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

[Burgey]

Watching this ODI atm.

Has there ever been an opener who so consistently just walks down the wicket to bowlers? Can't really recall many doing it before him, certainly can't recall any who did it as often, even vs the new ball.

 

[Top_Cat]

Watching this ODI atm.

Has there ever been an opener who so consistently just walks down the wicket to bowlers? Can't really recall many doing it before him, certainly can't recall any who did it as often, even vs the new ball.

Even Dean Jones did it less and it seemed he did it almost every ball sometimes.

Thing is, it's not a low-percentage move; I've done it and it opened up hitting options without a huge amount of risk (unless the quick bowler digs it in really short) and it really annoys the heck out of bowlers.

 

[pup11]

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

I know there are some guys who don't like the way he rattles bowlers around the world and they consider him to be bully and a flat-track bully at that, but truth be told Hayden has scored runs in every condition against every sort of attack, even in The Ashes 05 he came up with a superb knock at The Oval when the sword was hanging over his career, he intimidates and dominates the bowlers and that's the way he likes to play and he has been very successful doing so and one needs to realise every batsman has his own style and technique, but whether one likes the way he plays or not, there is no denying he has revolutionised and changed the way a test opener batted and for me he surely would go down as one of the all-time greats (of course i would wait to hear from Richard on that).
As far opening in Odi's is concerned then, there is no doubt that SRT is arguably the best Odi opener of all time, but in the last one year or so Haydos's has show that he is also pretty damn good as an Odi opener, in his own right.

 

[social]

I don't think anyone is dismissing him. I don't think there's any doubt that he's world class, but would you consider him a serious contender for an all-time great opening slot? That's the debate.

Based on these figures, you simply have to

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...ed;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting

I always find it amusing that someone like Hobbs, who very few alive even saw and whose opposition was at best questionable, can be considered a lock for an all-time x1, whilst Hayden hardly merits consideration despite scoring thousands and thousands more runs in a greater variety of conditions

 

[Cevno]

I think he will have to, yet I do understand everyones hesitation in automatically elevating him to that position.

Not to long ago I put together my world best team from 1990-present. Every player just about picked themselves, but for the openers. There has not been world class openers around for some time now and Hayden stood tall above all others - yet he still didnt seem to fit in with a team full of superstars.

A lot of talk about him not being against the great bowlers like Ambrose, Donald etc and a lack of great bowlers now. However the last 7-8 years there has not been that quality yet what other openers have stood out and dominated like Hayden. Is it we have no good bowlers and no good openers the last few years? Unlikely.

The fact is opening is the toughest batting gig no matter where and against any team and to be averaging 50+ is quite freakish so he does deserve to be seen as a great player becasue of the position he plays.

so sehwag averaging 50.5 is an alltime great too?
Btw he averages 52.7 as a opener.
Greatness cannot be measured by averages for me.

 

[biased indian]

Based on these figures, you simply have to

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...ed;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting

I always find it amusing that someone like Hobbs, who very few alive even saw and whose opposition was at best questionable, can be considered a lock for an all-time x1, whilst Hayden hardly merits consideration despite scoring thousands and thousands more runs in a greater variety of conditions

Just have look @ haydens centuries...i only noticed it once Jono posted

21 out of his 30 test centuries is scored at home......i dont thing any other player with more than 25 centuries have that many century @ home lara and Tendulkar certainly dont have...

A great batsmne yes he is ...but an alltime great...na no way

 

[biased indian]

Based on these figures, you simply have to

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...ed;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting

I always find it amusing that someone like Hobbs, who very few alive even saw and whose opposition was at best questionable, can be considered a lock for an all-time x1, whilst Hayden hardly merits consideration despite scoring thousands and thousands more runs in a greater variety of conditions

Just have a look @

Hobbs aganist australia and Hayden aganist England...still you need convincing

 

[social]

Just have a look @

Hobbs aganist australia and Hayden aganist England...still you need convincing

Urm... what does that prove?

How about comparing their records in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, New Zealand

 

[Arrow]

Hayden couldnt make it in the 90s when there were many great bowlers around. Even the century he scored against the windies in 96 he was dropped like 4 times. Top class fast bowlers always seem to sort him out. Aktar did last tour down here and England 2005 plus in the 90s. Easy to look like a bully against mediocre bowlers.

 

[chaminda_00]

Don't think he will finish his career rated as an all time great. But as time passes and his record still stands the Test of time, people will look back as him as all time great. I also think the potential lose he will have interms of the performance drop the Australia top order have after he retires will also improve his ratings. One of the reasons why say Haynes was rated so high, even though he probably wasn't that good. Was the signifciant drop in performance once he retired. I reckon something similar may happen to Hayden. Then again Phil Hughes will probably out perform Hayden.

But yeah, as time goes past people will look at his record and potential longetivity of it and it will make him an all time great. I do think he is slightly under rated personally. But overall his probably below what it takes to be an all time great. But I would be surprised if he isn;t rated as one 10 years after he retires.

 

[Matt79]

Definitely all-time great for me. Stats are part of the story, the manner in which he's scored the runs is another large part for me. This is partly like the Viv Richards debate all over again. It's also that I don't set much store in the fact that when he was a callow youth, in cricketing terms, he was smacked up by Curtley Ambrose et al. He's obviously become a different player than the one that we saw in his first forays. It's rather like condemning Steve Waugh because of his decidedly average (and much longer) period when he first came into the team.

