Graeme Smith vs Matthew Hayden

[CricAddict]

Please respond to the relevant part of my post.



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 ?‍

It can be. Someone can play a series at the fag end of their career or declining while the other could play it at his peak.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It can be. Someone can play a series at the fag end of their career or declining while the other could play it at his peak.

..

I thought "head-to-head" was a comparison of their performance in a series that both players played.

 

[CricAddict]

..

I think you are still not getting what PEWS is saying. It could be the same series that both are playing. But one could be in declining phase at that time while the other could be reaching his peak.

 

[subshakerz]

Smith was much more of a standout performer to me than Hayden. Some examples:

125* vs NZ in 2004 - Chasing 233 and SA were 36/3 at one stage
108 vs Australia in 2008 - Chasing 414, an absolutely crucial knock
107 vs England in 2008 - After a follow-on, important knock to save the game
154* vs England in 2008 - An ATG knock chasing 283
101* vs Australia in 2011 - Negotiating a chase after both sides were rolled out for sub-100 scores
122 vs Australia in 2012 - Yes flat pitch, but facing a mountain score as Australia seemed primed to roll out SA

On top of that, Smith had nine scores over 150 compared to five for Hayden, and five double tons compared to Hayden's two.

Hayden had some great knocks but again Australia was rarely ever put in a pressure cooker situation that seemed regular for Smith as captain.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think you are still not getting what PEWS is saying. It could be the same series that both are playing. But one could be in declining phase at that time while the other could be reaching his peak.

This happens in analysis by checklist too tbf.

 

[Victor Ian]

Isn't a big part of the reason Australian pitches were roads in the naughties Hayden? Sure, once you got in, there were runs, but you had to get in. It's not like other teams came here and cleaned up. Hayden often laid the groundwork for the rest of his team to go skiing here.
I love Smith, but Hayden's home record is a bit of a bullshit argument. I'd guess he won many more games with his 1st innings heroics than Smith did with his 1st and 4th combined.

 

[Spark]

Hayden had some great knocks but again Australia was rarely ever put in a pressure cooker situation that seemed regular for Smith as captain.

VI just said this too but this is just such an irrelevant argument when discussing openers. Hayden's whole game was ensuring that Australia never got to that pressure cooker situation in the first place; that's what made him so valuable. If he was batting 5 and constantly at risk of coming in with <100 on the board then that's one thing, but this is tantamount to criticising Hayden for being too good at his job.

 

[thierry henry]

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.

weak-gutted dog person

 

[subshakerz]

VI just said this too but this is just such an irrelevant argument when discussing openers. Hayden's whole game was ensuring that Australia never got to that pressure cooker situation in the first place; that's what made him so valuable. If he was batting 5 and constantly at risk of coming in with <100 on the board then that's one thing, but this is tantamount to criticising Hayden for being too good at his job.

Smith being a high pressure player is not a knock on Hayden. It was just something special about Smith

 

[subshakerz]

Isn't a big part of the reason Australian pitches were roads in the naughties Hayden? Sure, once you got in, there were runs, but you had to get in. It's not like other teams came here and cleaned up. Hayden often laid the groundwork for the rest of his team to go skiing here.
I love Smith, but Hayden's home record is a bit of a bull**** argument. I'd guess he won many more games with his 1st innings heroics than Smith did with his 1st and 4th combined.

No way. Whatever lateral movement in Australia in the 90s was missing in the 2000s.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

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.

God forbid you use stats to vindicate what you see with your actual eyes.

 

[BazBall21]

Covered a few ex-England players for that exercise

Tests where the runs-per-wicket was below average:

Graham Thorpe 1983 runs @ 36.05, three hundreds.
David Gower 2938 runs @ 35.83, five hundreds.
Graham Gooch 3070 runs @ 33.01, seven hundreds.
Kevin Pietersen 1888 runs @ 32.55, four hundreds