Hayden the best bat since this century?

[stephen]

The only people who rate Hayden as the best this century are Wisden.

Everyone else recognises that Ponting is better.

 

[Athlai]

In tests definitely Ponting, ODI you could argue either, but Ponting would probably still come out on top.

 

[Ikki]

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

Then a 150 (350) is still a far cry from drawing a match.

 

[Prince EWS]

Then a 150 (350) is still a far cry from drawing a match.

And 150 (200) is still a far cry from winning one.

 

[Ikki]

And 150 (200) is still a far cry from winning one.

Yes, but it gives you more of a chance of winning one. Winning > Drawing whilst both are still receptive to failure. One gives you more chance at winning, the other more chance at drawing and both are too far away to firm a draw.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, but it gives you more of a chance of winning one. Winning > Drawing whilst both are still receptive to failure. One gives you more chance at winning, the other more chance at drawing and both are too far away to firm a draw.

One gives you more chance at losing as well. We've done this argument.

 

[Athlai]

It goes down to personal preference,

All or nothing > something (draw)
something (draw) > all or nothing

Both are pretty fair calls IMO.

 

[Ikki]

One gives you more chance at losing as well. We've done this argument.

But it's not the same argument. Nothing guarantees winning anyway, even 200 (200) goes far from it but the difference between the batsmen you just mentioned is one batting 25 overs more, scoring nothing. Well that hardly puts you in a position to draw anyway. That's one session's worth of doing nothing. I would venture to say you would not lose too many wickets in that session anyway. Unless we're talking about 100 off 400 balls then really, it isn't helpful either to win or to draw to bat that way? And my point in the beginning was how often is there or have there been an innings where a batsman has purposely gone to bat that way. And then, how often has that kind of batting been a trend for any batsman for us to try and equal the scales? I mean, some guys are just slow scorers and it has nothing to do with getting a tie. You'd essentially need everyone in the team batting that slow and not just one person.

ADD: if you had two full teams with both scoring the same, but one striking faster and the other striking slower, the difference would be that the one batting faster essentially gives itself the chance to win by creating time. And the thing is, I think, your argument only has sway when the situation actually calls for it. But then you'd be arguing that most of a batsman's career has been in the struggle to get a draw and that's why his career strike-rate is inferior. It may suggest in some games why he needed to score slower but It'd be quite hard to argue that a batsman had to come out to perform a draw that many times that we shouldn't discriminate.

 

[Matt79]

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.

Disagree. That's a) quite a few ifs in that analysis, and b) a pretty uncommon scenario compared to the times that scoring quickly puts the team in a commanding position, and c) assuming that time available was the reason why Australia lost, as opposed to the bowling not being good enough.

And I'd prefer players who produce wins, not draws, and rate players accordingly.

 

[Mister Wright]

Think Prince is in the minority here.

 

[shortpitched713]

And I'd prefer players who produce results, not draws, and rate players accordingly.

Corrected, in which case it becomes more of a matter of opinion.

 

[Matt79]

I don't prefer players who produce losses and to equate a player who produces wins to one who also causes losses is a mischievious piece of sophistry that disguises the defence of an existing prejudice.

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't prefer players who produce losses and to equate a player who produces wins to one who also causes losses is a mischievious piece of sophistry that disguises the defence of an existing prejudice.

It's so late I had to read that about 5 times to try to understand it, but still don't. Too many big words for 10 to midnight.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't prefer players who produce losses and to equate a player who produces wins to one who also causes losses is a mischievious piece of sophistry that disguises the defence of an existing prejudice.

A player who scores his runs in a shorter amount of time also gives his opponents more time to score his runs as well. Remember, we're assuming that the slow scoring batsman and the quick scoring batsman score the exact same number of runs.

 

[Matt79]

Well we could just as easily and realistically assume that the two batsman face the same number of balls before being dismissed, in which case the faster scoring batsman is clearly superior.

But if we go with the same number of runs argument, then the only reason you'd want to shorten the time you have to bowl out your opponents (or as you put it, for them to get the runs) is if your bowling isn't good enough to take the ten wickets you need. And if you lose the game because your bowling isn't good enough, then that's the problem, not that your batsman scored too quickly.

There's no point in being an extremist about this - there are times when it is important to occupy the crease - but that's generally only when the game is already probably lost, and that means to me that its a skill that is required for a batsman who finds himself with only the tail to bat with or for the tail itself. If that's happened, several things have already gone wrong, and labelling it the fault of somebody for scoring their runs too quickly is nonsensical to me.

