Graeme Smith vs Matthew Hayden

[PlayerComparisons]

If Hayden had been born ten years either side of when he was, he would have probably struggled to make it as a Test match batsman.

Why would he struggle to make it as a test match batsmen? Average might drop a bit but would still be great I think

 

[Burgey]

Eye tests are fine as one measure to get a sense of a player's quality. Head to head makes no sense whatsoever in a team sport.

Travis Head > Head-to-Head

 

[Prince EWS]

Travis Head > Head-to-Head

Daily reminder.

 

[Bolo.]

Eye test is okay to talk about if used properly

To what extent?

I find i can judge bowlers pretty well from the eye test.

But bats are hard. I can predict failure to some extent via technical deficiencies that are likely to result in getting out. And iim sure others are more adept at this than me. But can you really eye tesr guys like Chnders?

 

[subshakerz]

Ftr, I think it's fair to consider Smith because he was a better player under pressure but I disagree that he's leagues ahead. Also, I get the impression that people would rate Hayden higher if he averaged 58 away and 41 at home which doesn't make sense to me. You still end up with the same overall output.

Smith's away average is much more impressive than Hayden's home average.

Hayden from 2001 onwards averaged 60 at home on some of the most batting friendly wickets ever in Australia. His average of 42 away is an underperformance for a great batsman. Hayden had seven tours of Eng, NZ and SA, and only averaged more than 40 in one. They are roughly equal in the SC. So posters are underestimating the degree to which factors were in his favor to get that average.

Smith's home average is also an underperformance but in far more testing conditions.

 

[thierry henry]

The averages runs per wicket in Test history: 30.18

All Tests Hayden played where RPW was below 30.18

1st Inns	2nd Inns	Opposition	Location	Runs	Wkts	RPW
119		v Pakistan	Sharjah	422	29	14.55
35	24	v India	Wankhede	605	40	15.12
37	2	v Sri Lanka	Darwin	667	40	16.67
44		v West Indies	Brisbane	538	30	17.93
0	14	v South Africa	Gqeberha	756	38	19.89
5	0	v West Indies	Melbourne	683	34	20.08
8	0	v New Zealand	Brisbane	815	40	20.37
33	42	v England	Nottingham	695	33	21.06
111	77	v ICC World XI	Sydney	878	40	21.95
12	34	v England	Lord's	909	40	22.72
94	32	v South Africa	Cape Town	805	33	24.39
153		v England	Melbourne	739	30	24.63
13	30	v West Indies	Melbourne	900	35	25.71
10	0	v South Africa	Centurion	828	32	25.87
0	6*	v England	Lord's	829	32	25.9
119	28*	v India	Wankhede	791	30	26.36
2	37	v New Zealand	Hamilton	925	34	27.2
69		v West Indies	Perth	765	28	27.32
54	5	v Sri Lanka	Kandy	1097	40	27.42
125		v West Indies	Adelaide	851	30	28.36
4	10	v Pakistan	Perth	993	35	28.37
124	47	v India	Melbourne	1051	37	28.4
4	34	v Pakistan	Colombo (PSS)	1147	40	28.67
28	0	v South Africa	Durban	1008	35	28.8
89		v Pakistan	Sharjah	868	30	28.93
33	23*	v England	Sydney	877	30	29.23
0	47	v West Indies	Perth	878	30	29.26
0	31	v England	Birmingham	1176	40	29.4
26	30	v India	Bengaluru	1187	40	29.67

All Tests Smith played where RPW was below 30.18:

