Matthew Hayden vs VVS Laxman

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[shortpitched713]

The Hayden hate has to be a meme at this point.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

The Hayden hate has to be a meme at this point.

The only Hayden meme here is you rating him > Sachin.

 

[shortpitched713]

Rating a 46 averaging middle order bat, above a 51 averaging opener from basically the same era, is absolutely a meme. I have no problem taking the hate for any other opinion I have in supporting the key batting piece for the best side in the world, and potentially of all time.

 

[shortpitched713]

I've often talked about Hayden, and the plan Australia had, and how dizzyingly effective it was. But to summarize, we give McGrath a lot of credit for starting opponent's of Australia innings off to a bad start. Hayden is the same, just start Australia off to a great start, which the side had the quality to never let go. But he was the main part of plan A in getting that lead. In some ways even more so than McGrath, because Australia batted first in basically every type of conditions if they won the toss. That's the faith they had in him and Langer ( but Hayden was the more prolific part of it ).

 

[BazBall21]

Hayden. VVS had obvious problems against lateral movement too and batted in a much easier position.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Hayden. VVS had obvious problems against lateral movement too and batted in a much easier position.

Yea batting position is a good point

 

[capt_Luffy]

Rating a 46 averaging middle order bat, above a 51 averaging opener from basically the same era, is absolutely a meme. I have no problem taking the hate for any other opinion I have in supporting the key batting piece for the best side in the world, and potentially of all time.

By that logic Herbert Sutcliffe is leagues above Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar and pretty much anyone other than Bradman......

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think Laxman doesn't gets enough credit here; he had some of the most clutch innings of all time alongside the best one I have ever seen..... But yeah, Hayden is the better bat for me.

 

[shortpitched713]

By that logic Herbert Sutcliffe is leagues above Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar and pretty much anyone other than Bradman......

Before modern era (post 1970 for mine), and especially in the pre World War II era the quality of fast bowling seamers ( and hence the ability to utilize the new ball to maximum effect) was lesser, arguably much lesser. So no, those old openers like Sutcliffe and Hobbs don't get to escape scrutiny on that account. Hutton is a bit in between, in probably facing lesser quality new ball bowlers in early part of career, and then more quality in latter part. The really hard thing is opening in the modern day, which for me Gavaskar and later to a somewhat lesser extent Hayden were the foremost proponents.

People argue for Greenidge, Graeme Smith, etc over Hayden, but imo their production does not justify such an evaluation.

 

[Coronis]

By that logic Herbert Sutcliffe is leagues above Viv Richards

He is.

Rating a 46 averaging middle order bat, above a 51 averaging opener from basically the same era, is absolutely a meme. I have no problem taking the hate for any other opinion I have in supporting the key batting piece for the best side in the world, and potentially of all time.

I agree Hayden is better than Laxman. Hayden was never the key batting piece for those dominant Australian teams though lol lets be serious. That would be Waugh and later Ponting.

 

[shortpitched713]

Bat first, be up like 110/1 in the first session, and keep building on that was the general blueprint for those sides. Langer was great and all, but Hayden was the real hammer for those starts. I don't see why he wouldn't be seen as the key piece. The middle order was great, but I believe their numbers would look more a little bit less immaculate with less of these starts (Waugh and Martyn more so than Ponting). Same way as I see Warne as a much bigger beneficiary of McGrath, than the other way around.

 

[Jumno]

Laxman has played some clutch innings, however I'd go for Hayden

 

[capt_Luffy]

Before modern era (post 1970 for mine), and especially in the pre World War II era the quality of fast bowling seamers ( and hence the ability to utilize the new ball to maximum effect) was lesser, arguably much lesser. So no, those old openers like Sutcliffe and Hobbs don't get to escape scrutiny on that account. Hutton is a bit in between, in probably facing lesser quality new ball bowlers in early part of career, and then more quality in latter part. The really hard thing is opening in the modern day, which for me Gavaskar and later to a somewhat lesser extent Hayden were the foremost proponents.

People argue for Greenidge, Graeme Smith, etc over Hayden, but imo their production does not justify such an evaluation.

I get the sentiment here; but the pitches pre WWII were also abysmal....... Bowlers like Lohman, Spofforth, Turner, Ferris, both Barnes, Briggs, Peel, Palmer, etc had honestly freakish averages. Heck, Grace averaged just over 22 with the bowl..... Though Sutcliffe played at an era when pitches were somewhat better; I do think the batting gears and specific bowling rules helped bowlers significantly enough to get past just their raw quality.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He is.

Oh God...... What had I asked in that Gavaskar vs Richards thread

 

[Coronis]

Oh good...... What had I asked in that Gavaskar vs Richards thread

Well Sutcliffe is better than Gavaskar too. Don’t worry, you’re learning.

