Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?

[aussie]

Australia V S.Africa 20001..

Looks good in paper doesn't it?. But havin actually watched those 6 test vs SA in 2001/02, that wasn't a top quality SA pace attack at all. Since Donald was passed his best, Nitini wasn't a good test bowler as yet, Hayward was poor.

Pollock hadn't declined yet & Kallis was in his best bowling form (but then again Kallis was never really a wicket-taking seamer).

The only time Hayden has faced a top quality attack in testing conditions was SA in 6 test in the 05/06 season with Ntini/Nel leading the charge 7 did very well to curb talk of him being a FTB & could make runs when the ball was moving. So he is wayyyyyyyyyyy behind Gavaskar on this front.

He though has potentially 11 test vs SA & ENG in this final stage of his career againts to two very good attacks. Making runs there based on how his career has gone will close the book on him being regarded as one of the games great openers or not.

 

[Ikki]

He took a time machine?

Lame perhaps, but only one series to show? Against quality pace attack? Gavaskar has done 10 times that.

It depends what you call a good quality attack. NZ in Hayden's time had a better attack than they did in Gavaskar's. Sri Lanka in Hayden's time was much stronger than what they were in Gavaskar's time. In fact, where did Gavaskar do this 10 times? I just showed you his form against the "quality" Windies attack. Other than that, the only other quality attack is against Pakistan where he did well. He was poor against England and did not face any other strong attack. I am interested to see these 10 instances.

How about Australia V Pakistan 2002? A quality attack, very balanced, and in some of the harshest conditions any Test player has faced.

 

[Ikki]

Looks good in paper doesn't it?. But havin actually watched those 6 test vs SA in 2001/02, that wasn't a top quality SA pace attack at all. Since Donald was passed his best, Nitini wasn't a good test bowler as yet, Hayward was poor.

Pollock hadn't declined yet & Kallis was in his best bowling form (but then again Kallis was never really a wicket-taking seamer).

The only time Hayden has faced a top quality attack in testing conditions was SA in 6 test in the 05/06 season with Ntini/Nel leading the charge 7 did very well to curb talk of him being a FTB & could make runs when the ball was moving. So he is wayyyyyyyyyyy behind Gavaskar on this front.

He though has potentially 11 test vs SA & ENG in this final stage of his career againts to two very good attacks. Making runs there based on how his career has gone will close the book on him being regarded as one of the games great openers or not.

We've been through this one quite a few many times. Listed the stats of Donald and the others for the year prior and they were a very very strong attack. Donald not being at his peak is one thing, but Donald was still one of the best bowlers in the world.

If I were to pick at the attacks like this, then there are things in Gavaskar's record to pick off as well: Marshall's debut, Gibbs' retirement, Roberts' debut too IIRC. I'm sure I can find more.

In Gavaskar's time, the 3 attacks that could be considered strong, he failed against one (England), he was very successful against the other (Pakistan), and his Windies has more than a few question marks. Let's not pretend he was facing strong attacks on a regular basis.

Attacks faced by both players

Gavaskar: Pakistan were stronger then, WIndies were stronger then. That's it.
Hayden: Sri Lanka stronger now, S.Africa playing now, NZ stronger now.

England is about a tie, depending how much you rate the attacks Hayden has faced, India are better now and Australia are much better now. Overall, the attacks of the 2000s were at least as good, if not better than those of the 80s.

Edit/add: Actually, even the Pakistan attack he faced in the 80s was really not that strong until he played his last test series - he averaged 49 against them.

Essentially, most of the teams in the 80s had an attack with one great bowler and mediocrity in between.

 

[Precambrian]

We've been through this one quite a few many times. Listed the stats of Donald and the others for the year prior and they were a very very strong attack. Donald not being at his peak is one thing, but Donald was still one of the best bowlers in the world.

If I were to pick at the attacks like this, then there are things in Gavaskar's record to pick off as well: Marshall's debut, Gibbs' retirement, Roberts' debut too IIRC. I'm sure I can find more.

In Gavaskar's time, the 3 attacks that could be considered strong, he failed against one (England), he was very successful against the other (Pakistan), and his Windies has more than a few question marks. Let's not pretend he was facing strong attacks on a regular basis.

