Cricinfo All-time series "Eleven of the best"

[Beleg]

that is understandable because we have seen him play and enjoyed his batting (even I have, to a large extent) whereas trumper and morris are mere names. and they wont even sound familiar to most of the voters. but would hayden get strong support for selection 50 years after retirement, just like arthur morris has? or 100 years later, like trumper has? I doubt it. hayden was a fantastic cricketer. but he is likely to be bunched with the dougie walterses and ken barringtons. the membership to the all-time great club is too difficult. if lack of aggression was ken's problem and bad ashes record dougie's, then unsound back foot play was matt's shortcoming.

the overwhelming public support seems to indicate otherwise

it's a team chosen more on reputation than actual performance

i mean, for ****s sake, langer and hayden performed in most places around the globe in a far tougher, professional era against attacks which were undoubtedly better, in terms of preperation and talent, than the ones faced by the likes of trumper and morris.. and they'ren't given their due just because some ****ing ****** sitting in a dusty basement surrounded by anicent scrolls happened to believe in the value of historical notoriety...

i mean, what does that even mean? of course hayden and langer wouldn't be seen in the same light as trumper and morris. different eras, different preception and scope of the game and completely different conditions in ways possible mean their legacy'll be totally different. and if yer daft enough to compare across eras in the first place then you might as well pay more attention to the actual on field performances rather than conflating reputation and results.

 

[bagapath]

Fair points mate - I'm actually really interested to see how Hayden is viewed by subsequent generations. No doubt there are many who'll either remember, or note from reports of the time (and CW debates), that he played in a batsman friendly era and that he cashed in mightily. But there will surely be others as there are today who will look at the numbers, and those of his contemporaries - particularly the other openers of the era - and note that you can't be as successful as Hayden was for as long as he was without being something special.

oh, yeah. he was very special. no one scores 30 centuries with a bird brain. hell! not more than five, six guys have manged that in 130 years of test cricket and only one other player is an opener. matt hayden was special alright. but please remember that sehwag and smith are openers from the same era and they average over 50 as well.

even historically numbers will carry weight only up to a point I think. ken barrington averaged one point more than gary sobers and eight whopping points more than compton. he has slowly become a footnote in cricket history. also, i brought up the greatness of javed miandad sometime back and not everyone was happy in my comparing him with ricky ponting. this was the guy with the best record from the 80s. and we like to think of him below richards and border.

well, i think hayden is likely to be the first name everyone remembers from this era's openers unless sehwag or smith do something extra special and overtake his records. in terms of all-time greats his name will feature after 10 other names.

 

[bagapath]

the overwhelming public support seems to indicate otherwise

it's a team chosen more on reputation than actual performance

i mean, for ****s sake, langer and hayden performed in most places around the globe in a far tougher, professional era against attacks which were undoubtedly better, in terms of preperation and talent, than the ones faced by the likes of trumper and morris.. and they'ren't given their due just because some ****ing ****** sitting in a dusty basement surrounded by anicent scrolls happened to believe in the value of historical notoriety...

i mean, what does that even mean? of course hayden and langer wouldn't be seen in the same light as trumper and morris. different eras, different preception and scope of the game and completely different conditions in ways possible mean their legacy'll be totally different. and if yer daft enough to compare across eras in the first place then you might as well pay more attention to the actual on field performances rather than conflating reputation and results.

beleg, why are you abusive (in general) today, mate? calm down bro. this is supposed to be fun.

 

[Beleg]

oh, yeah. he was very special. no one scores 30 centuries with a bird brain. hell! not more than five, six guys have manged that in 130 years of test cricket and only one other player is an opener. matt hayden was special alright. but please remember that sehwag and smith are openers from the same era and they average over 50 as well.

and? perhaps we are just lucky to have three extremely talented batsman all plying their trade at the same time? perhaps this is down to sheer luck? perhaps this is down to the encroaching professionalism and a more hollistic approach that's defined game play in the recent years and allowed the development of talented individuals into physically, as well as mentally, competent menances?

it just seems to me that peoeple are trying to latch on to every single half-baked scrap of a ****ing reason to contextualise hayden's performance because it just doesn't fit in with the public preception of a great. i am not a fan of his playing style by any stretch of the imagination, but how many players in the history of the game have managed to savage so many bowling attacks, in so many varying conditons, within the isothermally heated boiling cauldron that's modern professional cricket for such a long period of time? mebbe morris and trumper's achievements compared within their own eras and stood the test of time partly because they were stand-outs in a field of mediocrity (comparatively speaking)?

the game's changed now. the sheer volume of talented performances means that it's impossible to venerate everyone and give 'em their due. a lot of performances go under the radar. case in point: the recent series in west indies and sri lanka. the fact that hayden has competition for the stakes of the best opening batsman of his generation has little to do with any shortcomings on his part. mebbe morris/trumper just didn't have anyone comparable which made their achivements stand out a wee bit more?

