Yes, he's also done well in the same conditions too but how much opportunity has Hayden had on those and by also he's thrashed quality bowling too. As has Holding, also, undoubtedly had trouble against top batting.
Then that's a pretty back-handed compliment.
Waugh & company all averaged 50+ in the nineties. So though I think their average would be lower, it wouldn't be lower by a comparable amount to Hayden. Probably 4-8 point drop instead of 10-15 for Hayden.
He has? How often has he even faced quality fast bowling?
*SHRUG*, you could choose to look at it that way. Not many openers were averaging 40 against those guys.
Which is still quite ridiculous. Through the 90s there were flat-tracks everywhere too. Some of those players have even done worse on flat-tracks.
Enough to be compared with some of the same 'legendary' batsmen now.
Redpath and Yallop pretty much did just that, and they don't really compare to Hayden.
Except the fact that there is no other generalisation except yours.
Well he is not among the very best of his generation, he is not among Waugh, Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis and Dravid of this generation.
no it really doesn't in this case because it was not that gavaskar was a strokeless wonder, he had all the shots as he has shown at various times in his career, a really brittle indian batting almost completely depended on him for a long time despite the presence of very good players like vishwanath, vengsarkar, amarnath etc, none of these players, while being very good at their job more often than not, were consistent enough to take the pressure off him completely(their career graphs will attest to that), he used to say that he always considered that his job is to score a century for his side each time he goes in to bat...and with that mindset and with no regular opening partner and a brittle batting lineup following him, he had to necessarily curb his stroke-play and concentrate on keeping one end up...and he earned the ever-lasting respect of one of the greatest and most aggressive bowling sides of all time in the 70s and 80s not to mention other bowling greats of that time...
lara has scored plenty in the 2000s although in fits and starts, but he has pretty much been like that throughout his career, while tendulkar has been on a steady decline for the past few years because of a spate of injuries and just a surfeit of international cricket after starting at age 16...as i said before, to his credit, he has taken advantage of the situation he has been presented with but that doesn't make him as good or better than gavaskar...
the fact that he failed in his first foray into international cricket when there were many more exceptional bowlers and more bowler-friendly pitches around...in his second coming, he is definitely one of the best openers of the past 4-5 years or so but that doesn't really say a whole lot from an all-time perspective...
You said:
Maybe not the triumvirate, but the rest he is, or will soon be.
It doesn't matter if he has all the strokes in the world when he chooses to leave balls rather than play most, it's how he actually played not how he could have. And I don't buy that he would have been any more risky even if he could. Especially not from a man that did what he did in that world cup game. His ODI record speaks volumes on his type of play, the man has 1 century, which came towards the end of his career IIRC, in 108 innings.
Hayden has always been dominant, for Queensland or Australia. The guy comes metres down the pitch and belts pacers. I don't think he is doing that because he feels he has back-up if he gets out.
Done the Tendulkar Lara post 2000 thing to death so I won't get into it. I just don't buy those excuses, well not for Lara, but for Tendulkar. We're talking about Hayden getting marked 15-20 points on average and the others only a 5 or so remember?
It actually says very little. He got very little chance and because Australia are so strong it took him ages to come back. Nevermind doing so well domestically and doing very well against touring sides. It puts nothing in perspective. If Hayden was Indian there wouldn't be as much dispute.
?? No one likes Sehwag and for the longest time, the two had similar stats.
what he did in one one day match doesn't define his career, and that was not because he didn't have the shots to play with, it was a deliberate action on his part because at that point in his career, he hated the concept of one dayers and the innings was almost like a protest, even towards the end, gavaskar and one dayers were an uneasy alliance...in any case, it doesn't prove anything about their relative stature as test batsmen...
he is certainly an aggressive player by instinct so what? he is a big, hefty guy who wants to impose himself on the bowlers while gavaskar was less than 5 1/2 feet tall and not built to power his way through every innings...even so, if gavaskar had played for australia, he wouldn't have left as many balls as he did either...also wasting balls is such a simplistic explanation of what gavaskar did, what he did was very necessary and often essential to his side and what hayden does meshes well with the aussie side...
you brought it up..and i wouldn't venture to guess at what averages would rise and what would drop...Done the Tendulkar Lara post 2000 thing to death so I won't get into it. I just don't buy those excuses, well not for Lara, but for Tendulkar. We're talking about Hayden getting marked 15-20 points on average and the others only a 5 or so remember?
that is unwarranted and a cheap shot, if you want to continue down that path, let's stop...
And how does it disapprove Anil's point ? What difference does it make if he had one century or 100 ? If anything, it proves that he took a lot more risks in ODIs.
Correct, you would have declared him as another flat track bully from India/subcontinent.
For a while they did, but Hayden is a much better opener.
No for a while "they" did not think he was as good as Hayden despite similar stats. So I don't know where the subcontinent comment came out of, considering the subject is completely different.
Except for the fact that he was slow in scoring in both forms? If we had the comparable stats for his strike-rate in the test arena they'd show a worse rate. It really was upto him to bat that way. Many other batsmen have had it tough, like an Alan Border and he didn't batt that negative or defensively.
Yes, to a point it was necessary, but he stepped even further than that. He was clocking up runs and taking a long time to do it. Great defensive player sure, but he won his battles as a marathon and not in the sprint. What I was showing you by Hayden was trying to give you the stature of the man; why should he fear great bowling attacks? They may be better, but never enough to restrain this man to the crease.
I would, but I wouldn't be so bold as to make sweeping generalisations and and propose ridiculous subtractions or additions.
Sorry Anil mate, I really didn't mean it that way at all. What I mean is that Hayden, if he had played for India would have gotten a much earlier start, would have been a bigger star on a less strong batting line-up and maybe gotten more love and recognition as he has as the big-bad-opener for the-big-bad-aussies.that is unwarranted and a cheap shot, if you want to continue down that path, let's stop...
No, I wouldn't have. I've argued this same flat-track/poor bowling thing for the likes of Sachin and Lara and whoever else it ridiculously denigrates. And I didn't mean it in that way at all.