Matthew Hayden most centuries in a decade?

[Lord Flasheart]

By decade I think he meant 2003-2007.

 

[neville cardus]

More amazing when you consider that he'd gone about 17 tests (I think) not so long ago without a century.

I recognise that avatar. Arundel 1956, no?

 

[Mister Wright]

Hayden's a great, no doubt about it.

 

[James90]

Jan 2000 - Dec 2009, IMO

Awta.

 

[Perm]

By decade I think he meant 2003-2007.

Right...why would he mean that?

 

[Arrow]

Hayden averaged 25 for his first 13 tests. Once all the great bowlers vanished around 2001 he started to look good. I really think hes way overrated and just feasted on the average bowling of this decade. A terrible bowling decade.

 

[Perm]

More amazing when you consider that he'd gone about 17 tests (I think) not so long ago without a century.

Try 3-4 years ago

 

[Perm]

Hayden averaged 25 for his first 13 tests. Once all the great bowlers vanished around 2001 he started to look good. I really think hes way overrated and just feasted on the average bowling of this decade. A terrible bowling decade.

We've been through this mate, and plenty of people agree with you. Fact is, he's fronted up to what he was faced with and scored very heavily since he returned to the Test side. That does coincide with the decline of bowling standards, but Hayden was also a much better batsman than in his initial foray into Test cricket.

 

[Matt79]

Hayden averaged 25 for his first 13 tests. Once all the great bowlers vanished around 2001 he started to look good. I really think hes way overrated and just feasted on the average bowling of this decade. A terrible bowling decade.

Oh yeah, right. I always forget btw, was it a Dinosaur-style meteorite, or a I Am Legand-style mutant virus, that caused that particular mass extinction.

Lol at the argument about what the OP meant by decade. There's only two possible answers, and rather than arguing, its pretty simple to work out the answer for either. Its either in the most productive ten year period within Hayden's career or 2000-2009.

 

[Craig]

Hayden's a great, no doubt about it.

We didn't expect you to say otherwise?

 

[Johnners]

1996 is twelve years ago, not ten. Hayden's only a been a regular for 7-ish years. It's quite possible that by the end of their careers, Hayden's best 10 years will have yielded more 100s than Ponting's.

Over his career, Hayden scores a century in 31% of his innings, compared with 29% for Ponting.

1996 is 12 years ago, but I think you'll find that from Jan 97, to Dec 06, Ponting has scored 33 centuries which is more than Haydens 28 (Ponting hasn't scored 1 sinced the Ashes test in Adelaide surprisingly enough)

 

[Matt79]

1996 is 12 years ago, but I think you'll find that from Jan 97, to Dec 06, Ponting has scored 33 centuries which is more than Haydens 28 (Ponting hasn't scored 1 sinced the Ashes test in Adelaide surprisingly enough)

Well that's all you had to say. Saying he debuted in 96, and implying that was a decade ago had me worried, that was all. Especially as you're an accountant IIRC.

 

[Prince EWS]

1996 is 12 years ago, but I think you'll find that from Jan 97, to Dec 06, Ponting has scored 33 centuries which is more than Haydens 28 (Ponting hasn't scored 1 sinced the Ashes test in Adelaide surprisingly enough)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure dass meant a calender decade though, rather than any set of 10 years.

 

[Ikki]

I recognise that avatar. Arundel 1956, no?

Keith Miller, I dunno where/when.

 

[Ikki]

Try 3-4 years ago

He broke that century-less streak in Sept 05, so less than 2 and half years ago.

 

[Richard]

Oh yeah, right. I always forget btw, was it a Dinosaur-style meteorite, or a I Am Legand-style mutant virus, that caused that particular mass extinction.

Well, not quite, but if you wondered where they all went you might be forgiven for thinking that.

 

[Richard]

By decade I think he meant 2003-2007.

That's 9 consecutive posts with a Rolleyes, one of them for no apparent reason. It's borderline offensive.

 

[Johnners]

Well that's all you had to say. Saying he debuted in 96, and implying that was a decade ago had me worried, that was all. Especially as you're an accountant IIRC.

Yeah, probably didn't make it clear the first time. I knew what I wasn't going crazy so I guess thats all that really matters

 

[Johnners]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure dass meant a calender decade though, rather than any set of 10 years.

I took it as set of 10 years...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I took it as set of 10 years...

*11-12

But who's counting.