Attacks faced by both players

Gavaskar: Pakistan were stronger then, WIndies were stronger then. That's it.
Hayden: Sri Lanka stronger now, S.Africa playing now, NZ stronger now.

England is about a tie, depending how much you rate the attacks Hayden has faced, India are better now and Australia are much better now. Overall, the attacks of the 2000s were at least as good, if not better than those of the 80s.

Edit/add: Actually, even the Pakistan attack he faced in the 80s was really that strong until he played his last test series - he averaged 49 against them.

Okay you quote abt many greats making their debut in the matches playe. What about the fact that Gavaskar himself was raw during his first series to WI?

 

[Precambrian]

We've been through this one quite a few many times. Listed the stats of Donald and the others for the year prior and they were a very very strong attack. Donald not being at his peak is one thing, but Donald was still one of the best bowlers in the world.

If I were to pick at the attacks like this, then there are things in Gavaskar's record to pick off as well: Marshall's debut, Gibbs' retirement, Roberts' debut too IIRC. I'm sure I can find more.

In Gavaskar's time, the 3 attacks that could be considered strong, he failed against one (England), he was very successful against the other (Pakistan), and his Windies has more than a few question marks. Let's not pretend he was facing strong attacks on a regular basis.

Attacks faced by both players

Gavaskar: Pakistan were stronger then, WIndies were stronger then. That's it.
Hayden: Sri Lanka stronger now, S.Africa playing now, NZ stronger now.

England is about a tie, depending how much you rate the attacks Hayden has faced, India are better now and Australia are much better now. Overall, the attacks of the 2000s were at least as good, if not better than those of the 80s.

Edit/add: Actually, even the Pakistan attack he faced in the 80s was really not that strong until he played his last test series - he averaged 49 against them.

Essentially, most of the 80s was an attack with one great bowler and mediocrity in between.

NZ, SL might be stronger. But still not good enough to be branded as world beating sides. There is a HUGE HUGE difference between the quality of bowling Gav faced, as compared to the likes Haydos faced.

 

[Ikki]

Okay you quote abt many greats making their debut in the matches playe. What about the fact that Gavaskar himself was raw during his first series to WI?

I only took into account the series where he was successful, so how does that hinder him? He debuted and faced a wholly weak attack. Something you don't even see these days.

 

[Ikki]

NZ, SL might be stronger. But still not good enough to be branded as world beating sides. There is a HUGE HUGE difference between the quality of bowling Gav faced, as compared to the likes Haydos faced.

That's a mighty big claim. Go and elaborate, please. I have looked at each of the line-ups of each test team over several years. I can assure you there was no such huge difference. It consisted of teams with one great bowler and others that mostly held up ends. Only the WIndies was a quality attack and Gavaskar didn't face them as touted, and certainly did not dominate them... and also until Wasim et al started joining the fray in the Pakistan side - but by then that was Gavaskar's last test series IIRC.

In essense, the only side to really go down bad are the WIndies. And the other sides made more improvements overall to curb the downturn of one team.

 

[thierry henry]

First of all, I dont think it is trolling.

Okay let me tell you something else I think. Statistics are an extremely unreliable way of understanding how good a player was. And to compare two players its even worse.

The best way to do that is to have seen them both play yourself. This presupposes a good understanding of the game. I do not want to say that I have a better understanding than you. I am just making a point about how to compare two cricketers. The deeper one's knowledge of the game (all aspects of it) the better one's ability to judge the capabilities of a player and hence the comparison of two players. My understanding of Gavaskar and Hayden falls in this category (that I have seen both of them play not that I have a great understanding of the game )

Then comes the problem of comparing two players one has never seen, say Bradman with Trumper or Spofforth with Tom Richardson. Its so easy to look at the stats and come out with a numerical criteria but that is what I call the "fast food of cricketing punditry". If it was as easy as that we could just feed all the data into a computer and settle all arguments once for all and all the cricket lovers across the entire planet would have nothing more to argue about. Unfortunately it doesn't work. So what does one do?

