silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I would probably put him around 10-12th in all time opening lists. I suppose it depends on your criteria if that fits an all time great.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Will Matt Hayden go down as an all-time great?
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
One of the poorest misconceptions in the game today: Mathew Hayden has faced poorer attacks on much flatter tracks therefore he cannot be grouped with the all-time greats.
Rubbish...absolutely Rubbish.
We've had this argument before... Mathew Hayden has scored loads of runs against great attacks and in difficult conditions.
He's scored heavily against bowlers such as Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Bond, Akram, Waqar, Akhtar, Saqlain, Murali, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, MacGill...
What puts the argument that he suddenly got better as bowlers disappeared to rest is his FC record against touring sides where he belted some of these 'great' bowlers. They say he didn't face his own attack? He did, and he smashed them in FC cricket. In fact, most the domestic state bowlers had better attacks than some of the Test sides then, still now too.
India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, England and Australia have better attacks in Hayden's time. Pakistan and South Africa have been more or less similar. There really has been no drop in quality as to give great advantage to Hayden that the likes of Greenidge didn't get.
In the 70s/80s, bowlers of great skill were present, but they were surrounded by mediocre crap. The only real attack were the Windies who had a complete attack and weren't weak. Most were a single great bowler surrounded by crap. To say that Hayden would average in the 30s shows a complete lack of respect and knowledge for Hayden and the game.
Then there is the argument where he has a weakness to high-quality fast bowling or high quality swing...Um, what? Which batsmen hasn't had this weakness? Is this a serious suggestion?
Then some people forget how well India bowled in the recent series, and how Hayden smashed them. Because there are no all-time greats in those bowling line-ups they mustn't have been strong eh? As I said in the beginning: Rubbish.
Hayden, for me, is in my All-time XI and at the least is amongst the 4 greatest openers in the game.
Rubbish...absolutely Rubbish.
We've had this argument before... Mathew Hayden has scored loads of runs against great attacks and in difficult conditions.
He's scored heavily against bowlers such as Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Bond, Akram, Waqar, Akhtar, Saqlain, Murali, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, MacGill...
What puts the argument that he suddenly got better as bowlers disappeared to rest is his FC record against touring sides where he belted some of these 'great' bowlers. They say he didn't face his own attack? He did, and he smashed them in FC cricket. In fact, most the domestic state bowlers had better attacks than some of the Test sides then, still now too.
India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, England and Australia have better attacks in Hayden's time. Pakistan and South Africa have been more or less similar. There really has been no drop in quality as to give great advantage to Hayden that the likes of Greenidge didn't get.
In the 70s/80s, bowlers of great skill were present, but they were surrounded by mediocre crap. The only real attack were the Windies who had a complete attack and weren't weak. Most were a single great bowler surrounded by crap. To say that Hayden would average in the 30s shows a complete lack of respect and knowledge for Hayden and the game.
Then there is the argument where he has a weakness to high-quality fast bowling or high quality swing...Um, what? Which batsmen hasn't had this weakness? Is this a serious suggestion?
Then some people forget how well India bowled in the recent series, and how Hayden smashed them. Because there are no all-time greats in those bowling line-ups they mustn't have been strong eh? As I said in the beginning: Rubbish.
Hayden, for me, is in my All-time XI and at the least is amongst the 4 greatest openers in the game.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Ah yes very good point, backs up my assertion of how adaptable Hayden has been post 2005 Ashes. The swing India produced had everyone is problems excpet for Hayden, if Hayden was so out of sync againts anything that is moving of or quality he wouldn't have batted so well.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Another problem is that you also have a lot of relatively new watchers of the game (basically a good thing when you think about it) and they saw Hayden struggle in 2004/05 and thought "what's the fuss all about?"
Pre-2004 and post-2005, he's smashed everyone and that seems to be lost in the mix
Also, people look at his technique and think it's ugly.
However, anyone that's tried hitting a ball at 85 mph (let alone walking down the wicket and driving past the bowler or doing the same and pulling it when it's short) knows the guy is supremely talented.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
AWTA.
howardj
International Coach
wfdu_ben91
International 12th Man
It's official. Hayden is an alltime great on CW.
Trumpers_Ghost
U19 Cricketer
I think Hayden can't go down as an all time great and is obviously a hack.
This comes through quite clearly when you study the evidence of the eminent statistitian Richard who quite succinctly points out that Hayden only scratched his nuts twice between 1996-98, failed to land a decent Marlin in 2004 and left Paprika out of his curry in 2006.
This comes through quite clearly when you study the evidence of the eminent statistitian Richard who quite succinctly points out that Hayden only scratched his nuts twice between 1996-98, failed to land a decent Marlin in 2004 and left Paprika out of his curry in 2006.
Craig
World Traveller
Quality shovel you have there.It's official. Hayden is an alltime great on CW.
Lets turn this around for a second...partly because im a sh*tstirrer and partly because i believe it.
