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

[Jono]

Bottom line is that it's a batsman's job to score runs. The better player (particularly if you have a direct comparison not a pair separated by 80 years) is the one that scores more - end of story

Jeez, that sounds awfully familiar to the arguments Richard and SS made against Viv Richards in that thread.

 

[Matt79]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case I'm seeing none.

The never-ending succession of athletes getting busted having taken performance taking drugs makes it a somewhat less than extraordinary claim IMO. For instance, name one sprinter who's set a world record, has been in the sport for any length of time, and who hasn't been done for drugs, or at the least have serious clouds over their head. From where I'm sitting, claiming that athletics is even vaguely clean is the extraordinary claim.

 

[shortpitched713]

The never-ending succession of athletes getting busted having taken performance taking drugs makes it a somewhat less than extraordinary claim IMO. For instance, name one sprinter who's set a world record, has been in the sport for any length of time, and who hasn't been done for drugs, or at the least have serious clouds over their head. From where I'm sitting, claiming that athletics is even vaguely clean is the extraordinary claim.

So cricketers and bowlers and basketball players are all drug happy druggies? Highly doubtful. I'll take your word on track and field type events as I don't know enough about that, but outside of that I haven't seen the kind of rampant drug use that you're claiming is the major onus for improvement in sports.

 

[Matt79]

So cricketers and bowlers and basketball players are all drug happy druggies? Highly doubtful. I'll take your word on track and field type events as I don't know enough about that, but outside of that I haven't seen the kind of rampant drug use that you're claiming is the major onus for improvement in sports.

Well, I was talking specifically about athletics, not sports. My other argument is that there hasn't been that dramatic an improvement in cricket. I don't know enough about basketball to argue one way or the other.

There have been major, clean, improvements in some sports. But they have tended to be relatively young sports, where there were/are still significant refinements in technique left to discover. In established sports such as track and field, and to an extent cricket (the last MAJOR innovation in bowling for instance was the move to overarm bowling), any improvements will be gradual or incremental.

 

[pasag]

@Jono, I loled at that as well. Complete contradiction.

Anyways, some complete rubbish here. First off with the Grace and Armstrongs fitness. It wasn't until the end of their careers that either ballooned, as far as I know and Grace was incredibly fit, especially having to run 4, 5, 6, 7 with no boundaries and then he'd go in and bowl for hours on end, maybe not toward the end, but at him prime he was incredibly fit. So that argument fails spectacularly.

People are right there is no proof about the greatness of Hobbs over Hayden (geez does this really have to be argued?), but we have such a wealth of anecdotal evidence, such an amazing amount of testimony and we know Hayden isn't the most perfect batsman either that the decision doesn't really become a hard one.

And again, the players of today> players of yesterday argument doesn't work because it has another side of the coin. Put a player from today and transport him 70, 80 years ago with no protection, a smaller bat, sticky wickets, no chiro every two seconds, no video analysis, 6 month voyages overseas and let's see how they cope! I feel that cricket then was very much a tougher game so to scoff at that age in comparison to this one is very unfair, to say the least. So as I said, the argument certainly has two sides to it.

Last point and it might be a tad controversial, but I've always felt it - cricket has always been the same. The game, imo, really hasn't changed that much from decade to decade. Fitness and general strength in cricket (as opposed to skill and talent) have never ever been as important as in other sports (football, basketball) and I feel that semi-accurate comparisons (within reason) can be made throughout the ages because the various changes to the game then and now aren't that major.

 

[chaminda_00]

Hobbs was Bradman's hero

Who considers Hayden their hero ?

Moller, Broad....

 

[social]

Jeez, that sounds awfully familiar to the arguments Richard and SS made against Viv Richards in that thread.

Comparison was between Sutcliffe and Hobbs, who actually opened the batting together and virtually no-one alive saw and of whom we have almost no video.

Claim was made that Hobbs was the better player despite Sutcliffe having the better record and the only evidence put forward to date is that Hobbs was called 'The Master" - sorry, whilst that might be enough for some, it's seems more like the old rose tinted glasses theory to me

In Richards' case, people were comparing his record to players of a different era and saying that it doesnt look that outstanding considering his rating

However, as many people are alive today who saw him AND we have virtually his entire career on record, it's pretty easy to distinguish the two

 

[social]

social

Sorry but never said anything of the like - I simply think he's ridiculously underrated by some.

Take the last series for example.

