Should Matthew Hayden retire?

[Evermind]

Works do not grant salvation nor do they atone for sins, but rather faith in Jesus Christ alone.

 

[wpdavid]

Why would you agree with that godawful article? It seems to imply that Hayden is a flat-track bully and a minnow-basher. A guy with 30 centuries in 180 innings to his name? Why can't everyone do that, if it's so bloody easy?

Your words, not his. And I think you're exaggerating what the writer actually wrote. Without rereading it, I thought he was mainly quibbling with Hayden's career average apparently placing him in the highest echelon of test batsmen, which is hardly an unreasonable proposition. Granted he sometimes overstates Haydeon's failures, but I couldn't find any factual errors in the article. Have we really reached the stage when it's out of the question to critically analyse how good players actually are instead of simplistically trotting out stats, irresepctive of opponents & conditions?

 

[howardj]

So what if Hayden is having a bad time, everyone gets it, it is abnormal not to, the next thing is he scores 150 of 200 balls so dont judge him quite yet.

Mate, he is 37. To dismiss these seven Tests as a bad trot is silly. But for JL, Australian cricket has never had an older opener. There is a reason for that.

Why people insist on wringing the last drop out of a 37 year old, is beyond me. Far better to bed down a younger opener such as Phil Hughes in this dead Test match.

Besides, if Hayden gets a century in Sydney, what does it mean? That he can score a hundred in a dead Test and yet fail when the heat is on (as he did in India) and when the Series was on the line? If you give a guy enough chances, he'll eventually bang out a good score.

For mine, if you're getting belted in your own backyard with 37 year olds in your team, you may as well drop them and get belted with young guys in your team - young guys who, unlike Hayden, have scope to improve as time goes on. I can understand clinging to veterans if the team is still belting allcomers. But, the fact is, we have been murdered in our own backyard. So, what good is there is clinging to someone Haydos's age?

Hayden's career should be celebrated, not have every last drop wrung out of it.

 

[Ikki]

Mate, he is 37. To dismiss these seven Tests as a bad trot is silly. But for JL, Australian cricket has never had an older opener. There is a reason for that.

Why people insist on wringing the last drop out of a 37 year old, is beyond me. Far better to bed down a younger opener such as Phil Hughes in this dead Test match.

Besides, if Hayden gets a century in Sydney, what does it mean? That he can score a hundred in a dead Test and yet fail when the heat is on (as he did in India) and when the Series was on the line? If you give a guy enough chances, he'll eventually bang out a good score.

For mine, if you're getting belted in your own backyard with 37 year olds in your team, you may as well drop them and get belted with young guys in your team - young guys who, unlike Hayden, have scope to improve as time goes on. I can understand clinging to veterans if the team is still belting allcomers. But, the fact is, we have been murdered in our own backyard. So, what good is there is clinging to someone Haydos's age?

Hayden's career should be celebrated, not have every last drop wrung out of it.

Pretty sure you're missing the point. People who want Hayden to stay don't agree with your opinion that Hayden is on his last drop. Really, I'd argue with his stroke-making and striking the ball it looks far from. A bit of bad luck, a few bad decisions and this is where he is at. If Hayden keeps hitting it the way he has been hitting, he can bat until he's 40 for all I care. He doesn't look like he is struggling out there or that it's become beyond him so I don't agree with the mercy-vote here.

A 100 in Sydney may prove that he's just put a bad patch behind him and can continue where he left off prior to his injury - in which he was comfortably our best batsmen - and that really wasn't too long ago. If we have a batsmen who will go to S.Africa and put S.Africa on the back-foot it's Hayden. When, and the way, he gives us a good start is hard to replicate. If Hayden can even play two more years and do reasonably well, I'd say keep him. Don't disturb the batting line-up and let the bowlers grow secure in the comfort that they have the kind of batsmen with experience and ability to help them out. Personally, I'd say wait until the S.Africa return series.

 

[Rant0r]

i said it 2 years ago and i'll say it now, he'll eventually have to be dragged out of the side.

i don't agree in keeping him around merely for experience wether he's making runs or not, he doesn't cross me as much of an insightful cricketer and probably hasn't done much captaining, he's more of a 'me hit ball, make runs ug ug', good slip fielder though, that will be missed.

fully still expect him to make some runs soon which will result in the slow painful death when he's about 40.

 

[Ikki]

i said it 2 years ago and i'll say it now, he'll eventually have to be dragged out of the side.

i don't agree in keeping him around merely for experience wether he's making runs or not, he doesn't cross me as much of an insightful cricketer and probably hasn't done much captaining, he's more of a 'me hit ball, make runs ug ug', good slip fielder though, that will be missed.

fully still expect him to make some runs soon which will result in the slow painful death when he's about 40.

