Mathew Hayden vs Garry Kirsten

[sumantra]

Who was better?

 

[subshakerz]

Who was better?

Kirsten has a more balanced record but is a lot less aggressive.

Depends a lot on the rest of the lineup. A weak lineup would need someone consistent and steady like Kirsten but a stronger lineup can afford Hayden who can dominate.

 

[BazBall21]

Another close one

 

[Burgey]

Kirsten has a more balanced record but is a lot less aggressive.

Depends a lot on the rest of the lineup. A weak lineup would need someone consistent and steady like Kirsten but a stronger lineup can afford Hayden who can dominate.

I get what you're saying, but Hayden was pretty consistent too, given he averaged 50 across 100+ tests.

I agree it's very close though. Kirsten gets a boost for playing more in the 90s which was a tougher era. Then again, Hayden made a lot more tons. A five run difference in average is sort of balanced out given the amount they each played in the 90s vs the 2000s. I'm not that sold on SR as a factor in this comparison given Hayden's known issues against the moving ball in England.

One of the closer comparison threads imho. Kirsten is pretty under rated generally, really. They actually would have complimented each other pretty well as an opening pair.

 

[BazBall21]

I get what you're saying, but Hayden was pretty consistent too, given he averaged 50 across 100+ tests.

I agree it's very close though. Kirsten gets a boost for playing more in the 90s which was a tougher era. Then again, Hayden made a lot more tons. A five run difference in average is sort of balanced out given the amount they each played in the 90s vs the 2000s. I'm not that sold on SR as a factor in this comparison given Hayden's known issues against the moving ball in England.

One of the closer comparison threads imho. Kirsten is pretty under rated generally, really. They actually would have complimented each other pretty well as an opening pair.

Kirsten is definitely underrated. Would maybe get more hype if it wasn’t for Smith.

 

[subshakerz]

I get what you're saying, but Hayden was pretty consistent too, given he averaged 50 across 100+ tests.

I agree it's very close though. Kirsten gets a boost for playing more in the 90s which was a tougher era. Then again, Hayden made a lot more tons. A five run difference in average is sort of balanced out given the amount they each played in the 90s vs the 2000s. I'm not that sold on SR as a factor in this comparison given Hayden's known issues against the moving ball in England.

One of the closer comparison threads imho. Kirsten is pretty under rated generally, really. They actually would have complimented each other pretty well as an opening pair.

Kirsten did well where Hayden struggled, in SA, Eng and NZ.

Some posters may not care about SR, but all factors being equal, I prefer an aggressive batsman vs a defensive one. The problem here is all factors arent equal though. Hence a tough one that really depends on what sort of lineup they are expected to bat in.

 

[Xuhaib]

Kirsten was a dead set gun a more consistent Marc Taylor.

Kirsten and Anwar are my openers for a 90's world Xi side.

 

[trundler]

Hayden probably the better player but I'd have Kirsten open for me as I prefer openers who can handle the moving ball.

 

[BazBall21]

What a player Kirsten was. Deserves more hype.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Kirsten was my favorite dour batsman growing up. Not exactly pretty to look at but I didn't mind watching him grind out long innings either. Definitely had a zen thing going at the crease.

 

[BazBall21]

He’s not elegant but I quite like his technique.

 

[Arachnodouche]

He’s not elegant but I quite like his technique.

Yeah felt very coordinated. Unlike Smith who was ungainly most times.

 

[trundler]

It's worth noting that Kirsten averaged 42 in the 90s and 50 in 00s.

 

[BazBall21]

Yeah felt very coordinated. Unlike Smith who was ungainly most times.

Certainly more compact, orthodox and tighter than Smith. Smith’s methods worked so well in England though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mathew Hayden v Garry Kirsten

We pretending this isn't clearly a slippy multi

 

[subshakerz]

He’s not elegant but I quite like his technique.

SA has a thing for inelegant left handed openers.

 

[Bolo.]

It's worth noting that Kirsten averaged 42 in the 90s and 50 in 00s.

Adding to this, a big chunk of the reason why his average is so much higher in the 2000s is cos he dropped down the order. He averaged 42 as an opener in the 2000s and overall.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah, when you only consider Kirsten's tests as an opener it's not even close. He averaged 41.79 opening.

 

[Zinzan]

Hayden for me.

I know a couple of SA cricket tragics who would argue Gary Kirsten wasn't even the best in his Family, favouring his half-brother Peter, although I think Gary has him covered.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah, when you only consider Kirsten's tests as an opener it's not even close. He averaged 41.79 opening.

Considering era and delta in typical home averages from their compatriates, I don't think Hayden is that far ahead. But arguing Kirsten is ahead is a non-starter for me... I don't think people realise how much better he was in the middle than as an opener.