Tendulkar received all the rave reviews despite Hayden being the best batsman of the series

 

[Jono]

That's just stupid, Hayden received so much credit this series, and so many Aussie supporters stated that no Hayden in Perth was the biggest factor for their loss.

The reason Sachin got a lot of praise was because it was likely his last tour to this country (the country where he made a name for himself), so seeing him kick ass was a great sight.

Its not THAT remarkable if Hayden tons up in Australia time after time, he always does it, as his record shows.

 

[subshakerz]

@Jono, I loled at that as well. Complete contradiction.

Anyways, some complete rubbish here. First off with the Grace and Armstrongs fitness. It wasn't until the end of their careers that either ballooned, as far as I know and Grace was incredibly fit, especially having to run 4, 5, 6, 7 with no boundaries and then he'd go in and bowl for hours on end, maybe not toward the end, but at him prime he was incredibly fit. So that argument fails spectacularly.

People are right there is no proof about the greatness of Hobbs over Hayden (geez does this really have to be argued?), but we have such a wealth of anecdotal evidence, such an amazing amount of testimony and we know Hayden isn't the most perfect batsman either that the decision doesn't really become a hard one.

And again, the players of today> players of yesterday argument doesn't work because it has another side of the coin. Put a player from today and transport him 70, 80 years ago with no protection, a smaller bat, sticky wickets, no chiro every two seconds, no video analysis, 6 month voyages overseas and let's see how they cope! I feel that cricket then was very much a tougher game so to scoff at that age in comparison to this one is very unfair, to say the least. So as I said, the argument certainly has two sides to it.

Last point and it might be a tad controversial, but I've always felt it - cricket has always been the same. The game, imo, really hasn't changed that much from decade to decade. Fitness and general strength in cricket (as opposed to skill and talent) have never ever been as important as in other sports (football, basketball) and I feel that semi-accurate comparisons (within reason) can be made throughout the ages because the various changes to the game then and now aren't that major.

good points all.

 

[Jono]

Comparison was between Sutcliffe and Hobbs, who actually opened the batting together and virtually no-one alive saw and of whom we have almost no video.

Claim was made that Hobbs was the better player despite Sutcliffe having the better record and the only evidence put forward to date is that Hobbs was called 'The Master" - sorry, whilst that might be enough for some, it's seems more like the old rose tinted glasses theory to me

In Richards' case, people were comparing his record to players of a different era and saying that it doesnt look that outstanding considering his rating

However, as many people are alive today who saw him AND we have virtually his entire career on record, it's pretty easy to distinguish the two

Nah mate, thats hypocritical

Why should YOUR anecdotal evidence be any more valuable than those who watched Hobbs in the 20s, and wrote about it?

People saw Viv play, and they also so Border and Miandad play (for example). Most would say Viv was the better player, yet Border and Miandad scored more runs at a better average.

People saw Hobbs play, and they saw Sutcliffe play. They believed Hobbs was the better player, despite Sutcliffe having the better average.

Its the exact same thing. 50 years from now people are going to wonder why Viv was rated so high despite other players having better test match batting averages. Then they'll read some books or watch some documentaries and realise why.

 

[social]

Nah mate, thats hypocritical

Why should YOUR anecdotal evidence be any more valuable than those who watched Hobbs in the 20s, and wrote about it?

People saw Viv play, and they also so Border and Miandad play (for example). Most would say Viv was the better player, yet Border and Miandad scored more runs at a better average.

People saw Hobbs play, and they saw Sutcliffe play. They believed Hobbs was the better player, despite Sutcliffe having the better average.

Its the exact same thing. 50 years from now people are going to wonder why Viv was rated so high despite other players having better test match batting averages. Then they'll read some books or watch some documentaries and realise why.

Not my evidence, it's based on the account of virtually everyone who saw Richards play and you can make reference to existing film footage for independent verification

With Hobbs, it's virtually all based on anecdotes and a substantial proportion of those are accumulated by people who never saw him play either in the flesh or on film

As I said earlier, I've no problem with him being labelled a great but to call him one of the best (i.e. apples v apples with the likes of say Richards) is little more than speculation because there is simply not enough evidence.

