Matthew Hayden Retires - Tribute Thread ***Breaking News***

[G.I.Joe]

Hayden hits top 10 - Cricket - Sport - smh.com.au

Let the games begin

Yeah, these rankings were all over the news over here yesterday. Acording to the rankings, Tendulkar is the 26th best test batsman of all time and 12th best ODI batsman all time

It was revealed that the only critereon the rankings took into consideration was the highest peak the batsmen ever attained in their career. Doesn't matter how inadequate you were over the rest of your career as long as you cashed in big time on a vein of good form once in your career.

 

[social]

Yeah, these rankings were all over the news over here yesterday. Acording to the rankings, Tendulkar is the 26th best test batsman of all time and 12th best ODI batsman all time

It was revealed that the only critereon the rankings took into consideration was the highest peak the batsmen ever attained in their career. Doesn't matter how inadequate you were over the rest of your career as long as you cashed in big time on a vein of good form once in your career.

That's an over-simplification as it requires a sustained period of excellent performance to achieve a high ranking i.e. couple of great series wont get you there

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think it would've been more reasonable to drop him if he was averaging 10 over those 9 tests.

As it was he was still sometimes getting out cheaply (which always happens to every batsman), interspersed with some starts, mixed in with a couple of poor umpiring decisions. It's easy for a couple of bad shots, some bad umpiring, and a minor loss of form to result in an average of 20-something over a 9 test period.

In the overall scheme of things I don't think there was sufficient proof that Hayden was anything other than one of the 2 best openers in Australia.

Personally, I disagree. You could see that the last few innings were more battles with his head, he changed his approach from innings to innings. When being circumspect wasn't working for him to get him out of the slump, he instead tried to blast himself into form.

I think that with Rogers, Hughes and Jaques all in the wings, all of whom would have performed better over the past nine Tests than what Hayden has.

 

[Uppercut]

I feel like I'm the only person in the world who thinks this, but I would have kept him on through the Ashes if I was a selector.

I still don't really believe his form slump was permanent. 37 is not as ancient as people make out and I find it hard to believe that Hayden really is physically deteriorating to any great extent.

The way he bats, he is always prone to getting out cheaply, but it seemed like he still had the big shots in his arsenal.

Yeah, as vic says above, I'd agree with this if there were no obvious replacements. Even if you feel he would perform in the Ashes, doesn't Phil Jaques have just as good if not a better shot at doing so? And he has more of a future too (if not a massive one).

 

[honestbharani]

"Hayden was one of the greats of the game. I am happy for him because he retired from the game on his own terms. He was aggressive both with the bat and the tongue. The fact that he scored 21 centuries in eight years speaks volume about his ability. "


Sehwag on Hayden... Nice touch about aggression with the tongue

 

[Matt79]

Haven't actually got around to posting in this thread as yet, and have said a bit about him elsewhere, but well played big fella - have lots of wonderful memories of you dominating. One of the all time best. Wasn't always a fan of all the non-cricket things he did on the field, but out of the crucible of competition seems to be a really good bloke as well. Although he did refer to himself in the 3rd person a disturbing amount in the post-retirement interviews I heard.

 

[howardj]

Haven't actually got around to posting in this thread as yet, and have said a bit about him elsewhere, but well played big fella - have lots of wonderful memories of you dominating. One of the all time best. Wasn't always a fan of all the non-cricket things he did on the field, but out of the crucible of competition seems to be a really good bloke as well. Although he did refer to himself in the 3rd person a disturbing amount in the post-retirement interviews I heard.

Ah yes, the ultimate sign that you've got a healthy regard for yourself.

 

[Evermind]

Cricinfo - Hayden among the savages

Yet another article maligning Hayden. Man, I have no idea why the gets so little respect.

 

[silentstriker]

Cricinfo - Hayden among the savages

Yet another article maligning Hayden. Man, I have no idea why the gets so little respect.

Hardly being maligned.

 

[Precambrian]

That's an over-simplification as it requires a sustained period of excellent performance to achieve a high ranking i.e. couple of great series wont get you there

Stirring it up? Sorry Social mate. You are wrong. All it takes is a year or two of huge spikes to get to the top of those tables.

