View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-09-2005, 08:24 AM in reply to Beny's post "Hayden overated?"
Rachael Rachael is offline
Administrator
WAT selector
Selector-World XI (1980 onwards)
(ENG-captain) Passed Mike Atherton's 7728 Test runs
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Norfolk
My main national team: None - I support cricket in general
Posts: 7,835
The best post I've seen on Hayden is here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatman
Hayden success - in my opinion only - was built because he had an unusual gift for upsetting bowlers. Bowlers like to have a plan and stick to it. Haydens batting - and his mouth and general demeanour - got under thier skin, the bowlers would deviate from thier strategy to try and compensate and no on-your-feet plan can match one that has been throught out with all due care an attention before the match started.
Goatman's point was that such an approach only works until the coaches and analysts are able to prepare bowlers properly for the attempted onslaught.. then it sucks :-)

I'd add that the "flat track bully" tag doesn't detract from some admirable strengths: Hayden clearly has it in him to do as Smith does and just switch off between deliveries and remain focussed even when the 200th delivery is coming at him.. and has the discipline to play within himself so as to build huge innings... and has an approach that does at least work for him.

The first down side is technical: he is overwhelmingly a front foot player.. and at 6' 4" he's used to being able to get over more balls than many shorter colleagues (and by positioning himself in front of the creaase and getting in a good stride he's maximised his odd on that front)... but he clearly ain't good when folk push him back.. and when faced with back of a length, swinging deliveries (conventional or reverse) he is just not able to do what great back foot players like Thorpe might do and play it very late, making an allowance for lateral movement.

The second down side, I think, is temperamental: I just don't think he's got the game fror a genuine Test innings. Sure, when Australia were under no pressure and could just play a Test innings as if it was an extended ODI workout he could be devastating... but the moment you face a quality attack that demands respect.. the moment defeat becomes a realistic prospect.. the moment the fall of wickets demands that you consolidate.. the moment a match situation swings such that not losing becomes the only really attainable goal... he ain't worth having.

Bottom line.... when you play quality opposition the most important skill for any player (and especialy an opener) remains the ability to leave the ball... and to do so consistently without losing your touch...because there will be more balls that deserve respect than poor balls... and it's consistently leaving balls alone that tempts bowlers to put the ball where you want it (on the stumps).

Australia's dominance against poor sides might have been based on something else... but this series has shown that nothing's actually changed when it comes to proper Test opening: the model opener remains Boycott.

Last edited by Rachael : 05-09-2005 at 08:50 AM.