As an example, Ive seen films of pre-war quick bowlers where the keepers and slips "appear" to be about 10 yards back. Now either that was an isolated incident on a very slow pitch or they werent very quick at all. Trouble is that there's no video evidence to suggest that it's anything other than the former - all we've got are anecdotes saying that player x was frighteningly quick

 

[sideshowtim]

Not my evidence, it's based on the account of virtually everyone who saw Richards play and you can make reference to existing film footage for independent verification

With Hobbs, it's virtually all based on anecdotes and a substantial proportion of those are accumulated by people who never saw him play either in the flesh or on film

As I said earlier, I've no problem with him being labelled a great but to call him one of the best (i.e. apples v apples with the likes of say Richards) is little more than speculation because there is simply not enough evidence.

As an example, Ive seen films of pre-war quick bowlers where the keepers and slips "appear" to be about 10 yards back. Now either that was an isolated incident on a very slow pitch or they werent very quick at all. Trouble is that there's no video evidence to suggest that it's anything other than the former - all we've got are anecdotes saying that player x was frighteningly quick

All players before cameras were invented bowled at 160km/h+, everyone knows that.

 

[Jono]

Not my evidence, it's based on the account of virtually everyone who saw Richards play and you can make reference to existing film footage for independent verification

With Hobbs, it's virtually all based on anecdotes and a substantial proportion of those are accumulated by people who never saw him play either in the flesh or on film

As I said earlier, I've no problem with him being labelled a great but to call him one of the best (i.e. apples v apples with the likes of say Richards) is little more than speculation because there is simply not enough evidence.

As an example, Ive seen films of pre-war quick bowlers where the keepers and slips "appear" to be about 10 yards back. Now either that was an isolated incident on a very slow pitch or they werent very quick at all. Trouble is that there's no video evidence to suggest that it's anything other than the former - all we've got are anecdotes saying that player x was frighteningly quick

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Because you have the ability to watch Viv bat on video and understand how good he is, its okay that he didn't score the runs at such a great average compared to Border and Miandad, but because you can't watch Hobbs, anecdotal evidence is useless?

All you have to do is read about those that DID watch him, and obviously watched Sutcliffe, and yet Hobbs was almost universally held in higher regard.

 

[social]

@Jono, I loled at that as well. Complete contradiction.

Anyways, some complete rubbish here. First off with the Grace and Armstrongs fitness. It wasn't until the end of their careers that either ballooned, as far as I know and Grace was incredibly fit, especially having to run 4, 5, 6, 7 with no boundaries and then he'd go in and bowl for hours on end, maybe not toward the end, but at him prime he was incredibly fit. So that argument fails spectacularly.

People are right there is no proof about the greatness of Hobbs over Hayden (geez does this really have to be argued?), but we have such a wealth of anecdotal evidence, such an amazing amount of testimony and we know Hayden isn't the most perfect batsman either that the decision doesn't really become a hard one.

And again, the players of today> players of yesterday argument doesn't work because it has another side of the coin. Put a player from today and transport him 70, 80 years ago with no protection, a smaller bat, sticky wickets, no chiro every two seconds, no video analysis, 6 month voyages overseas and let's see how they cope! I feel that cricket then was very much a tougher game so to scoff at that age in comparison to this one is very unfair, to say the least. So as I said, the argument certainly has two sides to it.

Last point and it might be a tad controversial, but I've always felt it - cricket has always been the same. The game, imo, really hasn't changed that much from decade to decade. Fitness and general strength in cricket (as opposed to skill and talent) have never ever been as important as in other sports (football, basketball) and I feel that semi-accurate comparisons (within reason) can be made throughout the ages because the various changes to the game then and now aren't that major.

Firstly, let's get serious about the fitness

Grace was a substantially overweight in his early 30s and played til he was over 50

Armstrong captained one of Australia's greatest ever teams when he was 22 friggin' stone!

Neither would've had any chance of playing any decent level of cricket at their respective weights these days because, if nothing else, they'd give away 10s of runs every innings in the field (you do realise that even diving in the field was a "no go" until the 60s?

The games are so different as to defy comparison.

Alec Bedser was a great bowler in the conditions prevailing during his career and with batsmens' attitudes

However, a dibbly dobbly bowler like him would be cannon fodder in the majority of conditions we see today.

A batsman like Hayden would simply walk down the wicket (as he does with far faster bowlers) and continually plonk him into the stands as he was simply not quick enough to force him back

You can talk about things like protection, but just how does that support the notion that the bowlers were anything faster than medium pace?