I will tell you what I do. I read. I try to understand from those who have seen both Bradman and Trumper or Grace and Hobbs, or Lohmann and Spofforth. I read what those who actually saw them play, played with and against them think of them. It doesn't tell me in black and white who is better than who in all cases but it tells me much more about each of these cricketers than I could ever, ever, hope to learn by merely looking at figures. PLUS the process gives me joy and pleasure to be transported into the times of my great grand father and feel what they felt in those days. I may then form an opinion about who was better between Bradman and Trumper or I may not but I do get to understand what type of a cricketer each of them was and I can see that they were so different from each other and each was great in his own way.

This reduces the 'tension' (for want of a better word) in me to somehow or the other rank them so very precisely, because one cant - not in all cases.

Finally comes the most difficult comparison of all, to compare a player you have seen with a player you haven't. This is very tough indeed. I may be able to compare Hobbs and Hutton from the writings of Cardus and Thomson but thats because my own opinion based on 'evidence of vision' does not interfere. I do have a problem comparing Gavaskar with, say Vijay Merchant or Len Hutton or Bert Sutcliffe. It is very tough and I can understand that it is the same for you when you compare Gavaskar with Hayden.

But trust me, statistics are not the best way to solve that issue for you. Its much better to talk to a cricketers who have seen both (not one but as many as you can) and then see what they have to say. You dont have to listen to someone like me and if you cant talk to cricketers then read. There are enough accounts of the cricketers of Gavaskar's era who are still watching and writing and even commenting on the game. Try and understand what they are saying. It will help not to come to CW and win a pointless argument but to better appreciate the game you clearly love so much.

If nothing else, if it just reinforces in you the idea that stats are not the ideal way to understand cricketers you haven't seen, I think you would have done fabulously.

I have nothing else to say and defiinitely don't want to bore you with what I think of Gavaskar and Hayden. I am sure you will. if you try, find many more eminently qualified to do so.

All the best.

SJS, respectfully (very respectfully) I completely disagree with basically everything you have said

First, let me put myself in context- I am 23 years old, born 1985, and have had a lifelong fascination with cricket. Since the 1991/92 World Cup I have devoured all of the cricket I could. This includes a full decade prior to ever discovering statsguru I am a dedicated watcher of cricket, not a cold-hearted statistician. I support the Black Caps perhaps more fervently than any other sporting team. For 17 years I have watched their games and felt all of the emotions that went with it. It does not compare to your own experience watching cricket, but it's not insubstantial either.

I have also always played cricket.

I have also always been a keen reader. Actually, I must admit this has subsided somewhat in recent years, but I was rather precocious as a youngster. I had devoured a huge amount of cricketing literature by the time I was 11 or 12 years old.

My "understanding" of cricket therefore is based on obsessively watching and reading about the game, playing it, thinking about and analysing batting and bowling techniques and the aesthetics thereof, etc etc.

Don't ever get me confused with some posters who are relatively new to the game and have STARTED with the stats. I didn't start with the stats. I ARRIVED at the stats. I still watch and read about cricket all the time. However, I have reached the conclusion that statistics are the only objective measure of a players' performance, if that is what is being discussed (i.e. the EFFECTIVENESS of said player).

I don't mean the stats on the front page of the cricinfo profile.......infact, I don't like to even use the word "stats" at all. What I really mean is, I like to analyse the way a player actually performed. Performance in cricket is measured in runs and wickets. That is the name of the game. A players total career "stats" provide a starting point, and then you can go more in-depth and see how many runs he scored in each innings, against which bowler, in which situation, etc etc....inevitably there will be a huge number of variables. Essentially though, if you are not measuring a player on runs and wickets, what are you measuring them on? And what validity does it have to a discussion of "which player was more effective/which player performed better"?

Let me just say....I love reading about cricket, but I would NEVER let someone else's opinion (i.e. in a book, in a conversation with someone who played against him, etc) influence the way I perceived that player, if it was merely an opinion on "which player seemed to me to be better" or "what sort of player he was". I can enjoy this sort of writing and the way it gives me a flavour of the way the game was, but it is not rational nor objective. It doesn't add anything to discussion about "which player actually, factually, performed more effectively".