even historically numbers will carry weight only up to a point I think. ken barrington averaged one point more than gary sobers and eight whopping points more than compton. he has slowly become a footnote in cricket history. also, i brought up the greatness of javed miandad sometime back and not everyone was happy in my comparing him with ricky ponting. this was the guy with the best record from the 80s. and we like to think of him below richards and border.

you are commiting a fundamental mistake here. you are assuming that history is neutral - it isn't blinkered and limited by the inherent bias of those that write it. for example, someone reading yer post fifty year onwards would probably take it for granted that miandad is universally considered inferior to border/richards simply because he doesn't really have any other evidence to turn to. yet those of us who saw 'em know that it isn't half as clear cut as that. historical notoriety is a creation of verbose ****s waxing lyrical and euologising across seven pulpets in a field of blinkered prespectives. in the absence of more concrete facts, opinions and exultations don't hold the same weight.

well, i think hayden is likely to be the first name everyone remembers from this era's openers unless sehwag or smith do something extra special and overtake his records. in terms of all-time greats his name will feature after 10 other names.

sehwag will outshine both smith and hayden by the end of his career by a large margin. but all we can do at the moment is predict.

 

[Beleg]

beleg, why are you abusive (in general) today, mate? calm down bro. this is supposed to be fun.

mhmm a rant's no good without some proper profanity.

 

[bagapath]

it just seems to me that peoeple are trying to latch on to every single half-baked scrap of a ****ing reason to contextualise hayden's performance because it just doesn't fit in with the public preception of a great.

on the contrary he seems to perceived as a great by the vast majority of public as the cricinfo polls indicate. so no one is trying to please the crowd by pulling down hayden. anyway leave the majority opinion out. hayden's claim to greatness is questioned because of his playing technique. there is no other hidden agenda here.

for example, someone reading yer post fifty year onwards would probably take it for granted that miandad is universally considered inferior to border/richards simply because he doesn't really have any other evidence to turn to.

no. they would assume miandad was probably as good but was considered below richards and border by the vast majority of cricket fans, which is not untrue.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know how anyone can say Hayden is underrated when he got twice the votes of the Cricinfo XI voters combined.

You can claim that he is underrated by those who follow cricket seriously, which may or may not be a legitimate point.

 

[Beleg]

on the contrary he seems to perceived as a great by the vast majority of public as the cricinfo polls indicate. so no one is trying to please the crowd by pulling down hayden. anyway leave the majority opinion out. hayden's claim to greatness is questioned because of his playing technique. there is no other hidden agenda here.

in this case, the 'public' is the majority of cricketweb's most vocal posters - not the general masses. my appologies, i should've been clearer.

and how can you question hayden's claim to greatness based on his playing technique when he was able to overcome whatever limitation he had and perform. one's technique is, in itself, not an end but a means towards an end. in hayden case, by focusing on his strengths he was able to hide/overcome his short comings. he was successful. and as far as i am concerned, cricketing success is the only measure of a cricket player's greatness.

no. they would assume miandad was probably as good but was considered below richards and border by the vast majority of cricket fans, which is not untrue.

mhmm, no, your phrasing doesn't lend itself to that opinion. and i dunno how you can conclusively state that the vast majority of cricket fans considers miandad a notch below richards, and especially border. the 'vast majority' of vocal cricket fans on this board might deem it so, the vast majority of people you've met personally might think so as well, but that doesn't translate into vast majority full-stop - certainly the public preception i've grown up with (both in Pakistan AND England - among amateur club cricketers) puts Miandad right up there with Greg and Richards. therefore, i wouldn't put much stock in 'opinions.' this merely reinforces the point i made earlier.

 

[bagapath]

well, this has gone to the zone of hayden not facing great quicks in their prime, not playing on bouncy tracks, having a weak backfoot play that would have been exploited by superior pacers, him cashing in on batting wickets, playing in an era easier for batsmen etc etc. i don't want to go there once again. you know what i am going to say. i can guess what you will say. lets leave it at that. just to summarize, i would say i believe hayden is certainly among the very best openers of this era, could even be the best. but there are better openers that i have seen from the past and i believe there are many more that i have not seen.

about miandad; i do believe he gets ranked below viv richards and greg chappell among great middle order batsmen of their era, not just in CW but anywhere outside pakistan,. this is, IMO, purely down to their respective playing styles. while viv was all-out aggro and greg was all grace, javed was the street fighter. and i say that with admiration. but when there are players with similar stats, history treats the more stylish ones favorably. an example of this is the ESPN 50 selected by a panel of experts a few years ago. richards came at 3 and greg at 18. border was no.25. miandad did not even make the cut. i am not claiming it is a definitive list. not having him in the top 30 is stupid. he should have been in it. but i am sure you can see my point.