World cruises etc? Players would love it as it would give them time to recover from injuries

Poor wickets? McGrath's average would be lucky to be higher than single figures

Media exposure? How would Grace react to world-wide vilification for being exposed as a cheat?

Fitness regimes and discipline? How would Miller react to non-drinking?

How would etc etc etc

To many uncertainties to state that player x from 1920 is as good as a test player today

 

[pasag]

Firstly, let's get serious about the fitness

Grace was a substantially overweight in his early 30s and played til he was over 50

Armstrong captained one of Australia's greatest ever teams when he was 22 friggin' stone!

Neither would've had any chance of playing any decent level of cricket at their respective weights these days because, if nothing else, they'd give away 10s of runs every innings in the field (you do realise that even diving in the field was a "no go" until the 60s?

The games are so different as to defy comparison.

Alec Bedser was a great bowler in the conditions prevailing during his career and with batsmens' attitudes

However, a dibbly dobbly bowler like him would be cannon fodder in the majority of conditions we see today.

A batsman like Hayden would simply walk down the wicket (as he does with far faster bowlers) and continually plonk him into the stands as he was simply not quick enough to force him back

You can talk about things like protection, but just how does that support the notion that the bowlers were anything faster than medium pace?

World cruises etc? Players would love it as it would give them time to recover from injuries

Poor wickets? McGrath's average would be lucky to be higher than single figures

Media exposure? How would Grace react to world-wide vilification for being exposed as a cheat?

Fitness regimes and discipline? How would Miller react to non-drinking?

How would etc etc etc

To many uncertainties to state that player x from 1920 is as good as a test player today

According to Haigh, Armstrong was only 20 stone from the 20th year of his career, the Grace being overweight is largely a myth coming from pictures right at the end and is in no way representative of his career, when he was ripping it up at his peak he was incredibly fit and mobile. Furthermore the fact that big blokes like Inzi and Boon were able to prosper as big blokes in recent times shows the fallacy of your argument.

The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed is that there are just as many arguments to say that cricket was harder back then as there are to say that cricket is a higher standard today. And don't spin around the world cruises, these players were away from their families and loved ones for 6 months at a time and would often not stay in 5 star hotels either. How would players today cope with such little contact with home, or many many hours couped up on a train travelling the country? So to paraphrase you - there are just as many uncertainties to state that player x from 2008 is as good as a test player as one from 1920.

And I agree McGrath would have been even more legendary on poor wickets, who is disputing that? He is an amazing player and so is Hayden. But you seem to be taking the argument to an illogical and fanatical extreme ie some people say Hayden is crap so I'll try and trash anyone who played before my time in some warped effort to try and disprove that.

 

[social]

According to Haigh, Armstrong was only 20 stone from the 20th year of his career, the Grace being overweight is largely a myth coming from pictures right at the end and is in no way representative of his career, when he was ripping it up at his peak he was incredibly fit and mobile. Furthermore the fact that big blokes like Inzi and Boon were able to prosper as big blokes in recent times shows the fallacy of your argument.

The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed is that there are just as many arguments to say that cricket was harder back then as there are to say that cricket is a higher standard today. And don't spin around the world cruises, these players were away from their families and loved ones for 6 months at a time and would often not stay in 5 star hotels either. How would players today cope with such little contact with home, or many many hours couped up on a train travelling the country? So to paraphrase you - there are just as many uncertainties to state that player x from 2008 is as good as a test player as one from 1920.

And I agree McGrath would have been even more legendary on poor wickets, who is disputing that? He is an amazing player and so is Hayden. But you seem to be taking the argument to an illogical and fanatical extreme ie some people say Hayden is crap so I'll try and trash anyone who played before my time in some warped effort to try and disprove that.

Ive never said they were crap - simply that it's a totally different game and world we live in plus evidence is sketchy at best so comparisons are useless

 

[Perm]

Haha, the same old crap from social. I'm glad that pasag and Jono are basically ****ting on his argument, it's that ridiculous, hypocritical and biased.

 

[pasag]

Ive never said they were crap - simply that it's a totally different game and world we live in plus evidence is sketchy at best so comparisons are useless

But part of the fun of discussing cricket is trying to make these comparisons and making all-time XIs - sure it's useless and inconclusive and no one can prove anything beyond reasonable doubt and it's all mere supposition, but that's also the reason people love debating it so much (I'm sure it's similar in other sports as well).

 

[Matt79]

Grace was actually also a top level hurdler earlier in his career.