Another one of those A vs B threads

[bagapath]

I'll ignore that patently deliberately provocative comment, as any fool could tell Hayden was a superior ODI batsman to Atherton even before 2006/07.

I fully well realise that how a batsman capitalises on breaks which have come his way due to good fortune is indeed to his own credit. For example, Kumar Sangakkara played one of the best innings' I've ever seen at Bellerive Oval in the second-innings of a Test against Australia not so very long ago. Had he not got several let-offs in a dreadful first-innings 50-odd, I doubt he'd have managed to get into nick to play that second-innings knock. How a player capitalises on breaks which have come his way due to good fortune is indeed a huge part of how they shape their destiny. I tried, did I not, to emphasise that I fully agree with this in the above post which you quote?

yes, you certainly did. and i was pulling your leg and not provoking you. there is a big difference

 

[Anil]

ganguly for me...forged the most successful opening partnership in odi history with tendulkar...

 

[Sanz]

Ganguly in ODIs fairly easily. Hayden, easily, in the better version of the game.

 

[martin88]

I'm really not sure he was. He may have been the more solid physically but I don't think he was more solid in either his strokeplay or his defence. As I say, if Daniel Vettori had taken that catch in the VB Series game where Hayden was gifted that century that saved his career, and Hayden had not toured New Zealand in 2006/07, then he'd have gone down as a poor ODI batsman who had 1 great season (2002/03). Even there it was only really the first half of the season. EDIT: please don't throw the toys out of the cot about me mentioning a dropped catch, because even Hayden himself has acknowledged how this miss shaped his destiny. I am not mentioning it to degrade him as he fully earned what happened 181*-onwards, no fielders dropping catches will be being mentioned in that time. I am simply pointing-out how thin the line was between success and failure.

Up to the end of 2002, Hayden averaged 33.68 (and even this was still all-eggs-in-one-basket-ism - he'd had a good series in NZ in 1999/2000 and a good one in India in 2000/01, and done next to nothing aside from those). Between WC2003 and the England tour of 2005 he averaged 34.97. These are certainly not dreadful, though they are poor, but until 2006/07 (and specifically that 181*) that was how things were.

Then came that 181*, and from there to the end of his career he averaged 60.81. But that was what turned his career from pretty moderate to pretty good.

If Ganguly didn't play the minnows as he did, it can be safely assumed his career would have been over earlier than it did.

 

[NUFAN]

Interesting too that both were probably the lesser valued wicket of their opening partnerships. Contrasting players, with Ganguly so good square of the wicket, whilst Hayden's strength lay mainly down the ground.

To elaborate further on my choice, because of the strength of the opposition within his own country, Hayden got games when he was at his best. Plus the fact that he managed to strike his purest form at a time when Australia played a large number of ODIs, allowing his purple patch to bolster his record.

Ganguly, due to his early success, was always going to have a bit more leeway with selectors, thus he was carried through some periods where he wasn't quite as successful. Thus, he had to endure a few more troughs, and hence why managing to maintain his record over such a time is admirable.

Great summary. I'll go along with this.

 

[Athlai]

Good thread, one of the best A vs B threads around anyway.

 

[Richard]

If Ganguly didn't play the minnows as he did, it can be safely assumed his career would have been over earlier than it did.

Not really.

Ganguly only scored heavily against substandard sides at a time when he was also scoring against ODI-standard ones. There was no time when he was kept in the side because of his performances against substandard sides only.

 

[zaremba]

I will go for Ganguly simply because Hayden is even more unlikeable than him.

 

[martin88]

Not really.

Ganguly only scored heavily against substandard sides at a time when he was also scoring against ODI-standard ones. There was no time when he was kept in the side because of his performances against substandard sides only.

Cricinfo Statsguru - SC Ganguly - One-Day Internationals - Batting analysis

For the three years from 2003 to 2005, he averaged just 25 in 48 games against the top teams of the world. Next argument please.

 

[stephen]

Until this thread I had not realised how good Ganguly actually was.

The reason being his average vs Australia being under 24 meant that most time I'd seen him he was rank awful.

However, Ganguly and Hayden have similar overall statistics (though Ganga's got twice as many games under his belt).

In my mind though the thing that separates the two is their performance in the only ODI tournament that matters - the WC.

SC Ganguly 1999-2007 21 21 3 1006 183 55.88 1298 77.50 4 3 1

ML Hayden 2003-2007 22 21 2 987 1 58 51.94 1062 92.93 3 2 0

Again, practically nothing to separate them.

Yet as I'm an Australian and every time I saw Ganguly bat in ODIs he was awful, and Hayden practically won us a world cup, I'm going to have to go with Hayden as the better of the two batsmen.

 

[pasag]

Will go Ganguly, though Hayden's final act was one of the greatest ODI purple patches I've ever seen. Just murdered everyone and won us a world cup. Will never forget the 181* with a broken toe at Hamilton, incredible.

