Will Matt Hayden go down as an all-time great?

[Craig]

Or even just as a great opener? Thought I would have some fun while Richard is on his enforced holiday, he'll do the rest when he comes back (that's for the future).

Currently he has 8242 runs at 53 with 30 tons and 27 half centuries, certainly you can't knock his conversion rate. I feel as though Hayden has certainly taken advantage of some of the flatter wickets and some of the lesser quality bowlers, but he has definitely played heaps of fine knocks and under pressure as well. His centuries in the India series, all were very important in their own way (like Australia getting a winning 1st innings in Melbourne, making a century which set the match up for Australia to win and in Adelaide where India had just got 526) and how vital him missing the Perth Test was as well. He has done well in turning himself from not so good against spin to one of the very best outside of Sub-Continent batsmen (although clearly Brian Lara is right up there) as shown in his run spree in India in 2001 and I won't forget his knock in Sharjah in 2002 where nobody should of been allowed to have played cricket in that heat (like if I were employer and I made you work outdoors in that heat, you wouldn't be running to the nearest Union or some Employment lawyer?).

True he struggled a bit by his standards in 2005 in England, but I don't think he was really out of form either, he didn't make the most of his starts, he did look like to me at the time to have gone to have gotten more if he hadn't got out. However, I still think he is troubled by top draw swing bowling or by left armers who can move the ball away from him as well. I'm not fan of his batting style, I would rather watch VVS Laxman or Brian Lara bat all day then Hayden, but I don't think you can he isn't a pretty good batsman. This thread is relating to Test cricket mainly, but we all know SRT >>>>>>> Hayden in ODI cricket.

So will he go down as an all-time great, a great or just a very good batsman

 

[sideshowtim]

I consider him an all-time great. I think a lot of people will be split on it though. The sheer fact that there are very few openers who have averaged 53+ in cricket history shows that he is an exceptional batsman. And even in this era of flat pitches and alleged poor bowling, he is still averaging a fair whack more than any other opener around today and that has to count for something. He would also have to have one of the best centuries per innings rates in history. 30 centuries after a mere 94 Tests is also incredibly impressive especially when you consider it took the great Tendulkar 100 Tests to reach such a mark.

And I also must add that I feel his rather aesthetically unattractive batting technique adds to people devaluing him. He may not be the best to watch, but he gets the job done...

 

[Tony]

So he gets in the list of people who are underrated....

 

[Jono]

Short answer, yes.

 

[burr]

Yes. I’m not a fan, never have been, but he deserves a place in this 'all-time great list' cricket is so concerned with

 

[Craig]

Short answer, yes.

Why not a long answer?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Without checking I doubt there're many more than a dozen or so batsmen who've played 50 test innings who have higher averages than Hayden &, of openers, only (off the top of my head) Sutcliffe & Hobbs would be amongst their number, so he does have the figures.

I think SST's point about his not-terribly-easy-on-the-eye technique is well made (front-foot, smacked back down the ground essentially) & his undervaluing in certain corners of CW (one doesn't see him talked down too often in the cricket press...) is partly due to this & partly due to him being something of a victim of circumstance. In his first incarnation as a test player he could barely buy a run &, at the time, giants of pace and swing strode the earth; I'm thinking of your Wasims & Waqars for Pakistan, Ambrose & Walsh for the Windies and Donald and the young Pollock for SA. When he came back into the test team the majority of them had either retired or were on the way down.

When Hayden achieved rather more success in his comeback, the absence of great pace bowlers (if one ignores Shoaib) & the generally flatter wickets of the noughties coupled with his obvious preference for the front foot had him pegged in a few folks' minds as an FTB. Which conveniently ignores the possibility that Hayden had simply improved as a player. When England suddenly found a pace attack worthy of the name in 2005 & Hayden palpably struggled the deal was sealed: Hayden is a one-dimensional FTB who struggles against genuine swing. Again tho, this theory ignores the fact that he'd been in rank bad form going into the Ashes, suggesting that rather than being "found out", he was possibly just in a slump of form that affects the best players.

