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

[Perm]

Exactly, waaaaaaaaaay better

Bowlers in Hadlee's day, with exception of Morrison, were only there to hold up an end (some average less than 2 wickets per game for over 40 tests) and were barely threat

Sir Richard Hadlee - 431 wickets at 22.29
Ewen Chatfield - 123 wickets at 32.17
Danny Morrison - 160 wickets at 34.68
Lance Cairns - 140 wickets at 32.92
John Bracewell - 102 wickets at 35.81

So where are all these bowlers who average less than two wickets per game? Because I can assure you that none of these bowlers do. Again this proves nothing except that you severly under-rate anything that has happened in the past decades of Test cricket.

 

[social]

Bond, Franklin, Martin and Vettori all average a few more runs per wicket once you take away the amount of easy wickets they've taken against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Oram probably does too, while AFAIK Mills has never had that opportunity.

The wording of social's initial post suggested that because Bond was in the bowling attack, that the strength of the other bowlers is irrelevant. Not to me, that's just plain awful thinking. Bond might be good, but he's not that good. That is why I included O'Brien.

I said nothing of the sort - I made the point that the current nz attack with Bond is better than an attack made up of Hadlee and basically very ordinary bowlers.

That's the whole point of the 80's - many great bowlers but, WI aside, a lot of relatively average bowlers made up the numbers.

 

[NUFAN]

Bond, Franklin, Martin and Vettori all average a few more runs per wicket once you take away the amount of easy wickets they've taken against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Oram probably does too, while AFAIK Mills has never had that opportunity.

The wording of social's initial post suggested that because Bond was in the bowling attack, that the strength of the other bowlers is irrelevant. Not to me, that's just plain awful thinking. Bond might be good, but he's not that good. That is why I included O'Brien.

OK, so they average a bit more.

BECAUSE THERE ARE PLAYERS LIKE MATTHEW HAYDEN MAKING MORE RUNS...ffs

As if the aggressive nature of batting hasn't helped batting averages and stuffed up bowling averages even excluding the weaker nations.

Just think about it, bowlers strike rates are still similar, batsmen are still facing a similar amount of delivieries, but they make runs faster.

Your pretty much saying that Hayden would do a lot worse cause of the bowlers, and then saying your older bowlers are better even though there stats are similar, you can't have it both ways..

Do you like Cricket?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sir Richard Hadlee - 431 wickets at 22.29
Ewen Chatfield - 123 wickets at 32.17
Danny Morrison - 160 wickets at 34.68
Lance Cairns - 140 wickets at 32.92
John Bracewell - 102 wickets at 35.81

So where are all these bowlers who average less than two wickets per game? Because I can assure you that none of these bowlers do. Again this proves nothing except that you severly under-rate anything that has happened in the past decades of Test cricket.

I can say without fear of contradiction that that attack never played together, Hadlee and Morrison played very little together and not until Hadlee was way past his prime.

 

[social]

Sir Richard Hadlee - 431 wickets at 22.29
Ewen Chatfield - 123 wickets at 32.17
Danny Morrison - 160 wickets at 34.68
Lance Cairns - 140 wickets at 32.92
John Bracewell - 102 wickets at 35.81

So where are all these bowlers who average less than two wickets per game? Because I can assure you that none of these bowlers do. Again this proves nothing except that you severly under-rate anything that has happened in the past decades of Test cricket.

Have you ever questioned why cricinfo's bio on Hadlee opens with the line "Few players in the history of cricket have carried the fortunes of their team to quite the same extent as Richard Hadlee."

If you had seen this lot bowl (and the numerous others that supported him during his career), you wouldnt have to

Morrison was by far the best of the rest in this notoriously bowler friendly era and still averaged nearly 35 (despite being a pretty good, albeit short, quick bowler)

BTW, if we're simply going to pluck players from a period in question and lumpt them into an attack, then we'll just have to include the Chris Cairns of this world into the current crop as he played with all the current guys at one time or another

 

[SJS]

Definitions vary. I consider an all-time great someone I would consider for an All-time XI, someone you can place in any era and expect to do well.

So according to you there have been only about six all time great batsmen, just 4 or 5 all time great bowlers and just one all time great keeper.

With Bradman, Hammond and Headley (besides others) vying for the number three spot, you reckon only one of them (maybe two) would qualify as an all time great ?

Only one or two all time great spinners and just 2-3 all time great pace bowlers ?

???

 

[howardj]

So according to you there have been only about six all time great batsmen, just 4 or 5 all time great bowlers and just one all time great keeper.

With Bradman, Hammond and Headley (besides others) vying for the number three spot, you reckon only one of them (maybe two) would qualify as an all time great ?

Only one or two all time great spinners and just 2-3 all time great pace bowlers ?

???

With respect, you are misrepresenting what he said.

He said that you're not an all-time great unless you warrant consideration (as distinct from making the final cut) for an all-time XI.

 

[Days of Grace]

which may mean that there might be as many as 20 batsmen vying for 6 positions in the all-time test team lineup. For openers? I would choose between Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe and Gavaskar a.t.m. But if Hayden has a couple more good years before he finishes, he may very well merit consideration.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

With respect, you are misrepresenting what he said.

He said that you're not an all-time great unless you warrant consideration (as distinct from making the final cut) for an all-time XI.

Still makes no sense. Just supposing that by some freak there had been two Bradmanesque opening batsman who were automatically the universal choice, that would proclude any other opening batsman from being an All-time-great.