If anybody has any doubts about Tendulkar's sustained performances, would do well to check out this table ---->

Cricinfo Statsguru - Test matches - Batting records

For a full 11 years, from 1995 to 2005, Tendulkar averaged the highest in the world (qualification minimum 1000 runs). An average of 58 sustained over 11 years is not enough for the ICC????

 

[Ikki]

Stirring it up? Sorry Social mate. You are wrong. All it takes is a year or two of huge spikes to get to the top of those tables.

If anybody has any doubts about Tendulkar's sustained performances, would do well to check out this table ---->

Cricinfo Statsguru - Test matches - Batting records

For a full 11 years, from 1995 to 2005, Tendulkar averaged the highest in the world (qualification minimum 1000 runs). An average of 58 sustained over 11 years is not enough for the ICC????

I think they look at the strength of the teams too. For example, Tendulkar didn't do well against S.Africa and Pakistan, and when he scored runs against Australia it wasn't the strongest attack.

 

[Precambrian]

I think they look at the strength of the teams too. For example, Tendulkar didn't do well against S.Africa and Pakistan, and when he scored runs against Australia it wasn't the strongest attack.

You must be kidding.

He has a good record against all teams except SA during that period.

And Warne and McGrath does not make up the best Australian attack?? LOL

Note how he averages against Curtly + Courtney West Indies.

 

[Ikki]

You must be kidding.

He has a good record against all teams except SA during that period.

And Warne and McGrath does not make up the best Australian attack?? LOL

Note how he averages against Curtly + Courtney West Indies.

He averages about 36-37 when Tendulkar faces both Warne and McGrath - when it's McGrath by himself, even less.

And when Tendulkar started making runs against the Pakistanis they were no longer the force of the 90s.

These things would explain it.

 

[Precambrian]

He averages about 36-37 when Tendulkar faces both Warne and McGrath - when it's McGrath by himself, even less.

And when Tendulkar started making runs against the Pakistanis they were no longer the force of the 90s.

These things would explain it.

Ridiculous. Australian attack goes much beyond McGrath.

And he averaged a not so poor 43 in 7 test matches involving both.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...nvolve_type=all;template=results;type=batting

 

[silentstriker]

/

Not again. Who cares? Tribute is about Hayden, and why he is the third most overrated player of modern times.

 

[Jono]

****, such a try-hard to try and denigrate Tendulkar.

If you think those rankings suggest that Tendulkar hasn't scored runs against good opposition, then you're kidding yourself.

Look where Steve Waugh was ranked FFS. You going to suggest he too didn't score runs against the top bowlers?

Ludicrous. Thank Christ 99% of the cricketing world appreciate how good Sachin was.

 

[Ikki]

Ridiculous. Australian attack goes much beyond McGrath.

And he averaged a not so poor 43 in 7 test matches involving both.

Cricinfo Statsguru - SR Tendulkar - Test matches - Batting analysis

Dude, why are you wasting your time? I just gave you possibilities as to why the ICC may have ranked him low. I don't know why myself, I haven't looked into it. But obviously you'd get rated higher if you performed at your best against the best, wouldn't you?

If Tendulkar averaged 43 in matches involving both that means he isn't going to get a high rating is he? The rankings are for the highest peaks. If he had averaged 50-60 then you'd be onto something. When you average in the high-30s, low 40s against 3/4 of the best attacks of your time, then it's going to hurt your ratings.

 

[Precambrian]

Dude, why are you wasting your time? I just gave you possibilities as to why the ICC may have ranked him low. I don't know why myself, I haven't looked into it. But obviously you'd get rated higher if you performed at your best against the best, wouldn't you?

If Tendulkar averaged 43 in matches involving both that means he isn't going to get a high rating is he? The rankings are for the highest peaks. If he had averaged 50-60 then you'd be onto something. When you average in the high-30s, low 40s against 3/4 of the best attacks of your time, then it's going to hurt your ratings.

No point debating this in this thread.

Just for your info, Tendulkar averages in 60s against Walsh and Ambrose.

 

[Evermind]

Thank Christ 99% of the cricketing world appreciate how good Sachin was.

One of the best of his generation, but Ponting > Sachin IMO.

 

[Jono]

You're entitled to your opinion. And whilst I considerably disagree with it, its not ridiculous to rate Ponting higher than Sachin IMO.

But suggesting that Sachin didn't score against good quality bowling is ludicrous.