, he will generally be a success.

 

[Ikki]

cbf actually doing the research right now, but isn't Hayden's ratio of test centuries/innings pretty much unparalleled amongst his peers? Indeed, unparalleled amongst any player apart from Bradman who has played a lot of innings?

I find it amusing how all bowlers suddenly become "useless medium pacers typical of the crap attacks of today" as soon as Hayden scores runs against them, but not if Lara or Tendy do.

I think that's an important stat. For if averages are inflating, they're certainly not inflated to the point where Hayden - or anyone - is scoring easy centuries. Yet he, and Ponting, are doing so at a fantastic rate.

 

[thierry henry]

Without me arguing for or against Hayden, I must admit I do find it curious that people who are arguing against Hayden's flat track bully nature are using three centuries (which were extremely good in terms of modern ODI cricket mind you) he's scored on some of the flattest tracks around as proof that he's not a FTB. That confuses me.

Don't know if people are, I'm not. Regarding those 3 centuries, I'd simply say that Hayden is just about the only player in the world who can string together innings like that one after another, whether or not conditions suit.

 

[Prince EWS]

Performing against that top 10% of bowlers is what seperates a good batsman from a great one though, IMO, and that's why Hayden will never be anything more than very good in my eyes.

 

[thierry henry]

I guess what gets me is that if a popular, well regarded, talented cricketer- perhaps Ross Taylor or Dwayne Bravo or someone like that- scored 183 in an ODI, then 100 off 66 balls, and then another 150+ score at better than a run a ball, people would be making massive statements and online ejaculations (in every sense of the word) left right and centre. Those 3 amazing innings, in quick succession, would lead to "I told you so's" by the thousand, regardless of the pitch or the quality of the opposition or the size of the boundaries or whatever. I mean, step back and contemplate it, because it's really an amazing run of scoring the equal of almost anything you're likely to see in ODI cricket. Yet, with Hayden, it just doesn't count somehow.

 

[thierry henry]

Performing against that top 10% of bowlers is what seperates a good batsman from a great one though, IMO, and that's why Hayden will never be anything more than very good in my eyes.

Just out of interest, do you have conclusive statistical proof that Hayden hasn't performed against the "best" from 2000 onwards?

Secondly, I don't agree with what you just said at all, but the point is moot I suppose.

 

[honestbharani]

He has definitely gone from "passable to good" to "good to very good" as an ODI player for me, based on this year's performances. But why does his test career get into this now? Have his last 3 innings shown that he is a better test player than what he was earlier????? Or have they shown that he is a worse test player than what he was earlier????

 

[honestbharani]

I guess what gets me is that if a popular, well regarded, talented cricketer- perhaps Ross Taylor or Dwayne Bravo or someone like that- scored 183 in an ODI, then 100 off 66 balls, and then another 150+ score at better than a run a ball, people would be making massive statements and online ejaculations (in every sense of the word) left right and centre. Those 3 amazing innings, in quick succession, would lead to "I told you so's" by the thousand, regardless of the pitch or the quality of the opposition or the size of the boundaries or whatever. I mean, step back and contemplate it, because it's really an amazing run of scoring the equal of almost anything you're likely to see in ODI cricket. Yet, with Hayden, it just doesn't count somehow.

might perhaps have something to do with the fact that those guys are young and hence more opportunities to repeat the feat.


Not saying it is necessarily fair, but that is the way it goes, really.

 

[pasag]

I guess what gets me is that if a popular, well regarded, talented cricketer- perhaps Ross Taylor or Dwayne Bravo or someone like that- scored 183 in an ODI, then 100 off 66 balls, and then another 150+ score at better than a run a ball, people would be making massive statements and online ejaculations (in every sense of the word) left right and centre. Those 3 amazing innings, in quick succession, would lead to "I told you so's" by the thousand, regardless of the pitch or the quality of the opposition or the size of the boundaries or whatever. I mean, step back and contemplate it, because it's really an amazing run of scoring the equal of almost anything you're likely to see in ODI cricket. Yet, with Hayden, it just doesn't count somehow.

Spot on. Gun post.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

Great posts from Burgey and SJS, and I wont get those 10 minutes back after reading the C_C dribble.

Hayden was a player whose technique was not up to scratch in the early 90s. He worked hard to change it and came back a different player. By batting out of his crease he asks the bowlers to bowl in different and uncomfortable areas. He bats to his strengths (front foot) and restrains himself on his weaknesses. You cannot ignore the stats that he has, just terrefic. He is a great player of our era simple as that. He might be a Flat Track Bully but he is very good at it.