I've said before, the very best players are those who can produce either as required.

My comment about pre-existing prejudices wasn't directed at you, but rather at some people who dislike a player for other reasons, and are frustrated by their continued success.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't prefer players who produce losses and to equate a player who produces wins to one who also causes losses is a mischievious piece of sophistry that disguises the defence of an existing prejudice.

The fact of the matter is though, scoring quickly gives both sets of bowlers more time to bowl out the opposition. This can obviously be good or bad depending on who has the upper hand; or who eventually ends up holding the upper hand in the clutch of the game.

Again, I'll say, I'm definitely not saying that players that score at the same average but a lower strike rate are superior; but they aren't inferior either. There are pros and cons of either scoring quickly or slowly and IMO they even themselves out to a point where strike rate can be completely ignored in assessing the better batsman. I'm not going to say Kallis is better than Ponting because Ponting scores too fast as that would be absurd, but IMO it'd be just as absurd to say Ponting was better than Kallis for the opposite reason (I should put out that I do actually believe Ponting to be superior to Kallis, but for different reasons).

The regularity of draws has been brought up several times but it has no relevance at all as it effects both sides of the argument. Having quick scoring resulting in a loss instead of a draw may be a perceived rare event but it is actually no rarer than slow scoring resulting in a draw rather than a win. If one situation can be perceived as only being relevant some of the time, then so can the other. What truly matters is how many runs each batsman is likely to score - the difference between a 40 and a 60 strike rate is unlikely to effect the game either way, and they each have their own positive and negative spins which even out even if they do happen to influence the result.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well we could just as easily and realistically assume that the two batsman face the same number of balls before being dismissed, in which case the faster scoring batsman is clearly superior.

Well, obviously, but then that batsman would have a better average and would hence be rated higher by myself anyway. We aren't discussing the merits of Player A (65 average, 65 strike rate) with player B (40 average, 40 strike rate); we are putting Player A up against Player C (65 average, 40 strike rate).

But if we go with the same number of runs argument, then the only reason you'd want to shorten the time you have to bowl out your opponents (or as you put it, for them to get the runs) is if your bowling isn't good enough to take the ten wickets you need. And if you lose the game because your bowling isn't good enough, then that's the problem, not that your batsman scored too quickly.

And the only reason you'd want to lengthen the time you have to bowl out your opposition is if your bowling isn't good enough to take the ten wickets you need. We're now in a totally different ballgame now of putting a bowler's strike rate up for debate. Can your bowlers take the wickets in time or do you have an attack for a bowlers who average 30 but have economy rates of 1.5? Again it all comes up even, really.

There's no point in being an extremist about this - there are times when it is important to occupy the crease - but that's generally only when the game is already probably lost, and that means to me that its a skill that is required for a batsman who finds himself with only the tail to bat with or for the tail itself. If that's happened, several things have already gone wrong, and labelling it the fault of somebody for scoring their runs too quickly is nonsensical to me.

Much how blaming a batsman who scored too slowly for a draw would be nonsensical if your bowlers simply couldn't dismiss the opposition in time. Again we're coming up equal here.

I've said before, the very best players are those who can produce either as required.

My comment about pre-existing prejudices wasn't directed at you, but rather at some people who dislike a player for other reasons, and are frustrated by their continued success.

That was probably directed at me then. In which case, I must find it neccessary to explain that you will never find me saying "Player X is rubbish because he scored too quickly." What you will find me saying is "Player X isn't better than Player Y who happens to score more runs at a slower rate." Someone like Symonds isn't a poor test batsman because he scores quickly; he's a poor test batsman because he doesn't score enough runs. Ponting, conversely, still scores very quickly and is the best batsman in the world today because he scores the most runs.

 

[Athlai]

This arguments STILL going?

 

[thierry henry]

Hayden is certainly in the mix

tbh when Hayden retires I expect a sudden flood of Hayden-love as people finally put their petty concerns aside and analyse the incredible record he has amassed

 

[Athlai]

Hayden is certainly in the mix

tbh when Hayden retires I expect a sudden flood of Hayden-love as people finally put their petty concerns aside and analyse the incredible record he has amassed

He's definitely up there with the ODI bat of the century, I spose I better make that thread soon too.