Why was Hayden's peak calculated this way. Taking his peak starting in February 2001 and finishing mid 2008 gives him an average of 58 with 29 hundreds and 25 50s. Surely that's a more representative peak than 2000-2003 (16 hundreds at 65). Heck, even if you make his peak 2001-mid 2004 you capture 19 hundreds at an average of 67.
Yes but Smith hasn't moved much. Sehwag gained some points and Hayden lost a few points. Australian bowling attack in Hayden's time was vastly superior even to the second best. So the no. of innings played against Aus is a major factor in the average quality of bowling faced.
Peak is best 4 complete years. And there are no points for no. of hundreds. A 90 & 10 carries the same value as a 100 & 0 in this system.
How can 00-03 be better than 01-04 though?
His 00-03 average is higher than 01-04.
Not for long. Will return to mean by January.
Must be his cooking peak
Yeah, it's a bit of a statistical quirk - Hayden averaged comfortably more in 2004 than in 2000, but in both years averaged a lot less than he did 2001-2003. And because he only played a handful of Tests in 2000, the much larger sample size in 2004 had a bigger negative impact on the four-year average.