Sewag has one of the worlds worse techniques but his eye is just awesome, unmatched. He just stands there high on his toes and throws the bat at it when it is short and wide. No wonder he chops it on. Insted of going back and across like a true back-foot player does to get balance, his way is unique but still gets him balanced (just). It works for him but it is one of the worst techniques i have ever seen watching cricket.

 

[C_C]

Another point, perhaps the most important of all- since when was a player merely judged on his ability to play the BEST bowlers?

Always.
The very same reason performance against the Aussies of 90s-present is given higher marks than against anyone else.
The very same reason why 1 goal in stanley cup finals is worth 20 regular season goals.
The very same reason why the ultimate test of your ability to play spin is in India.

I shall quote Wayne Gretsky, the greatest hockey player ever, when asked about the difference between great players and mediocre ones despite little or no statistical difference :

" The true great to me is one who performs against the best of the best. Often the best require the motivation of playing against the best to bring out their A-game. Geordie Howe dominated the playoffs but he rarely top scored during the regular season. I think this is because every goal or every performance on the scoreboard is not equal. A goal against the Red Wings count a lot more than goal against the Flames. Often you find that mediocre players who are aware of their shortcommings cash in the heaviest when its fair sailing. But greatness in a sport is and always will be measured by performance against the best of the best. This is why Howe i think was a better player than Lafleur or Trottier.
"

And i completely agree with Gretsky.
Your performance against the best of the best obviously gets more weight than your performance against also-rans. For the greatest demonstration of greatness is making hay against the best of the best.
This is why a Tendulkar or a Lara will stay ahead of a Ponting or a Hayden despite what the stats say- for they have done it empatically so against the best of the best unlike Hayden or Ponting.

And for that matter, i have never come across a professional sportsman who doesnt agree with Gretsky's sentiments. This is the reason McGrath picks Lara and Tendulkar as the top batsmen of their generation, not Ponting or Hayden.

Because the lesser players (like Hayden) may be better adept at bashing no-name players better but the way of finding out how good you really are is not by mindlessly bashing substandard bowling better than your contemporaries. But instead, what you have done against the best of the best. If Tests success is to be given more weight than FC success because it is at a tougher, more challenging level, surely, the same logic applies against tougher teams to bowl/bat against! Or else if we didnt consider performance against the best of the best as the barometer, why don't we include FC stats in our comparisons and conclude that Graeme Hick = Tendulkar and Mark Ramprakash = Ponting ?

And simply speaking, best of the best that Ponting, Hayden, Dravid, Kallis, Sehwag, etc. have made runs against are not on the same quality level as the best of the best Tendulkar, Lara, Steve Waugh have made their runs against.

Lara can score 20 @ 10.00 vs Zimbabwe and Hayden can score 3290483940 @ 233232432 average against the Zimboks. But if against quality opposition Lara averages 50 and Hayden 30, Lara >> Hayden. Period.

 

[Fiery]

I've always hated his guts, tbf. He's just so ugly to watch. I'm a pretty harsh judge though, find most batsmen boring to watch.

How can you "hate his guts"? Here's a guy who has worked hard to become a good enough player to represent his (or your) country and gone on to score mountains of runs in all forms of the game for Australia...(your country). Now he's in the form of his, (or anyone's), life, and you still can't give him credit. Is it because he's religious? too old for you? or is it just the fact he's taken "Watto"'s spot? I'm struggling to fathom it.

 

[nate-d]

Haydos, I just love the way he prances down the track and hoists a six straight down the ground, pure grace and elegance. Although, I guess it will be his last world cup. neva know though.

 

[The_Bunny]

Haydos, I just love the way he prances down the track and hoists a six straight down the ground, pure grace and elegance. Although, I guess it will be his last world cup. neva know though.

Lara is playing till his 40's and Haydo will be 39 next WC....

But we will see I suppose

 

[Fiery]

Haydos, I just love the way he prances down the track and hoists a six straight down the ground, pure grace and elegance. Although, I guess it will be his last world cup. neva know though.

Good call nate-d, Hayden is the master of the pre-medicated 6 atm

 

[thierry henry]

Always.
The very same reason performance against the Aussies of 90s-present is given higher marks than against anyone else.
The very same reason why 1 goal in stanley cup finals is worth 20 regular season goals.
The very same reason why the ultimate test of your ability to play spin is in India.

