Should Matthew Hayden retire?

[FaaipDeOiad]

If Hayden fails again in Sydney he's done, I think. Dravid's got some time yet.

And yes, I agree on the 40s average thing, though obviously it's a bit difficult to guess.

 

[Rant0r]

perhaps they should weight the eras

 

[howardj]

However inadequately Dicky has expressed it, there is a kernel of truth to what he says about Hayden. To my mind, having observed his career very closely, there are question marks over him against the absolute creme de la creme of leather flingers (Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Walsh, England 2005 and a few other instances). That doesn't make him a flat track bully - it's much more nuanced than that. Indeed many folk have struggled against the aforementioned. However, to my mind, there is that slight question mark there, which in fairness to him is hard to dispel given his limited exposure to the above folk in the second half of his career.

 

[Ikki]

He's certainly more proven than anyone else Australia has.

More proven than the others sure. A proven Test opener? Nope.

 

[susudear]

Huh

More proven than the others sure. A proven Test opener? Nope.

Why not? He's made the best of opportunities he had, and averages 48 from 11 tests. Certainly not a terrible record that.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

No he shouldnt, not just yet. Keep him at least until the after the end of the ashes series. If he hasnt improved a lot or australia have won, then he should retire. However, if he still keeps banging out 100s then possibly stay for longer.

Why? He has got at best another 10 test left in him, and then he retires. He has already made it aware that he wants to retire after the next ashes. But by keeping his place, we are sacrificing the oppurtunity and experience for a youngster to come into the side. He is out of form and a dead-weight on the team.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Ikki]

Why not? He's made the best of opportunities he had, and averages 48 from 11 tests. Certainly not a terrible record that.

He's played only 11 tests and averages 47 which hides the fact that he has pretty much failed against all but one of his opponents.

Proven test match opener. I guess this is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into trouble to begin with.

 

[susudear]

If you say

He's played only 11 tests and averages 47 which is hides the fact that he has pretty much failed against all but one of his opponents.

Proven test match opener. I guess this is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into trouble to begin with.

Hayden had a worse record after his 11 tests. There is nothing to suggest that Jaques won't get better than this.

After all a FC average of 54 is no fluke.

 

[Ikki]

Hayden had a worse record after his 11 tests. There is nothing to suggest that Jaques won't get better than this.

After all a FC average of 54 is no fluke.

So? Hayden wasn't a proven Test match opener either. Who is a proven test class anything in 11 tests? FC average? Excuse me?

 

[susudear]

Pedantic

So? Hayden wasn't a proven Test match opener either. Who is a proven test class anything in 11 tests? FC average? Excuse me?

You're being pedantic. You have no argument to support Jaques' exclusion..

 

[Rant0r]

who did jaques fail against ?

so i'm guessing you would go in with an unproven opener as opposed to jaques who has proved he can make runs at the top level ?

 

[Ikki]

You're being pedantic. You have no argument to support Jaques' exclusion..

I am not saying Jaques should be excluded. I am saying he is not a proven Test match opener. Let's get that right and clear.

who did jaques fail against ?

so i'm guessing you would go in with an unproven opener as opposed to jaques who has proved he can make runs at the top level ?

Who did he succeed against? Bangladesh and Sri Lanka? Jaques hasn't proven anything yet, that's the point.

 

[Rant0r]

he's proven more than anyone else outside the team.

who's your pick outside of hayden and katich then einstein ?

 

[susudear]

He is the best option after Hayden

I am not saying Jaques should be excluded. I am saying he is not a proven Test match opener. Let's get that right and clear.
Who did he succeed against? Bangladesh and Sri Lanka? Jaques hasn't proven anything yet, that's the point.

Whats wrong in performing against Sri Lanka?

He had a mediocre series against India (35 though is not a terrible average).

So far he has not had a poor series as such.

If fit, he should be the first choice if Hayden goes out.

Much better than any opener who has not even played any test.

 

[Rant0r]

i agree, it was tight to even put katich ahead of him, so he should be next in line, i think they were just that desperate to shoehorn katich in there, while i'm not a huge fan of jaques (being one eyed west australian i wanted rogers in, but now the little ranga has traitored to victoria he can get stuffed), he is certainly one of the best options.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Who did he succeed against? Bangladesh and Sri Lanka? Jaques hasn't proven anything yet, that's the point.

Believe he was alright in the Windies as well.

 

[Rant0r]

that won't count in dikki land, he has to have played number 1 and 2, notwithstanding the fact that he can only play to the schedule, much like murali destorying bangladesh every year

 

[Ikki]

he's proven more than anyone else outside the team.

who's your pick outside of hayden and katich then einstein ?

That's the point sunshine, that he is AFTER them. But he is not a proven test match opener. You're confusing two separate things.

Whats wrong in performing against Sri Lanka?

He had a mediocre series against India (35 though is not a terrible average).

So far he has not had a poor series as such.

If fit, he should be the first choice if Hayden goes out.

Much better than any opener who has not even played any test.

Who said anything wrong about performing against Sri Lanka. The point is he did so well against them and bad against the others that it props up his average. I would rather him average 47 across the board against every country than average 100 against one and 20-30 against the others.

Believe he was alright in the Windies as well.

He averaged 40 against that attack? Par.

 

[Rant0r]

That's the point sunshine, that he is AFTER them. But he is not a proven test match opener. You're confusing two separate things.



Who said anything wrong about performing against Sri Lanka. The point is he did so well against them and bad against the others that it props up his average. I would rather him average 47 across the board against every country than average 100 against one and 20-30 against the others.



He averaged 40 against that attack? Par.

you're an idiot hey, he's only after them because of some weird freak of nature that he was left out in india then got injured.

and as i recall the west indies tour was a (surprisingly) tough one.

think i might go wash out my eyes after reading your posts

 

[Ikki]

you're an idiot hey, he's only after them because of some weird freak of nature that he was left out in india then got injured.

and as i recall the west indies tour was a (surprisingly) tough one.

think i might go wash out my eyes after reading your posts

No, that was for KATICH...not HAYDEN...check the title of the thread. Hayden is before Phil, so check again who you want to replace. Phil, for all your hustling and bustling is not a proven test match opener. I, frankly, would love it if he turns out even better than Hayden. But now is not the time to roll that dice and especially considering he is injured. So if we were to replace Hayden it would be for someone like Rogers...who has 0 test match experience, not even 11.

And I reported your post. Once, twice...I've tried to keep it civil.