To his eternal credit he fought through this, played an entirely un-Haydenlike innings at The Oval and has been largely imperious since. He certainly had the better of his tormentors in 2006/07.

 

[lionheart]

i say no. i don't think he is all time great good. for me he is probably a few rungs down from there. the reason i say this is because hayden has floushied in the 00's bullying weak bowling attacks while he struggled in the 90's when there were some potent attacks still going around. maybe i'm a bit biased because i really don't care for him. i think he is an important player of this era, a very effective and statistically impressive batsmen, but not all time great.

 

[Jono]

Why not a long answer?

Because alternativ hates posts greater than 3 lines, and I didn't want to piss him off

 

[pasag]

Without checking I doubt there're many more than a dozen or so batsmen who've played 50 test innings who have higher averages than Hayden &, of openers, only (off the top of my head) Sutcliffe & Hobbs would be amongst their number, so he does have the figures.

I think SST's point about his not-terribly-easy-on-the-eye technique is well made (front-foot, smacked back down the ground essentially) & his undervaluing in certain corners of CW (one doesn't see him talked down too often in the cricket press...) is partly due to this & partly due to him being something of a victim of circumstance. In his first incarnation as a test player he could barely buy a run &, at the time, giants of pace and swing strode the earth; I'm thinking of your Wasims & Waqars for Pakistan, Ambrose & Walsh for the Windies and Donald and the young Pollock for SA. When he came back into the test team the majority of them had either retired or were on the way down.

When Hayden achieved rather more success in his comeback, the absence of great pace bowlers (if one ignores Shoaib) & the generally flatter wickets of the noughties coupled with his obvious preference for the front foot had him pegged in a few folks' minds as an FTB. Which conveniently ignores the possibility that Hayden had simply improved as a player. When England suddenly found a pace attack worthy of the name in 2005 & Hayden palpably struggled the deal was sealed: Hayden is a one-dimensional FTB who struggles against genuine swing. Again tho, this theory ignores the fact that he'd been in rank bad form going into the Ashes, suggesting that rather than being "found out", he was possibly just in a slump of form that affects the best players.

To his eternal credit he fought through this, played an entirely un-Haydenlike innings at The Oval and has been largely imperious since. He certainly had the better of his tormentors in 2006/07.

Agreed, nice post.

 

[irfan]

If I would want one person to bat for my life, it would be Matt Hayden.

But only if my life was threatened by Chris Martin armed with a bat.

 

[Cevno]

Outside of india and australia his record has been pretty ordinary-

Away matches

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
43 78 5 3181 203 43.57 5696 55.84 9 11 7 402 33

Excluding india 35 matches 6 hundreds.

For me he has been very good but not great.

 

[The Sean]

Without checking I doubt there're many more than a dozen or so batsmen who've played 50 test innings who have higher averages than Hayden &, of openers, only (off the top of my head) Sutcliffe & Hobbs would be amongst their number, so he does have the figures.

I think SST's point about his not-terribly-easy-on-the-eye technique is well made (front-foot, smacked back down the ground essentially) & his undervaluing in certain corners of CW (one doesn't see him talked down too often in the cricket press...) is partly due to this & partly due to him being something of a victim of circumstance. In his first incarnation as a test player he could barely buy a run &, at the time, giants of pace and swing strode the earth; I'm thinking of your Wasims & Waqars for Pakistan, Ambrose & Walsh for the Windies and Donald and the young Pollock for SA. When he came back into the test team the majority of them had either retired or were on the way down.

When Hayden achieved rather more success in his comeback, the absence of great pace bowlers (if one ignores Shoaib) & the generally flatter wickets of the noughties coupled with his obvious preference for the front foot had him pegged in a few folks' minds as an FTB. Which conveniently ignores the possibility that Hayden had simply improved as a player. When England suddenly found a pace attack worthy of the name in 2005 & Hayden palpably struggled the deal was sealed: Hayden is a one-dimensional FTB who struggles against genuine swing. Again tho, this theory ignores the fact that he'd been in rank bad form going into the Ashes, suggesting that rather than being "found out", he was possibly just in a slump of form that affects the best players.