I shall quote Wayne Gretsky, the greatest hockey player ever, when asked about the difference between great players and mediocre ones despite little or no statistical difference :

" The true great to me is one who performs against the best of the best. Often the best require the motivation of playing against the best to bring out their A-game. Geordie Howe dominated the playoffs but he rarely top scored during the regular season. I think this is because every goal or every performance on the scoreboard is not equal. A goal against the Red Wings count a lot more than goal against the Flames. Often you find that mediocre players who are aware of their shortcommings cash in the heaviest when its fair sailing. But greatness in a sport is and always will be measured by performance against the best of the best. This is why Howe i think was a better player than Lafleur or Trottier.
"

And i completely agree with Gretsky.
Your performance against the best of the best obviously gets more weight than your performance against also-rans. For the greatest demonstration of greatness is making hay against the best of the best.
This is why a Tendulkar or a Lara will stay ahead of a Ponting or a Hayden despite what the stats say- for they have done it empatically so against the best of the best unlike Hayden or Ponting.

And for that matter, i have never come across a professional sportsman who doesnt agree with Gretsky's sentiments. This is the reason McGrath picks Lara and Tendulkar as the top batsmen of their generation, not Ponting or Hayden.

Because the lesser players (like Hayden) may be better adept at bashing no-name players better but the way of finding out how good you really are is not by mindlessly bashing substandard bowling better than your contemporaries. But instead, what you have done against the best of the best. If Tests success is to be given more weight than FC success because it is at a tougher, more challenging level, surely, the same logic applies against tougher teams to bowl/bat against! Or else if we didnt consider performance against the best of the best as the barometer, why don't we include FC stats in our comparisons and conclude that Graeme Hick = Tendulkar and Mark Ramprakash = Ponting ?

And simply speaking, best of the best that Ponting, Hayden, Dravid, Kallis, Sehwag, etc. have made runs against are not on the same quality level as the best of the best Tendulkar, Lara, Steve Waugh have made their runs against.

Lara can score 20 @ 10.00 vs Zimbabwe and Hayden can score 3290483940 @ 233232432 average against the Zimboks. But if against quality opposition Lara averages 50 and Hayden 30, Lara >> Hayden. Period.

2 points

(1) I'd love your opinion on which attacks from 1989 (Sachin's debut) onwards were quality, and then to compare the performances of the players you mentioned against said attacks. If you can be bothered (I can't lol)

(2) The fundamental problem with what you're saying is that test cricket doesn't have play-offs, it just has a rather dodgy ranking system. All the wins and stats count equally and it's all the same level. What counts is winning test series. If a player performs poorly in a series against poor opposition that is inexcusable, because losing that test series would be just as bad as losing any other test series, and SOMEONE has to go out and score the runs to ensure victory.

 

[Fiery]

At this point in time, Matthew Hayden is the best batsman in the world...

There...I've said it

 

[C_C]

(1) I'd love your opinion on which attacks from 1989 (Sachin's debut) onwards were quality, and then to compare the performances of the players you mentioned against said attacks. If you can be bothered (I can't lol)

Eh ? i don't get what you are asking. Obviously not everyone has the same exact set of opportunities and variables, especially if they begin their careers several years apart. They peak at different times, against different players, etc etc.

I view cricket excellence in terms of 'what are the pluses and minuses you bring to the table overall'.
The simple fact is when Tendulkar or Lara hit their peak, bowlers like Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Pollock and Vaas were going around on pitches harder to bat on.
When Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, etc. hit their peaks, more than half those bowlers were gone or nearing retirement and thus far lesser players plus pitches are easier to bat on these days.
Regardless of what the justification is, the bottomline is top 10 bowlers against whom Tendulkar hit his peak are way way way better than top 10 bowlers these guys hit their peaks against.

(2) The fundamental problem with what you're saying is that test cricket doesn't have play-offs, it just has a rather dodgy ranking system.

What Gretsky is saying isnt that only playoffs mean more - he used Detroit Red Wings opposed to Calgary Flames as an example during regular season. The point he is making is that what matters in questions of 'how good you really are ?" is performance against the best of the best. Or essentially, they count for a lot more.
That much is obvious to see.

All the wins and stats count equally and it's all the same level. What counts is winning test series. If a player performs poorly in a series against poor opposition that is inexcusable, because losing that test series would be just as bad as losing any other test series, and SOMEONE has to go out and score the runs to ensure victory.

Cricket is a team game- a loss or a win shouldn't hurt player's credibilities and the very fact that cricket rankings have taken that into consideration in personal rankings show that its amatuer in its concept. And no, not all the stats or wins count equally. A world cup win is more important than VB series win. A win in Australia against Australia is worth more than winning vs Zimbabwe in your backyard. Same goes with personal performances.

I think i've answered your question- with the effective backing of one of the greatest sportsmen ever ( yes, Grestsky = Bradman of hockey) as to why performance against the best of the best count for more than performance against mediocres.