1st Inns	2nd Inns	Opposition	Location	Runs	Wkts	RPW
9	37	v India	Durban	779	40	19.47
64	33	v Pakistan	Cape Town	687	35	19.62
37	101*	v Australia	Cape Town	663	32	20.71
5	10	v India	Johannesburg	847	40	21.17
12	0	v Australia	Sydney	878	40	21.95
63	68	v New Zealand	Johannesburg	808	36	22.44
13	55*	v New Zealand	Hamilton	709	31	22.87
73		v Sri Lanka	Johannesburg	708	30	23.6
1		v New Zealand	Cape Town	667	28	23.82
70	10	v West Indies	Bridgetown	787	33	23.84
69	35	v India	Kanpur	775	32	24.21
19	16	v Australia	Cape Town	805	33	24.39
61		v Sri Lanka	Centurion	741	30	24.7
2		v New Zealand	Centurion	707	28	25.25
45	7	v New Zealand	Centurion	1022	40	25.55
24	52	v Pakistan	Johannesburg	845	33	25.6
15	26	v Sri Lanka	Durban	1026	40	25.65
28	11	v West Indies	Gqeberha	1038	40	25.95
28	10	v Pakistan	Gqeberha	911	35	26.02
35	5	v England	Nottingham	1056	40	26.4
5	58	v India	Durban	1012	38	26.63
5		v Pakistan	Centurion	800	30	26.66
16	13*	v Pakistan	Durban	824	30	27.46
19	29	v Pakistan	Cape Town	1015	36	28.19
105		v England	Johannesburg	772	27	28.59
1	42	v Australia	Durban	1008	35	28.8
1	9	v New Zealand	Johannesburg	938	32	29.31
15	32	v Pakistan	Abu Dhabi	968	33	29.33
0	69	v Australia	Johannesburg	1184	40	29.6
74	2	v England	Cape Town	1130	38	29.73
46	0	v England	The Oval	1026	34	30.17

Matthew Hayden: 1904 runs @ 38.86, 6 hundreds
Graeme Smith: 1690 runs @ 31.89, 2 hundreds

Interesting

Is the main takeaway from this (a) that Smith struggled at home, or (b) South Africa was much better for batting circa 2002-2014 than it has been since? I'm guessing a bit of both, since those stats suggest that most matches Smith played at home were actually above average batting conditions (painting with a very broad brush). I have probably been guilty of reflexively applying the "it was hard to bat in South Africa" filter to Smith without considering that he played in an era alongside some other prolific SA test batsmen so it can't have been all that hard. Would also be consistent with elevating Dale Steyn's status over bowlers slightly before and after him with similar numbers who don't seem quite as good.

 

[subshakerz]

The averages runs per wicket in Test history: 30.18

All Tests Hayden played where RPW was below 30.18

1st Inns	2nd Inns	Opposition	Location	Runs	Wkts	RPW
119		v Pakistan	Sharjah	422	29	14.55
35	24	v India	Wankhede	605	40	15.12
37	2	v Sri Lanka	Darwin	667	40	16.67
44		v West Indies	Brisbane	538	30	17.93
0	14	v South Africa	Gqeberha	756	38	19.89
5	0	v West Indies	Melbourne	683	34	20.08
8	0	v New Zealand	Brisbane	815	40	20.37
33	42	v England	Nottingham	695	33	21.06
111	77	v ICC World XI	Sydney	878	40	21.95
12	34	v England	Lord's	909	40	22.72
94	32	v South Africa	Cape Town	805	33	24.39
153		v England	Melbourne	739	30	24.63
13	30	v West Indies	Melbourne	900	35	25.71
10	0	v South Africa	Centurion	828	32	25.87
0	6*	v England	Lord's	829	32	25.9
119	28*	v India	Wankhede	791	30	26.36
2	37	v New Zealand	Hamilton	925	34	27.2
69		v West Indies	Perth	765	28	27.32
54	5	v Sri Lanka	Kandy	1097	40	27.42
125		v West Indies	Adelaide	851	30	28.36
4	10	v Pakistan	Perth	993	35	28.37
124	47	v India	Melbourne	1051	37	28.4
4	34	v Pakistan	Colombo (PSS)	1147	40	28.67
28	0	v South Africa	Durban	1008	35	28.8
89		v Pakistan	Sharjah	868	30	28.93
33	23*	v England	Sydney	877	30	29.23
0	47	v West Indies	Perth	878	30	29.26
0	31	v England	Birmingham	1176	40	29.4
26	30	v India	Bengaluru	1187	40	29.67