Put it this way- I read a lot that is written by journalists and cricket writers today. My opinions are often utterly opposed to theirs- probably more often than not. Also, I often find myself completely opposed to the "general consensus" when it comes to players I HAVE seen. Therefore, what good is it to me to base my opinions on the opinions of others? After all, I know from experience that I rarely agree with the opinions of the writers and pundits and viewers of my own era.

And another question about "players I have actually watched".....I often wonder about how important this really is, simply because it's not possible to watch THAT much cricket. I mean, I am lucky to live in an era where there is a heap of televised cricket, yet tbh, I wouldn't rate my opinions all that highly on any players apart from NZ and Australian players, simply because I don't have the opportunity to watch most of the cricket played by most of the other nations. NO-ONE does. It amazes me how people can hold themselves up as experts on all players that they have "seen", because unless the player is from their own country, they've probably only seen a minority of the matches played by that player anyway!

 

[Prince EWS]

SJS, respectfully (very respectfully) I completely disagree with basically everything you have said

First, let me put myself in context- I am 23 years old, born 1985, and have had a lifelong fascination with cricket. Since the 1991/92 World Cup I have devoured all of the cricket I could. This includes a full decade prior to ever discovering statsguru I am a dedicated watcher of cricket, not a cold-hearted statistician. I support the Black Caps perhaps more fervently than any other sporting team. For 17 years I have watched their games and felt all of the emotions that went with it. It does not compare to your own experience watching cricket, but it's not insubstantial either.

I have also always played cricket.

I have also always been a keen reader. Actually, I must admit this has subsided somewhat in recent years, but I was rather precocious as a youngster. I had devoured a huge amount of cricketing literature by the time I was 11 or 12 years old.

My "understanding" of cricket therefore is based on obsessively watching and reading about the game, playing it, thinking about and analysing batting and bowling techniques and the aesthetics thereof, etc etc.

Don't ever get me confused with some posters who are relatively new to the game and have STARTED with the stats. I didn't start with the stats. I ARRIVED at the stats. I still watch and read about cricket all the time. However, I have reached the conclusion that statistics are the only objective measure of a players' performance, if that is what is being discussed (i.e. the EFFECTIVENESS of said player).

I don't mean the stats on the front page of the cricinfo profile.......infact, I don't like to even use the word "stats" at all. What I really mean is, I like to analyse the way a player actually performed. Performance in cricket is measured in runs and wickets. That is the name of the game. A players total career "stats" provide a starting point, and then you can go more in-depth and see how many runs he scored in each innings, against which bowler, in which situation, etc etc....inevitably there will be a huge number of variables. Essentially though, if you are not measuring a player on runs and wickets, what are you measuring them on? And what validity does it have to a discussion of "which player was more effective/which player performed better"?

Let me just say....I love reading about cricket, but I would NEVER let someone else's opinion (i.e. in a book, in a conversation with someone who played against him, etc) influence the way I perceived that player, if it was merely an opinion on "which player seemed to me to be better" or "what sort of player he was". I can enjoy this sort of writing and the way it gives me a flavour of the way the game was, but it is not rational nor objective. It doesn't add anything to discussion about "which player actually, factually, performed more effectively".

Put it this way- I read a lot that is written by journalists and cricket writers today. My opinions are often utterly opposed to theirs- probably more often than not. Also, I often find myself completely opposed to the "general consensus" when it comes to players I HAVE seen. Therefore, what good is it to me to base my opinions on the opinions of others? After all, I know from experience that I rarely agree with the opinions of the writers and pundits and viewers of my own era.

And another question about "players I have actually watched".....I often wonder about how important this really is, simply because it's not possible to watch THAT much cricket. I mean, I am lucky to live in an era where there is a heap of televised cricket, yet tbh, I wouldn't rate my opinions all that highly on any players apart from NZ and Australian players, simply because I don't have the opportunity to watch most of the cricket played by most of the other nations. NO-ONE does. It amazes me how people can hold themselves up as experts on all players that they have "seen", because unless the player is from their own country, they've probably only seen a minority of the matches played by that player anyway!

Yeah, I agree with this for the mostpart.

