Hayden the best bat since this century?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

A wise (and often drunk) man once said:

(2:13 AM) Stabbin' folks w:	Face it, you're like a Vietnam vet here.
(2:13 AM) Stabbin' folks w:	No leg to stand on and ****ed in the head.

It's sound advice, Cribbage.

 

[shortpitched713]

But in terms of blaming somebody for a loss, I, for one, seriously doubt that Fleet Street would take aim at the guy who'd scored 170 off 195 on Day 2.

I wouldn't either because in this case the player in question clearly maximized his scoring, but on the other hand I would take aim at the guy who scored 45 from 30 balls because he did not maximize his scoring. The guy who scored 45 from 130 balls on the other hand might not have maximized his scoring either, but in the case that your team is looking at having to save the match, his contribution becomes infinitely more useful than that of the other player.

 

[shortpitched713]

Oh, by the way:

Win - 2 points
Draw - 1 point
Loss - 0 points

Those arguing that fast scoring is better than slow scoring are going by some whack football system obviously.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think we can agree that scoring qucikly is always better than scoring slowly.

It is if you're Australia and you're confident during any given Test match that you are the better team. On the other hand if by any realistic assesment you are only as good as your opponent or worse, it clearly is not.

 

[nightprowler10]

So which century was it in 34AD? The 0th?

Haha, I had fun saying 0th.

 

[archie mac]

Even if they had batted this century, Haynes is a lucky man. A good player forever linked with an exceptional one that through this relationship raises his stock.

That is simply false imho, maybe early on in their careers but later on I thought Haynes the better of the two

 

[Johnners]

Only as much as Ponting's natural game ended up inferior to what the team truly needed against India in the above match. Scoring quickly is not superior to scoring slowly. As the referenced match showed, Ponting played a great innings in his natural way and, as it turned out, Australia would have been much better much better off with Kallis for example. That doesn't mean Ponting isn't good - just that different scoring rates will result in different situations on both sides of the coin. Scoring quickly will result in more wins, but more losses. Scoring slowly will result in less wins, but less losses. I don't see one situation as being superior to the other.

Australia would not have been better off with Kallis. Given he faced the same number of balls as Ponting did, and that he was the 8th wicket dismissed, Kallis scoring at a SR of 44 would've scored around 70-80 runs less than Ponting, meaning India would've only been chasing a far easier target of 160 odd in the 4th innings.

If any teams (barring Bangladesh) go into a test match thinking "oh lets play for a draw" then something is seriously wrong. The best outcome for cricket in 99.94% of matches played is when we have both a winning & a losing team.

 

[Beleg]

he's in top ten

ponting
yousuf
inzy
tendulkar
hayden
graeme smith
lara
chanderpaul
kallis
dravid

 

[Goughy]

That is simply false imho, maybe early on in their careers but later on I thought Haynes the better of the two

Wow, could not disagree more but Im sure we can be mature about this and save 7 pages of posts and agree to differ.

 

[NUFAN]

he's in top ten

ponting
yousuf
inzy
tendulkar
hayden
graeme smith
lara
chanderpaul
kallis
dravid

I hope that's not your order.

LOL at The best outcome for cricket in 99.94% of matches played is when we have both a winning & a losing team.

 

[Beleg]

that's not my order, its difficult to seperate several of them, well, apart from the fact that Ponting, Kallis and Dravid would make the top three.

 

[NUFAN]

that's not my order, its difficult to seperate several of them, well, apart from the fact that Ponting, Kallis and Dravid would make the top three.

Yeah that was why I raised the question. I thought you had Kallis and Dravid at the bottom for some anti-batting reason.

Tough to choice who's been the best this century. Hayden would be up there.

Does anyone have stats for averages this century?

 

[Beleg]

inzy is around 57
ponting is about 66
yousuf is about 60

i didn't do the others.


edit: seeing as i love watching dravid and kallis bat, it'd be pretty difficult for me to discriminate against them....

 

[Ikki]

They could also contribute to a loss though, in a match where 150 (320) could save the game.

How? If we're saying they're not getting out, it won't contribute to a loss. Just as a 150 (350) doesn't make a draw even guaranteed unless they stick around.

 

[Athlai]

Haydens 55.80 this century in tests and 46.38 in ODI's

Ponting 65.54 in tests and 44.42 in ODI's

Yousuf 62.15 in tests and 40.18 in ODI

Inzi 56.62 in tests and 39.57 in ODI

Sachin 53.09 in tests and 46 in ODI

Smith 46.79 in tests and 39.77 in ODI

Chanderpaul 49.97 in tests and 41.43 in ODI

Lara 54.06 in tests and 37.51 in ODI

Kallis 62.71 in tests and 47.78 in ODI

Dravid 59.59 in tests and 40.85 in ODI

 

[Athlai]

Tests

Ponting 65.54
Kallis 62.71
Yousuf 62.15
Dravid 59.59
Inzi 56.62
Hayden 55.80
Lara 54.06
Sachin 53.09
Chanderpaul 49.97
Smith 46.79

ODI

Kallis 47.78
Hayden 46.38
Sachin 46
Ponting 44.42
Chanderpaul 41.43
Dravid 40.85
Yousuf 40.18
Smith 39.77
Inzi 39.57
Lara 37.51

If position were to be taken into account the order would be...

Kallis
Ponting
Hayden
Dravid/Yousuf
Sachin
Chanderpaul
Inzi
Lara
Smith

Of course this isn't a definitive list, which I may go into later with lets say a maximum of 30 tests needing to be played? Or something along those lines, or perhaps so many thousand runs scored but from these players Hayden ranks rather highly in terms of average runs scored, impressed me really.

And it would also seem Kallis is number 1

 

[SJS]

Australia this century

India

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

South Africa

West Indies

England

NZLand

B Desh

 

[archie mac]

Wow, could not disagree more but Im sure we can be mature about this and save 7 pages of posts and agree to differ.

Fair enough

 

[Prince EWS]

Australia would not have been better off with Kallis. Given he faced the same number of balls as Ponting did, and that he was the 8th wicket dismissed, Kallis scoring at a SR of 44 would've scored around 70-80 runs less than Ponting, meaning India would've only been chasing a far easier target of 160 odd in the 4th innings.

If any teams (barring Bangladesh) go into a test match thinking "oh lets play for a draw" then something is seriously wrong. The best outcome for cricket in 99.94% of matches played is when we have both a winning & a losing team.

Errr... what? All assumptions in these comparisons are that the players score the same amount of runs at a different rate. Kallis scoring the runs Ponting did at a Kallis rate would have been beneficial.
EDIT: I see your point. You are saying Kallis would have finished not out while everyone fell around him. Well, certainly not if you had a whole team of players scored at 40 instead of 60. It's becoming increasingly useful, isn't it?

And I never advocated going into a match playing for a draw. Just that, once you hit the second innings, those run-a-ball efforts from the first suddenly aren't so useful if you're 300 in the rears.

 

[Prince EWS]

How? If we're saying they're not getting out, it won't contribute to a loss. Just as a 150 (350) doesn't make a draw even guaranteed unless they stick around.

Why aren't they getting out? They will get out..