I probably have a more liberal definition of "all-time great" than some others here appear to. I'd honestly have him pushing now towards the top half-a-dozen openers ever. He's certainly top ten. On Jack's point about ATG equating to pushing for All Time XI selection - that's a bit restrictive for mine. Given the number of players who have been through the game now, in general terms if you're in the top 10-12 of your speciality, other than spinners and keepers (there's been a hell of a lot fewer spinners and keepers than quick bowlers or top order batsmen), I'm willing to label you an all-time great.

Probably helps that while I really enjoy watching a perfect technician or stylist, I'm not hung up on what a batsman's technique or style is, so long as it is consistently effective. I quite like watching Hayden take a big step down the pitch and smack the bejesus out of a ball.

He's fast installing himself as a definite starter in my all-time Aussie line up as well, through sheer weight of runs.

On the 30 centuries, all the batsmen who are ahead of him have played at least 20 more tests unless I'm much mistaken.

 

[biased indian]

Urm... what does that prove?

How about comparing their records in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, New Zealand

you are putting it up becuse hobbs didnt play in those coutries enough ???

if that by logic hayden should be greater that bradman also ????

 

[river end]

Hayden couldnt make it in the 90s when there were many great bowlers around. Even the century he scored against the windies in 96 he was dropped like 4 times. Top class fast bowlers always seem to sort him out. Aktar did last tour down here and England 2005 plus in the 90s. Easy to look like a bully against mediocre bowlers.

That's a good summary I'd say.

I just think Hayden was in the right place at the right time. He was just young enough to get a second chance just when cricket was evolving into a more batsmen friendly game and one which was gradually nullifying bowlers (through a number of factors). One which suited the 'dominating' style of Hayden. Soon the test bowling attacks were the equivalent to the Sheffield Shield bowlers he was battering around from the early to mid 90s. Suddenly a compact batting style and exceptional technique weren't as important anymore for consistent and long term batting success at test level.

Another note to that century against WI - that was the one test Ambrose didn't play in that series. He got injured just before that game - which was lucky as the Windies had stormed back into the series and were looking to square the series.

Shoaib Akhtar - in 04/05 Shoaib got his act together and all of a sudden Hayden looked like the test batsmen from 94-97.

If it was just Hayden, then maybe, but it's not.
Around the period 2000-2002 batsmen were queuing up to give their averages a significant boost. Of course Ponting went from looking just a very good batsmen mid-2001 with an average of around 40 to not much later averaging around 57.
And you can add guys like Martyn, Langer, Hussein, Trescothick.........

Of course Hayden can only play what he's up against but for anyone whose followed cricket for a considerable time, to me, there's enough evidence to suggest a question mark against him isn't out of order.

When pressed, Richie Benaud himself used the words "very good", not "great" to describe Hayden during the recent Adelaide test.

 

[social]

you are putting it up becuse hobbs didnt play in those coutries enough ???

if that by logic hayden should be greater that bradman also ????

It has about as much logic as comparing them as batsmen by looking at their records vs their respective countries 80 years apart.

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's ridiculous to just tag someone as an all-time great because of their average. Nobody in their right mind would consider Sehwag an all-time great but his average stacks up very well against others before him.

An all-time great is someone you can place in any era and expect to do well. I can expect Tendulkar and Lara to still be scoring even against the pace bowlers of the 70s and 80s. I doubt Hayden would though.

And just a note on Jack Hobbs. He played in an era of uncovered wickets against bowling roughly the same quality as Hayden did. That's some of the most challenging conditions for a opening batsman, and he ended up with an average better than Hayden's. I'm sure Hobbs wouldn't find today's wickets much more easier.

Having said this, I still think Hayden is a great player, and far from a flat-track bully. It's just unfortunate he hasn't played against high-quality pace bowlers more though, and hasn't looked too flashy when he briefly does.

 

[social]

And just a note on Jack Hobbs. He played in an era of uncovered wickets against bowling roughly the same quality as Hayden did. That's some of the most challenging conditions for a opening batsman, and he ended up with an average better than Hayden's. I'm sure Hobbs wouldn't find today's wickets much more easier.

How do you know this?

Nothing on film, no speed-guns, etc etc

All we have is anecdotal evidence

Frankly I think that it's ludicrous to suggest that a group of largely amateur players from a tiny selection of countries who'd never dreamt of virtually every practice that today's test cricketers take for granted are even remotely comparable

 

[The Sean]

C_C...is that you....?

 

[silentstriker]

How do you know this?

Nothing on film, no speed-guns, etc etc

All we have is anecdotal evidence

Frankly I think that it's ludicrous to suggest that a group of largely amateur players from a tiny selection of countries who'd never dreamt of virtually every practice that today's test cricketers take for granted are even remotely comparable

But it works both ways. The bowlers didn't have access to everything that we do now, but neither did Hobbs and yet he came out on top unlike all the other batsmen of the time.

 

[social]

C_C...is that you....?

Not too difficult to grasp

Like saying the 5'11", 180 pound Jack Johnson would be a match for the 6'5", 250 pound Lennox Lewis simply because they were both heavyweight champions

You simply cannot say that sportsman x from 1900 would be a champion today because the differences in the bame itself are so huge as to make the sports almost unrecognisable

Take 2 great cricketers in W.G. Grace and Warwick Armstrong as prime examples - if nothing else, their weight would prohibit them from even reaching first class cricket today.

 

[social]

But it works both ways. The bowlers didn't have access to everything that we do now, but neither did Hobbs and yet he came out on top unlike all the other batsmen of the time.

Sutcliffe, Bradman, Hammond, Ponsford etc