 

[The Sean]

an example of this is the ESPN 50 selected by a panel of experts a few years ago. richards came at 3 and greg at 18. border was no.25. miandad did not even make the cut. i am not claiming it is a definitive list. not having him in the top 30 is stupid. he should have been in it. but i am sure you can see my point.

I don't think it's unreasonable that Miandad misses out on a place in the all time top 30 cricketers - AB wouldn't make mine either FWIW. I'd certainly have both men in the top 30 - possibly even top 20 - batsmen of all time, but when bowlers and all rounders are added to the mix I think both men would be in the lower reaches of the overall top 50. And that in itself is a massive achievement.

 

[Ikki]

I reckon Beleg is spot-effin-on. I share his frustrations as well. For me, since Gavaskar, Hayden has been the best.

 

[aussie]

I don't know how anyone can say Hayden is underrated when he got twice the votes of the Cricinfo XI voters combined.

You can claim that he is underrated by those who follow cricket seriously, which may or may not be a legitimate point.

As Baggpath said, most of the pollers are probably people who have been watching cricket in this era for most of Hayden's career. Instead of a man 40-60 years old.

 

[aussie]

sehwag will outshine both smith and hayden by the end of his career by a large margin. but all we can do at the moment is predict.

Haa, both Sehwag & Smith have alot of convincing to do. They still haven't managed to score runs againts quality attacks in testing conditions like Hayden.

 

[aussie]

I reckon Beleg is spot-effin-on. I share his frustrations as well. For me, since Gavaskar, Hayden has been the best.

Word out. As another big backer of Matt the Big Bat as you know. We still have to keep his career in perspective.

People don't under-rating over some blind ideological reason though. He was between IND 2001 to Ashes 05 (TB test) a serious FTB, the man had some serious technical issues that where exposed in the 05 Ashes.

He corrected these issues, in his later years. But the problem is many still remember Hayden for his failures in the first 4 Ashes test of 2005.

 

[bagapath]

I dont think the panel that selected the team is too old to be rational. they have got warne, gilchrist and mcgrath in the team. they could have, with some difficulty, gone for grimmett, marsh/healy/tallon and lindwall/spofforth for those spots. they did not because they had no problems in selecting these three cricketers who played all their test cricket in the last 15-17 years. so their not selecting matt hayden is not a result of any such bias towards bygone eras or their old age. it is just that they do not think he is good enough to be in this all-time XI. also it is wrong to assume that hayden's legend is tarnished by his tough image. greg chappell and dennis lillee, two players from the selected XI, were not exactly cuddly teddy bears. it is one thing to argue for hayden's inclusion but accusing all those who dont believe in him to be myopic is just bad behavior.

 

[subshakerz]

Haa, both Sehwag & Smith have alot of convincing to do. They still haven't managed to score runs againts quality attacks in testing conditions like Hayden.

Actually, Sehwag has quite a few times. In fact, there really is no big factor to rate Hayden as a class above Sehwag.

 

[aussie]

Actually, Sehwag has quite a few times. In fact, there really is no big factor to rate Hayden as a class above Sehwag.

No he hasn't. The only hundreds Sehwag got againts good pace attacks where his 155 in Chennai 04, 151 Adeladie 09 & the fantastic 317 vs SA. But all where on flat decks.

Sehwag has stood up & battled it out in testing conditons againts a top pace attack. Like Hayden like at the Oval 05 or vs SA in 05/06. There is no comparison between the two.

 

[honestbharani]

No he hasn't. The only hundreds Sehwag got againts good pace attacks where his 155 in Chennai 04, 151 Adeladie 09 & the fantastic 317 vs SA. But all where on flat decks.

Sehwag has stood up & battled it out in testing conditons againts a top pace attack. Like Hayden like at the Oval 05 or vs SA in 05/06. There is no comparison between the two.

did u miss his 201 against M & M?


I mean, Punter gets a lot of plaudits for doing well against SL with Murali going well but this was doubly tough, with Mendis added to the equation.



And as for the teams, I like both the teams and I sorta expected both XIs to be like this only.. It is obvious that the readers, for instance, were always gonna rate the modern greats a notch above the old greats. That is just how it is pretty much all the time.

 

[aussie]

did u miss his 201 against M & M?


I mean, Punter gets a lot of plaudits for doing well against SL with Murali going well but this was doubly tough, with Mendis added to the equation.

Top innings no doubt, buts its irrelevant since i was refering to runs Sehwag has made againts top pace attacks in testing conditions. Which he hasn't to date.

 

[Ikki]

A bit on Langer, as we were discussing him here:

Langer breaks Bradman runs record | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Hayden paid tribute to his long-time former Test opening partner. "It is very fitting that a man of Justin's calibre takes this honour because when you break a record of one of the greatest individuals, that being Sir Donald Bradman, it has to be by a person of quality," he told AAP.

"He epitomises class, perseverence and persistence and the quality and culture of the baggy green and his work ethic is second to none. I'm very, very proud of Justin because these results are not a fluke... These qualities were the glue to our partnership."