Once a player retires, their quality should be defined on the basis on what they've done - not what they looked like, how many people enjoyed watching them play or what someone thinks they might have done in different circumstances.

I'm not just talking about blindly reading averages here; I'm talking about analysing their careers in different conditions through different periods in the context of each game and the situation they are confronted with. This is where the debate can come through - which performances and factors are valued by different people is obviously subjective and these can be debated. Aesthetics and, to a lesser extent, the general consensus of the day far too often come into play here when they are really part of a totally different discussion.

Other factors can be considered when you're arguing the potential of a current player, but once someone has retired, that basically becomes irrelevant to their quality IMO. Obviously there are still many interesting discussion points beyond someone's quality but if you don't achieve something, it's just tough luck AFAIC, regardless of how good you looked whilst failing to do it and how highly others thought of you.

 

[thierry henry]

. Aesthetics and, to a lesser extent, the general consensus of the day far too often come into play here when they are really part of a totally different discussion.

QFT

That is the essence, really.

If you believe that runs and wickets matter in cricket, be prepared to deal with numbers and statistics.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, I agree with this for the mostpart.

Once a player retires, their quality should be defined on the basis on what they've done - not what they looked like, how many people enjoyed watching them play or what someone thinks they might have done in different circumstances.

I'm not just talking about blindly reading averages here; I'm talking about analysing their careers in different conditions through different periods in the context of each game and the situation they are confronted with. This is where the debate can come through - which performances and factors are valued by different people is obviously subjective and these can be debated. Aesthetics and, to a lesser extent, the general consensus of the day far too often come into play here when they are really part of a totally different discussion.

Other factors can be considered when you're arguing the potential of a current player, but once someone has retired, that basically becomes irrelevant to their quality IMO. Obviously there are still many interesting discussion points beyond someone's quality but if you don't achieve something, it's just tough luck AFAIC, regardless of good you looked whilst failing to do it and how highly others thought of you.

I come down quite firmly on this side of the discussion, too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As Mr Henry when asked if he'd seen Gavaskar bat described it as "old cricket" which is "rubbish that can't be taken seriously" it's hardly surprising that rational debate didn't ensue. Also people who try to refute how good Richards and Sobers were constantly say that older people don't come up with evidence to support it, but if no one is prepared to take eye witness accounts of hundreds of people including former players who saw them it's hard to know exactly what evidence could be provided. It's just the usual case of inferior stats = inferior player.

 

[thierry henry]

As Mr Henry when asked if he'd seen Gavaskar bat described it as "old cricket" which is "rubbish that can't be taken seriously" it's hardly surprising that rational debate didn't ensue.

That was a throwaway comment made after the "debate" had already gone to the dogs

Also people who try to refute how good Richards and Sobers were constantly say that older people don't come up with evidence to support it, but if no one is prepared to take eye witness accounts of hundreds of people including former players who saw them it's hard to know exactly what evidence could be provided. It's just the usual case of inferior stats = inferior player.

Evidence= an explanation of why the stats don't tell the story

If a player didn't score as many runs/take as many wickets as you are saying he should have, then those eyewitness acounts may well come in handy to explain why.

As far as eyewitness accounts saying "so and so was an amazing player", why should that be worth anything to me?

After all, if I watch a player today, I don't take any notice of what other people think of him when forming my opinion, plus I constantly find my opinion at odds with the opinions of others after we have both watched the same thing.

Jesus, I've watched the entirety of Daniel Vettori's career and others who have done the same think he is world class (lol maybe a bad example but you see my point)

I think it's pretty likely that in many cases with past players my opinion would have been at odds with "the general consensus", just as it is now. Also, these eyewitness accounts are rarely much use when comparing players of different generations, and it's incredibly hard even for someone who has seen both players to really keep their memory of a player 30 or 40 years ago fresh and accurate.

 

[archie mac]

As Mr Henry when asked if he'd seen Gavaskar bat described it as "old cricket" which is "rubbish that can't be taken seriously" it's hardly surprising that rational debate didn't ensue. Also people who try to refute how good Richards and Sobers were constantly say that older people don't come up with evidence to support it, but if no one is prepared to take eye witness accounts of hundreds of people including former players who saw them it's hard to know exactly what evidence could be provided. It's just the usual case of inferior stats = inferior player.

