Best English Batsman Since 1990?

[Lillian Thomson]

No, there isn't, rocket-science and cricket have pretty well nothing to do with one another.

Hmmnn.........anyway can someone provide a link or links to the main Hayden/Hussain debate please?
Thank you.

 

[Richard]

None is needed, just this sentance:

Matthew Hayden would not have been a Test-class batsman at any time (bar perhaps the 1930s) before 2001\02.



So, purely and simply, anyone who was a Test-class batsman in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, etc. is therefore better than him.

As far as I'm concerned.

There was a thread where a million and one misunderstandings were thrown back and forth, which doubtless someone will unearth. Reading it would be a waste of time, however.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

None is needed, just this sentance:

Matthew Hayden would not have been a Test-class batsman at any time (bar perhaps the 1930s) before 2001\02.



So, purely and simply, anyone who was a Test-class batsman in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, etc. is therefore better than him.

As far as I'm concerned.

There was a thread where a million and one misunderstandings were thrown back and forth, which doubtless someone will unearth. Reading it would be a waste of time, however.

That doesn't really say anything other than stating the opinion, presumably somewhere there must be some sort of attempted reasoning behind the statement?

 

[Richard]

It's the only thing relevant in "how does Hayden compare to <insert name of Test-class batsman at relevant time>". It is an opinion, and other opinions result from it.

Nonetheless, no reasoning attempted for the said first opinion, just given. That being thus:

Hayden was exposed by the calibre of seam-bowlers and sporting pitches he faced between 1993\94 and 2001, especially (but not exclusively) the inswinger. Hayden has faced virtually nothing in the way of high-calibre seam-bowling or seaming pitches or balls that swing properly from 2001\02 onwards (though on the rare occasions when he did those flaws were still apparent).

Ergo, Hayden wouldn't have been Test-class if the calibre of the bowling and pitches had not degenerated in 2001\02, making batting probably easier than at any time in Test history.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's the only thing relevant in "how does Hayden compare to <insert name of Test-class batsman at relevant time>". It is an opinion, and other opinions result from it.

Nonetheless, no reasoning attempted for the said first opinion, just given. That being thus:

Hayden was exposed by the calibre of seam-bowlers and sporting pitches he faced between 1993\94 and 2001, especially (but not exclusively) the inswinger. Hayden has faced virtually nothing in the way of high-calibre seam-bowling or seaming pitches or balls that swing properly from 2001\02 onwards (though on the rare occasions when he did those flaws were still apparent).

Ergo, Hayden wouldn't have been Test-class if the calibre of the bowling and pitches had not degenerated in 2001\02, making batting probably easier than at any time in Test history.

I see.

 

[Burgey]

None is needed, just this sentance:

Matthew Hayden would not have been a Test-class batsman at any time (bar perhaps the 1930s) before 2001\02.



So, purely and simply, anyone who was a Test-class batsman in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, etc. is therefore better than him.

As far as I'm concerned.

There was a thread where a million and one misunderstandings were thrown back and forth, which doubtless someone will unearth. Reading it would be a waste of time, however.

So, if Hayden isn't a test class player and averages 50+ in this era opening the batting. where does that put guys whose averages are similar and who are playing in this era as well? Like Pietersen for example, or Bell (whose average is lower). Both those guys also have the benefit of batting in the middle order for the most part and not facing the new rock. Alistair Cook is another who springs to mind, as does Vaughan, though both are opneners/ number 3s.

I mean, earlier in this thread you were implying if not saying that you would consider guys like Cook and Bell in relation to this thread, but for the fact that their careers have not finished yet.

Logically, if they are playing in the same era as Hayden yet averaging less, and you do not consider Hayden to be a test class player, then these players are not test class either. That being so, how can they be considered in the running for England's best batsman post-1990?

Or something like that.....

 

[wpdavid]

The clincher for me is that its realistically possible to argue that for a period Gooch was the best batsman on the planet whereas Thorpe would have found it difficult to have even cracked a place in a World XI at any point in his career.