 

[aussie]

Effectively what social is saying is that a New Zealand attack of Shane Bond, Mark Gillespie, Ian O'Brien, Daniel Vettori and Jacob Oram is better than

Sir Richard Hadlee
Ewen Chatfield
Lance Cairns
Danny Morrison
John Bracewell

which is pure rubbish. Bond is good, no doubt, but he's only taken 79 Test wickets (55 against Test class opposition) at an average that is very similar to Hadlee's, 22.39 (27.25 against Test class opposition).

Few statements in Cricket Web's history have been as utterly thoughtless, poor and rubbish as that one.

Subshakerz comment was ``In the 70s/80s, India had Kapil Dev, New Zealand had Hadlee, Pakistan had Imran/Wasim, England had Botham/Willis/Snow/Hendrick, Australia had Lillee/Thomson and West Indies had a whole list of names. There is no comparison between that time and now, or even the 90s.``

You need to look at the likes of Allot, Doull, Cairns, Nash, O'Connor, Bond (plus i would place Morrison more so in the 90s category since he played 7 out of his 10 years on internatioal cricket in the 90s) which has been the best era of NZ cricket in producing quality pacemen wayyyyy ahead of the 70s n 80s. Just unfortunately they haven't been able to play for long due to injuries..

 

[Mister Wright]

Don't see how Hayden won't go down as an all-time great, at least an Australian all-time great. Averages 50 in both forms of the game domestically, in tests averages well over 50 and will finish with over 10,000 runs. In ODIs, averages well over 40 with an impressive strike rate. He has the highest scores for an Australian in Tests and ODIs, also has Australia's fastest WC hundred. He's equal with Bradman for matches with consecutive centuries in tests. Not sure what more he has to do to get the all-time great tag.

 

[Anil]

Not sure what more he has to do to get the all-time great tag.

needs the nod from mr. dickinson...

 

[morgieb]

Modern-day great, but not all-time great.

AWTA. I'm actually getting the perception that he's a flat-track bully. If he played for a country other than Australia, he may actually struggle, because Australia could get after. In the bad old days for him, the bowling standards were very good. Bowling standards nowadays are quite poor, even in Australia.

 

[SJS]

With respect, you are misrepresenting what he said.

He said that you're not an all-time great unless you warrant consideration (as distinct from making the final cut) for an all-time XI.

Yes you may be right to the extent that he did not imply final eleven but maybe a kind of a short list for 'consideration". But wouldn't even that be too restrictive to include all those who could be considered greats over the history of the game.

For example amongst wicket keepers one could count Blackham, Oldfield, Tallon, Evans, Knott, Taylor, Marsh, Healy, Gilchrist, Ames and maybe some others I may have left out. Its unlikely that a short list would include that many wicket keepers.

But I still see the point that my 'sarcasm' was uncalled for.

Apologies.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You know just maybe, there are times when a bowler is made to look ordinary due to good batting.

What is an opening batsmen like Hayden suppose to do to be considered a great player?

Average 62? Score more then 380? Start taking wickets..

 

[howardj]

needs the nod from mr. dickinson...

The imprimatur that every international player craves...

 

[iamdavid]

He's always going to have this stigma of the weak bowling attacks in the 2000's hanging over his head... However to be fair, since he established himself in 2001 he's achieved just about everything he possibly could have.
Established himself as the premier opening batsman in the world, played nearly 100 tests scored 30 hundreds, eventually conquered one day internationals, been a brilliant slip fieldsman (I think this is one area of his game people tend to overlook, just how valuable he has been in the slips, he's the best slipper I've seen for Australia after M Waugh and Taylor...and I wouldnt rank him miles behind those two, easily better than Warne and Ponting).

Would love to see him stick around until England in 2009 (I give it a 50/50 chance) and really dominate a strong seam attack in helpful conditions, just to silence the doubters once and for all. However that'd require alot of things to fall into place and I dont see it happening.
Cant help the feeling that if his batting had been a little easier on the eye, say his methods were more like a Mark Waugh or Laxman as opposed to the big ugly front-foot, heavy bat, straight through the line style he employs then people would look back on his achievments more kindly.
An all time great in my eyes, but he's always going to have his detractors.

 

[Mister Wright]

AWTA. I'm actually getting the perception that he's a flat-track bully. If he played for a country other than Australia, he may actually struggle, because Australia could get after. In the bad old days for him, the bowling standards were very good. Bowling standards nowadays are quite poor, even in Australia.

He recently played for QLD against N.S.W. an attack that included at that time all but one of the four test bowlers (Lee, Clark and MacGill) and Johnson's replacement on that occasion was Bracken, who is no slouch and he managed 170 or 180.

Don't buy that argument to be honest.

 

[bond21]

AWTA. I'm actually getting the perception that he's a flat-track bully. If he played for a country other than Australia, he may actually struggle, because Australia could get after. In the bad old days for him, the bowling standards were very good. Bowling standards nowadays are quite poor, even in Australia.

BS.

Ben Hilfenhaus, Shaun Tait, Mark Cameron, Brendan Drew, Steve Magoffin, Ashley Noffke, Brett Geeves, Nathan Bracken.

They are top quality bowlers.

Put any of them into a test side and you would not see a noticeable difference from the current attack.

 

[bond21]

and yes, Matthew Hayden is absolutely an all time great.