Should Matthew Hayden retire?

[Richard]

Selection is about the team's interests, not that of an individual player. We've lost Border/Gavaskar and been belted in our backyard by SA, all the while Hayden has failed. So what exactly do you class as a fair run? Healy, Border and MWaugh were given far, far less leeway - and they were playing in winning teams.

Border being axed - if he was told to retire - was ridiculous as there'd been no downturn in his performance. Mark Waugh and Healy, though, were both given far, far longer than Hayden has so far been. Healy had 13 poor Tests over the span of a year before he was dropped. Mark Waugh had 12 over the same time period.

One could argue that Hayden has more credit in the bank than either (much as I don't rate him as a batsman, you can only look at runs scored when making selections) and thus deserves more rope to be hung. He's so far done badly in 8 Tests over 4 months. I'd give him at least to the end of the SA series in SA, if not the series in England too. And that'd be the case whether I wanted to see him succeed or fail in those games (and, obviously, I hope he plays all of them and fails).

 

[Top_Cat]

Border being axed - if he was told to retire - was ridiculous as there'd been no downturn in his performance. Mark Waugh and Healy, though, were both given far, far longer than Hayden has so far been. Healy had 13 poor Tests over the span of a year before he was dropped. Mark Waugh had 12 over the same time period.

One could argue that Hayden has more credit in the bank than either (much as I don't rate him as a batsman, you can only look at runs scored when making selections) and thus deserves more rope to be hung. He's so far done badly in 8 Tests over 4 months. I'd give him at least to the end of the SA series in SA, if not the series in England too. And that'd be the case whether I wanted to see him succeed or fail in those games (and, obviously, I hope he plays all of them and fails).

See, this is the big problem with reading history by the numbers. Border went 4 years without scoring a Test ton before breaking the trend with a scratchie against SL, a pretty ordinary attack in those days. His subsequent hundred in Melbourne was a good knock but against an attack which hadn't hit its straps yet in that series. When Curtly and the rest kicked into gear, they were all over him. He scored a couple of opportunistic tons in his last few years but the team had long stopped relying on AB for runs. The famed Ab defence was getting regularly breached by some pretty mediocre bowlers, he was starting to drag the ball on regularly, etc. All signs his eyes were gone. Stuff like his unbeaten 200 in England kept his average up there but don't kid yourself, as a batsman, if anything, AB retired at least a year too late.

 

[Richard]

While you could argue - and I have in the past - that Border from '89 onwards (the time when Australia renaissanced and he ceased to be a one-man batting-line-up) had become vulnerable against the very best bowlers (his performances against WI [in 1991 and 1992/93) and SA [in 1993/94] were no more than moderate), I just can't see how anyone could argue that he'd had a bad time in '89, '89/90, '90/91 and '91/92 just because he didn't score a century.

You can call it viewing history by numbers if you want, but I am absolutely certain I'd say the exact same thing if I'd watched every Border innings in the time in question. I don't care much for centuries. Consistency is key. And when not facing the extremely powerful bowling of West Indies and South Africa, Border was as consistent between '89 and '93/94 as he ever had been. Yes, some attacks (England in '93, NZ in '93/94) were pretty diabolical, but you've still got to punish them, and he did.

Also, didn't he move down from four to five\six midway through the period? Can't remember exactly when it was, but I'm sure he did.

 

[Jono]

The point is that people who have convinced themselves that Hayden is a flat track bully use his poor performances as evidence for their theory and treat good performances as an aberration. The article you praise as sharing your point of view would never have appeared if Hayden had scored the flawless 156 on a seaming minefield that you talk about in the last game, even though you say it wouldn't change your opinion. Articles like that appear because the guy is out of form, and point at his current poor performances as evidence of some sort of longer trend. Dravid on the other hand doesn't suffer from such opportunistic ****kicking.

Well actually, he probably does in India to some degree, I don't know. Not on this board anyway, and not from writers on cricinfo and so on. He's just out of touch, having mental issues, or past his best. None of which seek to paint his current poor performances as evidence that he was never really that good. That's exactly what is happening to Hayden right now, though.

SirBloodyIdiot claimed Dravid was now 'no longer a great', so it does happen to be fair.