Yes, that's pretty persuasive, especially as Gooch was in said position for a reasonable amount of time.

Maybe a top 5 from 1990 onwards would feature Gooch, Stewart (not as a wk), Smith, Thorpe & Pietersen.

Atherton is highly rated, but that owes much to sympathy - scoring as many as he did whilst carrying a severe back condition and England's selection policies of the mid90's. But in reality he failed far too often to be inlcuded here. Hussain may well have featured if he hadn't been made captain - and even so he's possibly made more match winning innings than anyone else - but I couldn't honestly place him above the other listed above.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'd go for Thorpe. Gooch was already 36 when the 90's dawned and although he had a couple of great years boosted by the 450 odd runs at Lord's against India, he was pretty average from 92 onwards although there were still a few great innings along the way.

 

[Richard]

Atherton is highly rated, but that owes much to sympathy - scoring as many as he did whilst carrying a severe back condition and England's selection policies of the mid90's. But in reality he failed far too often to be inlcuded here.

Did he really do either though? The only times between the start of 1990 and the end of calender-year 2000 when Atherton's back actually affected him was the West Indies series in 1991, the Zimbabwe tour of 1996 and the Australia tour of 1998\99. And the first of these wasn't a remarkable effect.

Nonetheless, remove them and he averages something like 43-44 in the 1990-2000 time, and only failed on perhaps 3 other occasions, the subcontinent tour of 1992\93 and the consecutive series against Australia in 1997 and West Indies in 1998. And there's still 90-odd Tests on there of near-enough unbroken success.

 

[Richard]

So, if Hayden isn't a test class player and averages 50+ in this era opening the batting. where does that put guys whose averages are similar and who are playing in this era as well? Like Pietersen for example, or Bell (whose average is lower). Both those guys also have the benefit of batting in the middle order for the most part and not facing the new rock. Alistair Cook is another who springs to mind, as does Vaughan, though both are opneners/ number 3s.

I mean, earlier in this thread you were implying if not saying that you would consider guys like Cook and Bell in relation to this thread, but for the fact that their careers have not finished yet.

Logically, if they are playing in the same era as Hayden yet averaging less, and you do not consider Hayden to be a test class player, then these players are not test class either. That being so, how can they be considered in the running for England's best batsman post-1990?

Or something like that.....

Hayden had the previous failures, and has continued to have them on the rare occasion he's faced seam-bowling up to the mark in the post-2001\02 period. Cook, Bell and Pietersen didn't have the chance to, so they get the BOTD (as does anyone else in the same boat).

If Cook, Bell, Pietersen et al were to suddenly start failing on the only occasions they faced genuinely good seam-bowling (and there's something of a case that all three have done, to an extent at least, so far), I'd also question their right to be called Test-class players. All are technically much superior to Hayden, though, so I believe them to be superior when it comes to good seam-attacks.

Batting average isn't particularly important BTW - the main thing you need in the period of the last 6 years to have a good average is the ability to bash rubbish bowling. Hayden, as I've said many times, is far better at this than almost anyone. If someone else has a lower average for the last 6 years, it means they're worse at this than him, and not often much more.

All a MOO, of course. But one that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[NUFAN]

So, if Hayden isn't a test class player and averages 50+ in this era opening the batting. where does that put guys whose averages are similar and who are playing in this era as well? Like Pietersen for example, or Bell (whose average is lower). Both those guys also have the benefit of batting in the middle order for the most part and not facing the new rock. Alistair Cook is another who springs to mind, as does Vaughan, though both are opneners/ number 3s.

I mean, earlier in this thread you were implying if not saying that you would consider guys like Cook and Bell in relation to this thread, but for the fact that their careers have not finished yet.

Logically, if they are playing in the same era as Hayden yet averaging less, and you do not consider Hayden to be a test class player, then these players are not test class either. That being so, how can they be considered in the running for England's best batsman post-1990?