All Tests Smith played where RPW was below 30.18:

1st Inns	2nd Inns	Opposition	Location	Runs	Wkts	RPW
9	37	v India	Durban	779	40	19.47
64	33	v Pakistan	Cape Town	687	35	19.62
37	101*	v Australia	Cape Town	663	32	20.71
5	10	v India	Johannesburg	847	40	21.17
12	0	v Australia	Sydney	878	40	21.95
63	68	v New Zealand	Johannesburg	808	36	22.44
13	55*	v New Zealand	Hamilton	709	31	22.87
73		v Sri Lanka	Johannesburg	708	30	23.6
1		v New Zealand	Cape Town	667	28	23.82
70	10	v West Indies	Bridgetown	787	33	23.84
69	35	v India	Kanpur	775	32	24.21
19	16	v Australia	Cape Town	805	33	24.39
61		v Sri Lanka	Centurion	741	30	24.7
2		v New Zealand	Centurion	707	28	25.25
45	7	v New Zealand	Centurion	1022	40	25.55
24	52	v Pakistan	Johannesburg	845	33	25.6
15	26	v Sri Lanka	Durban	1026	40	25.65
28	11	v West Indies	Gqeberha	1038	40	25.95
28	10	v Pakistan	Gqeberha	911	35	26.02
35	5	v England	Nottingham	1056	40	26.4
5	58	v India	Durban	1012	38	26.63
5		v Pakistan	Centurion	800	30	26.66
16	13*	v Pakistan	Durban	824	30	27.46
19	29	v Pakistan	Cape Town	1015	36	28.19
105		v England	Johannesburg	772	27	28.59
1	42	v Australia	Durban	1008	35	28.8
1	9	v New Zealand	Johannesburg	938	32	29.31
15	32	v Pakistan	Abu Dhabi	968	33	29.33
0	69	v Australia	Johannesburg	1184	40	29.6
74	2	v England	Cape Town	1130	38	29.73
46	0	v England	The Oval	1026	34	30.17

Matthew Hayden: 1904 runs @ 38.86, 6 hundreds
Graeme Smith: 1690 runs @ 31.89, 2 hundreds

I am not sure how reliable this is given the strength of the Australian attack in crushing opposition and taking that RPW down.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Smith's away average is much more impressive than Hayden's home average.

Hayden from 2001 onwards averaged 60 at home on some of the most batting friendly wickets ever in Australia. His average of 42 away is an underperformance for a great batsman. Hayden had seven tours of Eng, NZ and SA, and only averaged more than 40 in one. So posters are underestimating the degree to which factors were in his favor to get that average.

Smith's home average is also an underperformance but in far more testing conditions.

Smith's away average is not as impressive as it seems when you factor in how high scoring nature of the Tests he played in away from home.

RPW in away Tests for Graeme Smith is 35.87 (18.85% higher then standard RPW of 30.18)
RPW in away Tests for Matthew Hayden is 31.38 (3.99% higher then standard RPW of 30.18)

When you weigh the percentages Smith's away average drops down to 43.76 and Hayden's to 40.03.

I am not sure how reliable this is given the strength of the Australian attack in crushing opposition and taking that RPW down.

That argument would only be applicable if Smith didn't also play along side great bowlers and a great middle order.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Graeme smith being exposed here

 

[Prince EWS]

From Page 1:

Haha yeah and he actually backed up your point with another example of a ****ty head to head comparison.

I swear about 30% of the guy's posts are about how much he loves Hayden though.

And growing apparently.

 

[Prince EWS]

Isn't head to head a little less bad than the usual performance comparisons?

No IMO.

At least analysis by checklist - which I famously loathe, and even actually named - takes into account a player's entire career. Head-to-head totally ignores most of it under the guise of "same conditions" while ignoring that it's against different attacks in different parts of each match, sometimes at different parts of their careers, and always a tiny sample size.