How many people started pretending like Sachin wasn't that good during his poor time (which was predominantly due to injury)? There were absurd comments all around this board from 2004-2006.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How many people started pretending like Sachin wasn't that good during his poor time (which was predominantly due to injury)? There were absurd comments all around this board from 2004-2006.

Yeah, fair comparison I'd say. Certainly it's fine to criticise Tendulkar or Hayden for their various shortcomings, but using a run of outs as justification for belittling someone's previous achievements is lame. Everyone has form slumps after all, even the best.

 

[Top_Cat]

While you could argue - and I have in the past - that Border from '89 onwards (the time when Australia renaissanced and he ceased to be a one-man batting-line-up) had become vulnerable against the very best bowlers (his performances against WI [in 1991 and 1992/93) and SA [in 1993/94] were no more than moderate), I just can't see how anyone could argue that he'd had a bad time in '89, '89/90, '90/91 and '91/92 just because he didn't score a century.

You can call it viewing history by numbers if you want, but I am absolutely certain I'd say the exact same thing if I'd watched every Border innings in the time in question. I don't care much for centuries. Consistency is key. And when not facing the extremely powerful bowling of West Indies and South Africa, Border was as consistent between '89 and '93/94 as he ever had been. Yes, some attacks (England in '93, NZ in '93/94) were pretty diabolical, but you've still got to punish them, and he did.

Also, didn't he move down from four to five\six midway through the period? Can't remember exactly when it was, but I'm sure he did.

AB went from being the bedrock of the Aussie batting to a nice bonus if he scored runs and there was good reason. Trust me, he was far less a player and in these more professional times, he'd probably have been dropped in that time when he didn't score a ton. It wasn't just the number of runs, he just looked ordinary. AB was a class player and if you give a class payer enough chances, they'll eventually muster the confidence, form, luck and mental strength to score some runs. Like Hayden will do if he keeps getting persisted with. Dosn't change that they're just not the sam player. In a stronger team, I doubt AB would have lasted as long as he did and had Australia not been facing some fairly tough times, I doubt Hayden would be in the current Test squad.

You just had to watch AB at the time to see he was a lesser player. Same with Hayden right now. Hayden is even late on slips catches these days. How many more signs do we need?

 

[Richard]

AB went from being the bedrock of the Aussie batting to a nice bonus if he scored runs and there was good reason. Trust me, he was far less a player and in these more professional times, he'd probably have been dropped in that time when he didn't score a ton. It wasn't just the number of runs, he just looked ordinary. AB was a class player and if you give a class payer enough chances, they'll eventually muster the confidence, form, luck and mental strength to score some runs. Like Hayden will do if he keeps getting persisted with. Dosn't change that they're just not the sam player. In a stronger team, I doubt AB would have lasted as long as he did and had Australia not been facing some fairly tough times, I doubt Hayden would be in the current Test squad.

You just had to watch AB at the time to see he was a lesser player. Same with Hayden right now. Hayden is even late on slips catches these days. How many more signs do we need?

I take the point on some of this (obviously you can sometimes tell when someone isn't the same player and as I say, I don't have a problem with the claim that Border wasn't quite as good from '89 onwards as he had been for the previous decade), but I don't quite understand how you can say "if Border of '93 had been in a stronger team" as that side was obviously as good as any going around (and there were a few damn good ones at that time) and '93 and '93/94 was the time when Australia's batting unit was the strongest it'd ever been (Taylor, Slater, Boon, both Waughs, Border himself, Healy), AND there were the likes of Bevan banging down the door to get in.

 

[susudear]

Because he's considerably younger than Hayden, this is his first form slump, he's a potential future captain and his form over recent years is such that he still averages nearly 60. So he's more or less undroppable.

Yes, age is the only factor that is in favour of Hussey. If what he has done in the past is a criteria for not dropping him, it should apply to Hayden also.

I am not saying Hayden is undroppable. However he must be given a fair run to ascertain whether he's actually gone or not. Himself, his captain and the staff, who are much closer to him than anyone here are, thinks he's still got enough gasoline, so then, let him have his chance.

 

[zaremba]

Yes, age is the only factor that is in favour of Hussey. If what he has done in the past is a criteria for not dropping him, it should apply to Hayden also.

I am not saying Hayden is undroppable. However he must be given a fair run to ascertain whether he's actually gone or not. Himself, his captain and the staff, who are much closer to him than anyone here are, thinks he's still got enough gasoline, so then, let him have his chance.