Or something like that.....

Exactly.. but what your saying is too logical for some.

 

[Richard]

 

[NUFAN]

I just can't believe that you haven't thought that there is a possible chance that Matthew Hayden improved as a batsmen from his early days in 1993/94..

 

[shortpitched713]

Matty Hayden? Too dumb and Neanderthal looking to have learned anything imo.

 

[Richard]

I just can't believe that you haven't thought that there is a possible chance that Matthew Hayden improved as a batsmen from his early days in 1993/94..

I can't believe anyone would think I haven't thought there's a possible chance. Apparently, in fact, he has improved his batting - against spin. But the first time I came across him, in 1999, he was already one of the best if not the best player of spin in The World.

However, he's never significantly improved his play against seam, no. I think there's ample evidence of that.

 

[Burgey]

Hayden had the previous failures, and has continued to have them on the rare occasion he's faced seam-bowling up to the mark in the post-2001\02 period. Cook, Bell and Pietersen didn't have the chance to, so they get the BOTD (as does anyone else in the same boat).

If Cook, Bell, Pietersen et al were to suddenly start failing on the only occasions they faced genuinely good seam-bowling (and there's something of a case that all three have done, to an extent at least, so far), I'd also question their right to be called Test-class players. All are technically much superior to Hayden, though, so I believe them to be superior when it comes to good seam-attacks.Batting average isn't particularly important BTW - the main thing you need in the period of the last 6 years to have a good average is the ability to bash rubbish bowling. Hayden, as I've said many times, is far better at this than almost anyone. If someone else has a lower average for the last 6 years, it means they're worse at this than him, and not often much more.

All a MOO, of course. But one that makes perfect sense to me.

Bell and Cook technically superior to Matthew Hayden? Why, because they're prettier at the crease?
Cook's off stump technique here last year was laughable. He virtually hung the bat there and begged the bowlers to hit it, which they frequently did.
I also wouldn't rate Bell's technique as that great. His play against spin is generally poor, though I accept he's better than when he started. He seems to have issues getting out once he gets a start atm, which he will hopefully overcome as he gets more experience.
Pietersen imo is a better all around the wicket player than the above two and Hayden, principally through the on side. Again though, he's not what you'd call a pretty or classical player, but if you look at him when he hits the ball, his head's still and his balance is pretty damn good.

 

[Richard]

Cook's technique in the area you mention may be poor, but Hayden's against the inswinger is - and has been all career - even worse. Also, for mine it takes more bowling ability to exploit Cook's flaw (which, vitally, I believe he can and will iron-out in time) than Hayden's, though obviously most bowlers in recent years are not capable of doing either. I also don't find Cook particularly pretty at the crease - his grip is good, but most of his shots, at least on the off, look very uncomfortable and forced.

And Hayden > Bell as a player of spin, obviously, but Bell is far better equipped to handle the seamers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm glad I resurrected the Hayden debate in this thread (sorry to everyone who doesn't share that glee ). I've seen mention of it in several posts recently but it always seemed to be in relation to Nasser Hussain and I assumed it was a debate about the merits of those two in particular. Now I see that the notion is that every proven Test batsmans since 1940 is superior to Hayden. Has anyone ever heard of the Dennis Pratt Award?

 

[Richard]

I'm glad I resurrected the Hayden debate in this thread (sorry to everyone who doesn't share that glee ). I've seen mention of it in several posts recently but it always seemed to be in relation to Nasser Hussain and I assumed it was a debate about the merits of those two in particular.

Hussain was no more than a certain name in a certain place at a certain time. Could just as easily have been Roy Fredericks, Glenn Turner or Gary Kirsten.

Now I see that the notion is that every proven Test batsmans since 1940 is superior to Hayden.

Which makes far more sense. Although take care what you consider as "proven Test batsman" - that doesn't include, for example, Navjot Sidhu.

And probably plenty of those in the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s too, incidentally.

 

[Julian87]

Graham Thorpe for mine as well.