 

[subshakerz]

That argument would only be applicable if Smith didn't also play along side great bowlers and a great middle order.

Smith's attack wasnt near as complete as Australias, especially 2001 to 2006.

 

[Coronis]

I am not sure how reliable this is given the strength of the Australian attack in crushing opposition and taking that RPW down.

My favourite thing is that Australia vs ICC is included in a comparison trying to bump up Hayden.

 

[CricAddict]

No IMO.

At least analysis by checklist - which I famously loathe, and even actually named - takes into account a player's entire career. Head-to-head totally ignores most of it under the guise of "same conditions" while ignoring that it's against different attacks in different parts of each match, sometimes at different parts of their careers, and always a tiny sample size.

Is the tiny sample size your major concern? Head to head is close to the same conditions as possible.

For example, I contest that Ashwin and Jadeja's away record is bad due to pitches made to negate them and take head to head of their opposition spinners to prove the point. Don't you think that is a valid comparison if all their matches are taken and hence it is not lolsamplesize?

 

[subshakerz]

Is the tiny sample size your major concern? Head to head is close to the same conditions as possible.

For example, I contest that Ashwin and Jadeja's away record is bad due to pitches made to negate them and take head to head of their opposition spinners to prove the point. Don't you think that is a valid comparison if all their matches are taken and hence it is not lolsamplesize?

The obvious thing wrong with head to head is they are facing different attacks of differing quality.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is the tiny sample size your major concern?

Yes, absolutely.

Same conditions is broadly true, but even then not entirely accurate as the conditions change as the game progresses. Even then, the attack obvioulsy changes as... opposition bowling lineups are different.

But whenever someone takes an already deficient sample of Tests and decides to make it much smaller for a player, I think this person is a weak-gutted dog and should be put down.

I would happily devour the soft brains of those who believe in analysis by checklist, but I'd declare an armistice with them to take on the weak-gutted dogs of head-to-head comparisons from two fronts.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Graeme Smith's 4th innings record edges it for me , mentality monster , 4 test hundreds in the 4th innings , only Tendulkar scored more 4th innings runs .

While I do agree it’s overall a great record, isn’t the job of openers to set the game up really?

 

[Spark]

Yes, absolutely.

Same conditions is broadly true, but even then not entirely accurate as the conditions change as the game progresses. Even then, the attack obvioulsy changes as... opposition bowling lineups are different.

But whenever someone takes an already-difficient sample of Tests and decides to make it much smaller for a player, I think this person is a weak-gutted dog and should be put down.

I would happily devour the soft brains of those who believe in analysis by checklist, but I'd declare an armistice with them to take on the weak-gutted dogs of head-to-head comparisons from two fronts.

This is the sort of vitriol you usually reserve for people who advocate bombing Iran or what have you and I am here for it

 

[OverratedSanity]

No IMO.

At least analysis by checklist - which I famously loathe, and even actually named - takes into account a player's entire career. Head-to-head totally ignores most of it under the guise of "same conditions" while ignoring that it's against different attacks in different parts of each match, sometimes at different parts of their careers, and always a tiny sample size.

Please respond to the relevant part of my post.

Atleast it's "How did A and B players perform in the same series where it may be assumed they faced pretty similar conditions", rather than "A averaged 50 in a series in China once, and B averaged only 30 when he toured China 7 years later in an entirely different series hence he's worse".

Its less bad than analysis by checklist imo. Both are stupid small samples. But atleast head to head is as similar a situation as possible for both players. Head to head literally can't be "different parts of their career" unless we're talking about separate things here. I thought "head-to-head" was a comparison of their performance in a series that both players played.

Not that I particularly like either ?‍

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

While I do agree it’s overall a great record, isn’t the job of openers to set the game up really?

Look at the current openers today , most look clueless especially away from home...Closest thing we have to Graeme Smith in our team is Dean Elgar , and that's quite a downgrade .