Having read some of his views about the game and his insights I think he actually gives the opposite of "me hit the ball, make runs ug ug" impression. Very balanced individual who knows his game and clearly plans his innings. It's too easy to label him because of the aura he gives off, I feel.

 

[howardj]

Pretty sure you're missing the point. People who want Hayden to stay don't agree with your opinion that Hayden is on his last drop. Really, I'd argue with his stroke-making and striking the ball it looks far from.

So spooning the ball to gully and cover in Melbourne was hitting it well?

Don't disturb the batting line-up and let the bowlers grow secure in the comfort that they have the kind of batsmen with experience and ability to help them out.

Cricket is performance-based mate. What does experience mean when you've averaged 10-15 in the last seven Tests? Our order, even without Hayden in it, has an enormous amount of experience. As I say, look at your cricket history - guys decline and retire at this age and much earlier.

 

[pup11]

Pretty sure you're missing the point. People who want Hayden to stay don't agree with your opinion that Hayden is on his last drop. Really, I'd argue with his stroke-making and striking the ball it looks far from. A bit of bad luck, a few bad decisions and this is where he is at. If Hayden keeps hitting it the way he has been hitting, he can bat until he's 40 for all I care. He doesn't look like he is struggling out there or that it's become beyond him so I don't agree with the mercy-vote here.

A 100 in Sydney may prove that he's just put a bad patch behind him and can continue where he left off prior to his injury - in which he was comfortably our best batsmen - and that really wasn't too long ago. If we have a batsmen who will go to S.Africa and put S.Africa on the back-foot it's Hayden. When, and the way, he gives us a good start is hard to replicate. If Hayden can even play two more years and do reasonably well, I'd say keep him. Don't disturb the batting line-up and let the bowlers grow secure in the comfort that they have the kind of batsmen with experience and ability to help them out. Personally, I'd say wait until the S.Africa return series.

Yeah i too think age should never be a factor at all, if a player is fit enough and performing then who cares how old he is, despite Hayden not scoring too many runs off-late he is hitting the ball really well and one thinks its only just a matter of time before the runs too come.

 

[Rant0r]

Having read some of his views about the game and his insights I think he actually gives the opposite of "me hit the ball, make runs ug ug" impression. Very balanced individual who knows his game and clearly plans his innings. It's too easy to label him because of the aura he gives off, I feel.

\

he may plan his innings, but i don't feel that he thinks about much else, except maybe for fishing, i don't see him involved in many discussions on field, so i have to stand by my previous comments

 

[Ikki]

So spooning the ball to gully and cover in Melbourne was hitting it well?

As they say, one swallow does not make a summer.

Cricket is performance-based mate. What does experience mean when you've averaged 10-15 in the last seven Tests? Our order, even without Hayden in it, has an enormous amount of experience. As I say, look at your cricket history - guys decline and retire at this age and much earlier.

In the last 7, wow, 7...did you say 7...****...7. I'm convinced now...I didn't know it was 7.

I wonder why earlier in the year when Hayden was battering all-comers they weren't talking about his age. I didn't know degeneration of one's ability happened in the span of less than a year.

 

[Ikki]

he may plan his innings, but i don't feel that he thinks about much else, except maybe for fishing, i don't see him involved in many discussions on field, so i have to stand by my previous comments

Apparently, our vice-captain isn't involved in many discussions about what happens on the field either. I love the standard of evidence here. You don't see him on TV involved with discussions, it's all settled then.

 

[Rant0r]

yeah there's only 15 cameras at the ground, i'm talking about on field discussions, so sorry if i don't spoon with them in their hotel

 

[Ikki]

yeah there's only 15 cameras at the ground, i'm talking about on field discussions, so sorry if i don't spoon with them in their hotel

I see Hayden talk to Ponting regularly when he's near the slips. But so what? How would I know what he is saying or if it's even relevant to cricket? Hayden's been playing with Waugh, Warne, Ponting, Gilchrist, McGrath etc, who was he going to lecture? Geez...I just have a gripe with characterising players based on things you can't even be sure about. A whisper, a look...oh, he must be a tactician.

 

[Rant0r]

you can tell the difference between a game discussion and talking **** about fishing, you only half to have half a brain to figure it out.

put it this way einstein, how often has hayden been captain of any side ? think there's something to that maybe ?

 

[howardj]

I see Hayden talk to Ponting regularly when he's near the slips. But so what? How would I know what he is saying or if it's even relevant to cricket? Hayden's been playing with Waugh, Warne, Ponting, Gilchrist, McGrath etc, who was he going to lecture? Geez...I just have a gripe with characterising players based on things you can't even be sure about. A whisper, a look...oh, he must be a tactician.