In his favour, being aged 37 shouldn't necessarily mean you're past it, particularly if (like Hayden) you're physically fit. It was at around that stage that Gooch was beginning the incredible final phase of his career which saw him climb to No.1 in the world.

 

[Top_Cat]

I take the point on some of this (obviously you can sometimes tell when someone isn't the same player and as I say, I don't have a problem with the claim that Border wasn't quite as good from '89 onwards as he had been for the previous decade), but I don't quite understand how you can say "if Border of '93 had been in a stronger team" as that side was obviously as good as any going around (and there were a few damn good ones at that time) and '93 and '93/94 was the time when Australia's batting unit was the strongest it'd ever been (Taylor, Slater, Boon, both Waughs, Border himself, Healy), AND there were the likes of Bevan banging down the door to get in.

Was more referring to 1988-92 when he wasn't scoring many and the side wasn't brilliant. After '92, like I said, he was scoring enough runs to not embarrass the selectors and the side was winning and it was rather tough to drop a winning captain. You can argue consistency in numbers and that he was still doing his bit sometimes but it was definitely not ridiculous that his place in the team was being questioned by media and selectors alike. All his ton in SL did was shut up the detractors temporarily. Everyone knew he was on the way out but, perhaps after being captain for one of the worst periods in Aussie Test history, people thought he deserved a chance to go out on his own terms. He went on longer than he initially said and the selectors gave him a little nudge in South Africa and if you'd seen him bat in SA even then, you'd know why.

Let me put it to you this way; the Border of 1992 would not have scored the 98 and 100 in Port of Spain he did in 1984. He had well-and-truly faded and some felt he was trading on past knocks to keep him in the side towards the end (he was on the away selection panel, after all). Good will ran out when he started doing that.

 

[susudear]

Aye

In his favour, being aged 37 shouldn't necessarily mean you're past it, particularly if (like Hayden) you're physically fit. It was at around that stage that Gooch was beginning the incredible final phase of his career which saw him climb to No.1 in the world.

Gooch's case was freakish. But given the fitness of Hayden, I think he can make it to 40. Besides modern cricket is so developed in terms of keeping fitness, sports medicine etc that players can extend their careers if they still have the motivation going.

 

[Ikki]

How long has Hayden been in bad form?

7 matches? Is that long enough to make a solid assessment of whether he is over?

And is Hayden the only perpetrator for all the Aussie defeats during his bad run? Why no-one is talking about Hussey who's averaging in the 27 odd in his last 7 test matches??

The point is that Hayden has been at the wrong end of atleast 3 bad decisions by the umpire, and some runouts.

At this point, replacing Hayden will be the greatest blow to an Aussie side trying to get over this bad run, because injury to Lee and Watson has meant it has debut atleast two guys at Sydney.

Add Johnson and Siddle to that mix and you have one of the most rookie Australian side in decades.

Such a side needs some semblance of stability especially in the batting ranks, and that means Hayden has to be retained.

I personally don't rate Hayden too much, but at this point in time, Hayden in the team has a lot of value than him outside it.

Great post. But I could have sworn this is what I've been saying throughout the thread, I wonder why we were disagreeing.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

How long has Hayden been in bad form?

7 matches? Is that long enough to make a solid assessment of whether he is over?

And is Hayden the only perpetrator for all the Aussie defeats during his bad run? Why no-one is talking about Hussey who's averaging in the 27 odd in his last 7 test matches??

The point is that Hayden has been at the wrong end of atleast 3 bad decisions by the umpire, and some runouts.

At this point, replacing Hayden will be the greatest blow to an Aussie side trying to get over this bad run, because injury to Lee and Watson has meant it has debut atleast two guys at Sydney.

Add Johnson and Siddle to that mix and you have one of the most rookie Australian side in decades.

Such a side needs some semblance of stability especially in the batting ranks, and that means Hayden has to be retained.

I personally don't rate Hayden too much, but at this point in time, Hayden in the team has a lot of value than him outside it.

The problem is he is 37, currently out of form (the first innings in Sydney he is showed no footwork, and dragged it on to the stumps), and the Australian side itself is struggling.

Basically, at best he has a couple more years before he calls it quits. That is a couple of years of experience sacrificed for a young player to come into the side.