Question - were the fast bowlers of the 70s/80s better than today or were the batsman of the 70s/80s worse than todays???
Think about it how many great batsman of that era were there?? Im going with Chappell, Border, Miandad, Boycott, Gavaskar, Richards, Grenidge, Haynes.
This was the top of my head and ive used 20 centuries and above 45 as a baseline...
So does that mean that the bowlers feasted on average batsman? On top of this there were NO spinners around during that time. Certainly none you would consider all time greats. It seems when looking at todays players only fast bowlers were considered but lets not forget the top 3 highest wicket takers of all time are playing today and 10 of the top 14 highest wicket takers of all time played predominately from the 90s and beyond?
Then people say Hayden feasted on flatter wickets? So then wouldnt that make the bowlers efforts of the 70s/80s bowlers inflated because they had more helpful conditions to bowl in?
You cant have it both ways...i will again pose my question?
Is cricket the only sport in the world where people believe that the players have got worse every generation and not better?
Just a thought
Question - were the fast bowlers of the 70s/80s better than today or were the batsman of the 70s/80s worse than todays???
Think about it how many great batsman of that era were there?? Im going with Chappell, Border, Miandad, Boycott, Gavaskar, Richards, Grenidge, Haynes.
This was the top of my head and ive used 20 centuries and above 45 as a baseline...
So does that mean that the bowlers feasted on average batsman? On top of this there were NO spinners around during that time. Certainly none you would consider all time greats. It seems when looking at todays players only fast bowlers were considered but lets not forget the top 3 highest wicket takers of all time are playing today and 10 of the top 14 highest wicket takers of all time played predominately from the 90s and beyond?
Then people say Hayden feasted on flatter wickets? So then wouldnt that make the bowlers efforts of the 70s/80s bowlers inflated because they had more helpful conditions to bowl in?
You cant have it both ways...i will again pose my question?
Is cricket the only sport in the world where people believe that the players have got worse every generation and not better?
Just a thought
burr
State Vice-Captain
not so much interested in what the stats say (never have been), but for me, no. many others - yes - i'm sure, but for me, never. never enjoyed a single hayden innings. having nothing against the guy, but would have preferred it if he wasn't in my era. was always waiting for him and langer to get out.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Furball
Evil Scotsman
We could have arguments about stats, flat tracks, failures in the 1990s, decline of fast bowling etc. until we're blue in the face.
I'm looking here at sheer weight of numbers. Hayden has:
The highest individual Test innings by an Australian batsman
The highest individual ODI innings by an Australian batsman
8,625 Test runs, 4th behind Border, Ponting and Steve Waugh in the all time Australian list, (12th overall)
30 Test centuries, bettered only by Tendulkar, Ponting, Gavaskar, Lara, S. Waugh and Kallis, all of whom have played significantly more innings than Hayden.
The 2nd highest run tally as a Test opener behind Gavaskar, 11th highest average amongst those who have opened at least 40 Test innings.
5th highest average amongst batsmen who have opened in at least 40 ODIs
7th most runs by any Australian in ODIs
Hayden is quite clearly an all time Australian great.
I'm looking here at sheer weight of numbers. Hayden has:
The highest individual Test innings by an Australian batsman
The highest individual ODI innings by an Australian batsman
8,625 Test runs, 4th behind Border, Ponting and Steve Waugh in the all time Australian list, (12th overall)
30 Test centuries, bettered only by Tendulkar, Ponting, Gavaskar, Lara, S. Waugh and Kallis, all of whom have played significantly more innings than Hayden.
The 2nd highest run tally as a Test opener behind Gavaskar, 11th highest average amongst those who have opened at least 40 Test innings.
5th highest average amongst batsmen who have opened in at least 40 ODIs
7th most runs by any Australian in ODIs
Hayden is quite clearly an all time Australian great.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
To side track slightly, came across Tendulkar's numbers opening in ODIs, frankly they're just ridiculous.
13568 runs @ 48.11, 39 100s, SR 87.55
I knew he was good, but not THAT good. On the first page of results, only 2 other openers have maintained a 40+ average and an 80+ SR - Chris Gayle and Graeme Smith.
13568 runs @ 48.11, 39 100s, SR 87.55
I knew he was good, but not THAT good. On the first page of results, only 2 other openers have maintained a 40+ average and an 80+ SR - Chris Gayle and Graeme Smith.
Last edited:
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
By my reckoning:
The first two are virtually irrelevant as far as "great player" status is concerned. The fact that he bullied 380 from a dreadful Zimbabwe team and 181 from a mediocre New Zealand team proves nothing beyond his undoubted FTB credentials.
As for the rest, number of 100s, total runs scored etc are stats which are dominated by modern players due to the amount of cricket played today and (yes I know what you're going to say Ikki) the relative ease of run-scoring, for a multiplicity of reasons, in the last decade or so.
He was lucky to play in a good team, in batsman-friendly times, in which he was able to capitalise to often-spectacular effect on his unquestioned ability to batter weaker teams.