 

[Redbacks]

In my mind though the thing that separates the two is their performance in the only ODI tournament that matters - the WC.

SC Ganguly 1999-2007 21 21 3 1006 183 55.88 1298 77.50 4 3 1

ML Hayden 2003-2007 22 21 2 987 1 58 51.94 1062 92.93 3 2 0

you may wish to research who the 100's were against.

I would say Ganguly as Hayden was mostly ok, a good part of the team but not a key player, until he really peaked for that period during 07. Ganguly seems to have been much better for longer.

 

[martin88]

Ganguly is husgely overrated here in my honest opinion.

He has always been a minnow basher and struggled against the best teams of his time, barring perhaps SA.

Exclude his records against minnows, and the average comes down to 38 at SR of 73.

For Hayden, the corresponding figures are 43 and 78 respectively.

Clearly, there is daylight between Hayden and Ganguly. And I can say that Ganguly held on to his place for so long despite his turgid record mainly because :

1. He had formed a useful opening alliance with Tendulkar, who ensured that Ganguly's mediocre efforts were papered over with some incredible knocks from the other end.

2. He was captain.

 

[stephen]

you may wish to research who the 100's were against.

I would say Ganguly as Hayden was mostly ok, a good part of the team but not a key player, until he really peaked for that period during 07. Ganguly seems to have been much better for longer.

Hayden's 3 WC centuries:

101 vs SA - fastest WC hundred
158 vs WI - highest Aus WC hundred
103 vs NZ

3 non-minnow teams. Game vs SA had the world rank #1 bowler at the time - Hayden faced a good number of overs against him too.

Ganguly's 4 WC centuries (plus his near century):

97 vs SA
183 vs SL
112* vs Namibia
107* vs Kenya
111* vs Kenya

I don't know much about these hundreds, though the one against SL is one of, if not the highest WC score ever.

EDIT: I don't knock these performances vs minnows... If India had have performed better against the minnows in 2007 then they could have made the finals. Instead they were knocked out in round one.

 

[stephen]

I actually think that most people forget how important to Australia's success Hayden was.

Without him in the team opening we looked a lot more vulnerable than we did when he was opening for us. His partnership with Gilly was a very good one that helped reduce the pressure on Gilly's play because Hayden could be the aggressor if Gilly wasn't firing, which was often the case.

He had two purple patches - 2001-03 and 07-09, both of which were very good. When he wasn't performing he really didn't slump too badly, but when he was on fire he really was on fire.

 

[Shri]

Hayden's 3 WC centuries:

101 vs SA - fastest WC hundred
158 vs WI - highest Aus WC hundred
103 vs NZ

3 non-minnow teams. Game vs SA had the world rank #1 bowler at the time - Hayden faced a good number of overs against him too.

Ganguly's 4 WC centuries (plus his near century):

97 vs SA
183 vs SL
112* vs Namibia
107* vs Kenya
111* vs Kenya

I don't know much about these hundreds, though the one against SL is one of, if not the highest WC score ever.

EDIT: I don't knock these performances vs minnows... If India had have performed better against the minnows in 2007 then they could have made the finals. Instead they were knocked out in round one.

One of those 100s against Kenya was in the 2003 WC semi-final.

 

[Jono]

They were both patch players. When in form they were brilliant, but when out of form, pretty ordinary.

There were 2 years (around 98-20000 where Ganguly was unstoppable in the pyjama game.

 

[Burgey]

Ganguly, absolutely no question. Hayden was actually an absolutely brilliant ODI opener for a year or so (which was far more than he ever was in Tests), starting from that tour of New Zealand in 2006/07. Ganguly, on the other hand, was such a thing for 6 years 1996-2002. He then lost his place at the top of the order as Tendulkar insisted on batting there and Sehwag was retained for 6 years of utter uselessness based on 1 year of brilliance.

Even plenty of Australians didn't think that much of Hayden the ODI player until that tour. He'd had the odd good spell (2002/03) but mostly had done precious little of note.

Hayden's average is so high because, like Paul Collingwood, when he was hot he was so sensationally hot it disguised the fact that when he was moderate he was actually moderate for a very long time indeed. Though clearly Hayden > Collingwood as when he was good he was better, for longer.

On the relatively rare occasions Ganguly got to open again after 2002, he was nowhere near the force he had been.

Obviously we'll never know how Hayden would've fared had he batted three and four (or even six and seven) because he virtually never had to do it.

Sig-worthy IMO.

Gangles for mine. Lot to be said for longevity. Hayden no mug though, obviously.

 

[haroon510]

Ganguly for me


Hayden was a minnow basher..

 

[Burgey]

Ganguly for me


Hayden was a minnow basher..

Yep, every side he played in the last WC was a minnow.