 

[Teja.]

Rating a 46 averaging middle order bat, above a 51 averaging opener from basically the same era, is absolutely a meme. I have no problem taking the hate for any other opinion I have in supporting the key batting piece for the best side in the world, and potentially of all time.

Without commenting on the thread question, the premise of your post itself is incorrect. Laxman averaged 49.8 as a middle order batsman over 102 tests and a longer year duration than Hayden’s entire career. So if your comparison is off middle order Laxman to Opener Hayden, those are the numbers to go off. After that, it is the relative weight you attatch to their strengths that depends who you choose to pick as their raw stats are basically identical.

Laxman’s career average of 134 tests is brought down by his time playing out of his FC position as an opener early on for 10-15 tests which he admittedly sucked at and publicly hated. He then refused to play for the side unless picked the middle order after which the selectors relented. He then averaged more than 50 for more than a decade which overlaps with all of Hayden’s career as a first option opener and more. Therefore, it makes sense to compare that version of Laxman to Hayden just as it makes sense to contextualise Greenidge’s average with his peak decade as an opener when comparing him with the 3 great 00s openers.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Hayden might average 55 if he played at 5 like VVS

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hayden might average 55 if he played at 5 like VVS

Not saying impossible; but I doubt he would had...... Batsmen like him, Sehwag and Greenidge; their style of play are very useful in setting the tone at the beginning of the innings and I think their effectiveness in a match would had declined had they come down in middle order.

 

[Teja.]

Also, Laxman as a player is the hardest to pin down with an average. In 2009 and 2010, Gambhir, Sehwag and Tendulkar all took turns to be the No.1 batsman in the test rankings. I doubt Laxman cracked anything outside a top 10 ranking. Yet in the 2010/11 season, where he scored just one century and Tendulkar/Sehwag were having career years, Laxman, with his mid-40s batting average and all, was the most important batsman in India getting to and retaining our position as the No.1 test team for that season.

First, there was the SL 4th innings century. India were trailing 0-1 against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka in the third and final test and had to chase 258 on a dangerously spinning Day 5 pitch. It was Murali's farewell series and SL clearly want to gift this win to him. Randiv who was then a mystery bowler who had just taken out Vijay, Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar on his own and the score was 62-4. SL are clearly looking like they'll wrap this thing by lunch. Laxman scores an aggressive match winning 103 (149)* in that situation to finish the match before tea and equalize the series.

Then, Laxman's 73 in this game against Australia. It was a worn down 5th day pitch where surviving looked incredibly difficult. India were chasing 215, Laxman had injured his back very visibly and only came out to bat at no.7 because of this. In fact, he was so injured he batted at No.10 in the first innings. India were 124/8 one hour into day 5 with 90+ runs needed, an injured Laxman batting with Ishant and only Ojha to come. Australia were paying 1.03 and India 27/1(!) at 124/8 which puts in perspective how dire the situation was. The game was basically done. Laxman then wins the game in 2 hours with 73* (79) with India 9 wickets down. Words don't do justice to how epic that innings was. I don't think any other batsmen i've ever watched could play that innings. It was a lot more absurd than a standard ATG 4th innings 150 or a 200+ score from behind imo because of how fragile the situation was. The 281 was a greater innings and probably the best innings of all time but not as insane as that 73.

It was arguably not even his best innings for the year - which was the 96 against SA in Durban when Steyn was absolutely rampant with nobody else on either side crossing the 30s (and Laxman scoring 38 in his other innings ) on either side in the entire game. Laxman did ****all for the entire series and averaged 30-odd but batting-wise single-handedly won us the only game we won that series by top scoring in both innings.

2010 also had his match-saving and series winning 91 against NZ from a 15-5 collapse and India were staring at almost certainly being on the other end of a massive upset with Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Raina having made 13 runs between them of which Tendulkar scored 12.

In fact in every significant victory in 2010/11, which was that generation's Indian test team's 'No.1' pinnacle year, Laxman played a significant role. While the stats and batting rankings will disagree, Laxman was the single most important player in us maintaining it, in my opinion, for that brief stretch of time. All those non-100 knocks basically would have entire series outcomes changed if not for them.

In a way, the strengths of Hayden/Sehwag and of Laxman are different, especially later in his career. They were the guys you want to score the massive **** you double hundred in the first test of the first innings at home. Laxman was the guy you want batting for you when the opposing pacer has 6/38 on a pitch where no player on either side has scored more than 35, your batting order has collapsed and you are desperate to have someone to make the 74/188 who will get you to harbor safely. The first is arguably more important as the bread and butter for a great test side but the latter is more uniquely very, very special imo.