Now this is 100% correct, how can you possibly ignore the opinion of the great players, writers and commentators?

It would at best be naive and at worst arrogant

 

[Richard]

As far as eyewitness accounts saying "so and so was an amazing player", why should that be worth anything to me?

After all, if I watch a player today, I don't take any notice of what other people think of him when forming my opinion, plus I constantly find my opinion at odds with the opinions of others after we have both watched the same thing.

Jesus, I've watched the entirety of Daniel Vettori's career and others who have done the same think he is world class (lol maybe a bad example but you see my point)

I think it's pretty likely that in many cases with past players my opinion would have been at odds with "the general consensus", just as it is now.

Returning to this thread yet again, probably against my better judgement, just to say that this is exactly what I've thought for a looooong time now.

The "you don't understand because you didn't watch it unfold" stuff is utter nonsense when directed at me, and I suspect at not-a-few others, including our esteemed Martin Denyer. I disagree with general consensus every bit as often for stuff before my time as stuff during my time.

 

[Ikki]

One problem with the past is that matches really were not seen everywhere as they are now. People relied more on others' testimony than actually watching themselves. Nowadays, you can watch Tendulkar/Ponting/X fail on TV, no matter where you are. Embellishments are easily put down. There seems to be some fantastical element to past players at times.

 

[archie mac]

Returning to this thread yet again, probably against my better judgement, just to say that this is exactly what I've thought for a looooong time now.

The "you don't understand because you didn't watch it unfold" stuff is utter nonsense when directed at me, and I suspect at not-a-few others, including our esteemed Martin Denyer. I disagree with general consensus every bit as often for stuff before my time as stuff during my time.

One problem with the past is that matches really were not seen everywhere as they are now. People relied more on others' testimony than actually watching themselves. Nowadays, you can watch Tendulkar/Ponting/X fail on TV, no matter where you are. Embellishments are easily put down. There seems to be some fantastical element to past players at times.

the 'now' generation if you didn't see it, it did not happen

I am surprised you trust your mum when she tells you your birthdate

 

[Uppercut]

Now this is 100% correct, how can you possibly ignore the opinion of the great players, writers and commentators?

It would at best be naive and at worst arrogant

You don't ignore it. But as a means of deciding which player was best, it's open to a lot of pitfalls. Well-analysed numbers can be just as effective, and by that i mean, you know, runs and wickets, the numbers that win cricket matches. With Sobers, for instance, you could take someone's word for it that he was better at bowling than the figures suggest. But when one points out that he played a lot when not as his peak, had to bowl using methods that weren't his most effective and was bowled into the ground in the team he played for, it's a lot more convincing. Certain players have an awe factor that leads many to have an inflated opinion of their actual cricketing ability. All of this has to be kept in mind when trying to compare players from before one's time.

 

[Ikki]

the 'now' generation if you didn't see it, it did not happen

I am surprised you trust your mum when she tells you your birthdate

Telling me my birthday would be a statement of fact. Things like comparing players is so subjective that it can be completely logical and possible to disagree on the same player.

 

[archie mac]

You don't ignore it. But as a means of deciding which player was best, it's open to a lot of pitfalls. Well-analysed numbers can be just as effective, and by that i mean, you know, runs and wickets, the numbers that win cricket matches. With Sobers, for instance, you could take someone's word for it that he was better at bowling than the figures suggest. But when one points out that he played a lot when not as his peak, had to bowl using methods that weren't his most effective and was bowled into the ground in the team he played for, it's a lot more convincing. Certain players have an awe factor that leads many to have an inflated opinion of their actual cricketing ability. All of this has to be kept in mind when trying to compare players from before one's time.

Telling me my birthday would be a statement of fact. Things like comparing players is so subjective that it can be completely logical and possible to disagree on the same player.

Sorry, but if every player who played with and against Viv Richards says that he was the best, then I think that should count for a lot more, then someone twenty years later inventing some silly stats, and then passing that of as fact