Even without Hayden there is plenty of batting experience: Hussey, Clarke, Ponting, Katich. It is important to realise that Australia's glory days at no.1 are over, and we are in a rebuilding phase. It is not the time to hold onto old veterans, we need to keep pushing young players into the side.

No one is talking about Hussey because it was bound to happen. His averages were Bradman-esque, and it was only a matter of time before he hit a slump. He can be forgiven, as he is still has a number of years in the left in the side.

If Hayden was 32 - 33, I would be in full support of keeping him around. But at 37, and with Australia needing to rebuild the side, we cannot afford to carry on dead-weight veterans any longer.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[pup11]

Hayden is definitely not dead weight on the Australian team, i think its unfair to just single out Hayden for not going on and making most of his starts, as the whole Aussie top order have been guilty of the same thing and i think it just sums up the kind of time the whole Australian team is going through atm, i think Hughes or Jaques (but he is injured atm) are the only serious options to replace Hayden, but still Australia ideally would be much better off going into the Ashes series with Matty Hayden as one of their openers.

 

[aussie]

Plus another idea that i being talked about, is that Australia need to rebuild now.

Now that notion of "right now" seems very odd to me, given Australia have South Africa & England coming up. Why would you want to do that for such crucial tours?. Surely in this post McGrath/era, you would want to back Hayden & Lee especially to come good to be major players in these two series.

Since the impact they are likely to have is wayyyyy better than anything Hughes, Jaques, Bollinger etc are likely to have. But if they don't come good in time i.e the SA tour & they are dropped (especially Hayden), Australia are probably resigning themselves to defeat in these series already IMO.

 

[pup11]

Plus another idea that i being talked about, is that Australia need to rebuild now.

Now that notion of "right now" seems very odd to me, given Australia have South Africa & England coming up. Why would you want to do that for such crucial tours?. Surely in this post McGrath/era, you would want to back Hayden & Lee especially to come good to be major players in these two series.

Since the impact they are likely to have is wayyyyy better than anything Hughes, Jaques, Bollinger etc are likely to have. But if they don't come good in time i.e the SA tour & they are dropped (especially Hayden), Australia are probably resigning themselves to defeat in these series already IMO.

Yeah well said, you want your tried and tested players to be there for crucial series like the South African series and the the Ashes, as one can't expect the inexperienced players to come in straight away and start performing like pros against some of the best test teams and that too in their own backyards, and as you said if the likes of Hayden and Lee fail Australia in the upcoming tours, then obviously it would be sensible to draft in their replacements and ease them into test cricket against the likes of Pakistan and West Indies next Aussie summer.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hayden looked out of his depth today. Was a truly painful innings and every shot in anger looked like it might get him out. I don't think bringing him on another series is really worth it any more. Rogers or even Hughes would be a better option for the SA tour, albeit more with an eye to the future in the case of Hughes.

 

[howardj]

Yeah well said, you want your tried and tested players to be there for crucial series like the South African series and the the Ashes, as one can't expect the inexperienced players to come in straight away and start performing like pros against some of the best test teams and that too in their own backyards, and as you said if the likes of Hayden and Lee fail Australia in the upcoming tours, then obviously it would be sensible to draft in their replacements and ease them into test cricket against the likes of Pakistan and West Indies next Aussie summer.

For sure.

I want a guy who has a top score of 31 in his last eight Tests, and a guy who has 1/217 this Series on the frontline for the Ashes Especially given their stellar Ashes records in England. They're not in decline, they're merely youngsters in a slump.

We used to laugh at England for sentimentally clinging to such veterans.

 

[Matt79]

Don't want to see Hayden play any more innings like today - I'd rather remember him as the player he was in his prime...

To guys like Pup and Aussie, what are you basing your view that Hayden will be the first man not to age and is going to re-find his best sometime before he turns 40?

 

[IndGunner]

Hayden looked out of his depth today. Was a truly painful innings and every shot in anger looked like it might get him out. I don't think bringing him on another series is really worth it any more. Rogers or even Hughes would be a better option for the SA tour, albeit more with an eye to the future in the case of Hughes.

Really? everyshot in anger looked like it was gonna get him out? i only saw the one scoop to mid wicket was it that didnt make it. he seemed ok besides that not great or even comfortable at times but ok.