Doubt they're talking tactics. With Haydos, God bless him, it's a fair bet that if his lips are moving on a cricket field, it's abuse that's coming out of his mouth.

 

[Rant0r]

or dribble

 

[Ikki]

you can tell the difference between a game discussion and talking **** about fishing, you only half to have half a brain to figure it out.

put it this way einstein, how often has hayden been captain of any side ? think there's something to that maybe ?

Again: you don't know what they're saying, whether they are even talking about tactics to decipher who is intelligent or who is giving what advise or whether they are talking about something completely unrelated like cooking . I've not seen Hayden practicing his cast to know whether they are talking about fishing. I guess we have to take your word for it.

Captaining your side makes you a great tactician? Ehem, aren't people in the other thread saying the exact opposite of this with regards to Ponting?

And I think he was captain of Northamptonshire.

Also, you said you don't think his experience counts for anything? The best opener of his era, almost 20 years of cricket at the highest levels...counts for nothing? As I had said before, with regards to his batting and his approach to cricket he comes across as very knowledgeable, whether his tactical brilliance is passed onto others on the pitch, I dunno. My point was that his experience in making runs and playing all conditions is much better than the opposite: talent with little experience.

But this thing with him "dribbling" or being a "me make runs" simpleton I think shows I am not talking to a well-wisher.

 

[susudear]

Retain Hayden

I see Hayden talk to Ponting regularly when he's near the slips. But so what? How would I know what he is saying or if it's even relevant to cricket? Hayden's been playing with Waugh, Warne, Ponting, Gilchrist, McGrath etc, who was he going to lecture? Geez...I just have a gripe with characterising players based on things you can't even be sure about. A whisper, a look...oh, he must be a tactician.

Only he can sledge Smith even when SA were pummelling Australia and get away with it.

 

[Rant0r]

Again: you don't know what they're saying, whether they are even talking about tactics to decipher who is intelligent or who is giving what advise or whether they are talking about something completely unrelated like cooking . I've not seen Hayden practicing his cast to know whether they are talking about fishing. I guess we have to take your word for it.

Captaining your side makes you a great tactician? Ehem, aren't people in the other thread saying the exact opposite of this with regards to Ponting?

And I think he was captain of Northamptonshire.

Also, you said you don't think his experience counts for anything? The best opener of his era, almost 20 years of cricket at the highest levels...counts for nothing? As I had said before, with regards to his batting and his approach to cricket he comes across as very knowledgeable, whether his tactical brilliance is passed onto others on the pitch, I dunno. My point was that his experience in making runs and playing all conditions is much better than the opposite: talent with little experience.

But this thing with him "dribbling" or being a "me make runs" simpleton I think shows I am not talking to a well-wisher.

ever heard of body language ?

and i was alluding to the fact that he hasn't been captain much because there was obviously something that selectors did or didn't see that led them to that decision, like say, he's not a great tactician and/or leader.

as for having nouse simply because of longevity, does that mean that glenn mcgrath was ever considered for captaincy due to his experience ? or curtly ambrose ? i could go on, but i won't as you are a baffoon, stop talking to me before it rubs off

 

[Ikki]

Only he can sledge Smith even when SA were pummelling Australia and get away with it.

Warne/McGrath were regular sledgers when being punished by batsmen or opposition. I didn't think that said much about their tactical awareness. Anyway, I thought we were talking about what Hayden was saying to his own teammates.

ever heard of body language ?

and i was alluding to the fact that he hasn't been captain much because there was obviously something that selectors did or didn't see that led them to that decision, like say, he's not a great tactician and/or leader.

as for having nouse simply because of longevity, does that mean that glenn mcgrath was ever considered for captaincy due to his experience ? or curtly ambrose ? i could go on, but i won't as you are a baffoon, stop talking to me before it rubs off

Ah, so it's body language now...they should hire you instead of polygraph tests.

Who said I was talking about Hayden's experience in terms of captaincy? When I was talking about experience I was talking about Hayden the batsmen being experienced knowing what will come next or what won't. If it wasn't for Hayden's cricketing intelligence, he would not have played cricket for so long. Neither McGrath nor any other cricketer of equal stature you wish to mention would have stayed around to have an illustrious career otherwise. You must think he is some idiot-savant. How this should translate into captaincy opportunities is beyond me. Is it even relevant? Hayden was brought into the side late, and was already surrounded by experienced Test cricketers of equal age. Why should he have been mentioned? I guess the selectors were looking at his body language too. Or maybe the selectors were like Hayden: "he big man, he bat good, we pick him".