To his eternal credit he fought through this, played an entirely un-Haydenlike innings at The Oval and has been largely imperious since. He certainly had the better of his tormentors in 2006/07.

Quality post. Agree wholeheartedly.

Except for the part where you mentioned Hobbs and Sutcliffe but left out Hutton.

 

[Top_Cat]

Outside of india and australia his record has been pretty ordinary-

Away matches

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
43 78 5 3181 203 43.57 5696 55.84 9 11 7 402 33

Excluding india 35 matches 6 hundreds.

For me he has been very good but not great.

You can't exclude India like that, just because it suits your argument. 43 for an opener's career is brilliant when you compare him to guys like Greenidge and Haynes who are definite greats of the game. But averaging 43 outside of his home country, well, find me an opener who averages more. I doubt there'd be many, if any.

 

[howardj]

Will always, in my mind, be a question mark over him against the absolute creme de la creme of quicks - Donald, Walsh, Ambrose, McGrath. And, unfortunately in the 2000s, because of the dearth of absolute champion quicks (mind, there are still just as many good quicks around nowadays - just not absolutely champion ones) he hasn't really had the chance to erase the aforementioned question mark.

In saying that, he is very, very good though - and it's certainly no shame to be troubled by the blokes mentioned above.

 

[silentstriker]

You can't exclude India like that, just because it suits your argument. 43 for an opener's career is brilliant when you compare him to guys like Greenidge and Haynes who are definite greats of the game. But averaging 43 outside of his home country, well, find me an opener who averages more. I doubt there'd be many, if any.

One, Two,Three,Four,Five,
Six, Seven....

 

[silentstriker]

he is still averaging a fair whack more than any other opener around today and that has to count for something.

You mean three runs more....

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, I think he will go down as a great opener.

All time great? As in the top five - six openers of all time? No. I don't see it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Will always, in my mind, be a question mark over him against the absolute creme de la creme of quicks - Donald, Walsh, Ambrose, McGrath. And, unfortunately in the 2000s, because of the dearth of absolute champion quicks (mind, there are still just as many good quicks around nowadays - just not absolutely champion ones) he hasn't really had the chance to erase the aforementioned question mark.

In saying that, he is very, very good though - and it's certainly no shame to be troubled by the blokes mentioned above.

OT but an interesting aspect of the Donald/McGrath thing - I've seen so many people essentially say that any success against Donald post-2000 is able to be ignored because he wasn't at his best and use this as a reason to ignore Haydon's and others' success against him. Yet McGrath isn't afforded the same grace. I tend to think it's because McGrath kept producing and taking wickets pretty much until he stopped (well past the same age Donald stopped) which is why I can never put McGrath and Donald on the same plane. Donald had a decent peak (record against Australia excepted) but it was short relative to McGrath's and if McGrath and others are to be judged over the course of their whole career, so should Donald.

Anyway, didn't Haydos only get one test against Donald in the 90's? He certainly did look all at sea against Ambrose in the late 90's too. I didn't rate him at all at that point either. Then 1999 rolls around and it's like someone taught him how to play spin and through the on-side. Suddenly, a transformed player. I'm willing to allow that flatter pitches and a few less great fast bowlers around have contributed a bit to his higher average, sure. But anyone who saw him batting for Australia in the 90's vs 00's would have seen he was a far, far better and more versatile batsman too. In the midst of a series where one bloke took 33 wickets in 3 Tests (a spinner no less), Haydos scored 503 runs and did it quickly. No-one who saw him bat in the 90's would have backed him to do that.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I guess my personal definition of "all time great" is whether they get mentioned when discussing all time World XIs. Hayden probably just misses out on that for me.