Hayden overated?

[Beny]

I thought I'd do some reserch to check out weather he had really feasted on lesser bowling or had he shown skill and prowess.
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2119;class=testplayer;fil ter=advanced;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;h omeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groun did=0;season=0;startdefault=1994-03-04;start=1994-03-04;enddefault=2005-08-28;end=2005-08-28;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule ddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recen t=;viewtype=aro_list;runslow=;runshigh=;batpositio n=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh= ;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wi cketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshi gh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow =;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewty pe


One of his most impressive tours was against SA in 2001 at home... Donald, Pollock, Hayward, Kalais. I know that some of these guys were in their twilight but it's still a decent effort to score a ton every match and then continue that form for the return leg in SA

Then he continued his good form against Pakistan with Younis, Aktar, Kanieria and Mushtaque

And smaking a ton against India in India is hardly a light feat either... The guy hardly broke a sweat.

So is he really overated?

[acker]

He is starting to reinforce the idea that some scientific experts and I have... performance dwindles with age.

Now if only the Australian selector's would come to this realization.

[Rachael]

The best post I've seen on Hayden is here

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.

[The Phantom Ram]

Originally Posted by Rachael

the model opener remains Boycott.

Can the player whose team mates felt the need to run him out so that they could win a test match rather than let it be drawn ever be classed as a 'model' opener? Very good and technically perfect perhaps but cricket is a team game and Boycott wasn't a team player.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Ram

Can the player whose team mates felt the need to run him out so that they could win a test match rather than let it be drawn ever be classed as a 'model' opener? .

But that only means he was not a match-winner, or a finisher - neither of those are an opener's primary or even secondary responsibility. As far as temperament, technique, ability and application go, Boycott was a model opener. His selfishness and his lack of team-work makes him a relatively poor cricketer (relative to what he could have been) but do not detract from his effectiveness as an opener, or from the general desirability of his approach, in at least one opening bat per team.

[The Phantom Ram]

I would say being a good team player comes very highly on the list of attributes for a model opener. I agree he was everything you say but feel strongly that a team ethic is very important.

[Ninjaman]

He's overrated if you believed he was one of the best openers ever.

He is not overrated if you just thought he was a good batsman (which he is) who made the best of his top form.

All the other stuff spoken about him is neither here nor there.

It just seems he is the acceptable person to criticise nowadays.

[Maranello]

Ninjaman, I think the doubts arise when people appraise him based on his average; his high average flatters him, and overstates his status amongst opening batsmen in an historical context. He is not necessarily over-rated, but certainly not the 'all-time great' his average suggests he might be. He is, as you say, a good batsman who made the most of his stregths, and like most other good batsmen, has some weaknesses.

[Zainub]

He ...made the best of his top form.

Yes, this is very true. And perhaps is some thing people are now not giving him credit for since saying "Australia haven't faced any quality bowling attacks" is everyone's favorite thing to say. Hayden is the only person in test cricket history to have scored more than 1000 runs in a calender year for 3 years in a row (2001, 2002, and 2003). This is testiment to the fact that he has huge, huge appetite for runs.

[The Phantom Ram]

Originally Posted by Zainub

Yes, this is very true. And perhaps is some thing people are now not giving him credit for since saying "Australia haven't faced any quality bowling attacks" is everyone's favorite thing to say. Hayden is the only person in test cricket history to have scored more than 1000 runs in a calender year for 3 years in a row (2001, 2002, and 2003). This is testiment to the fact that he has huge, huge appetite for runs.

And to the fact that far more test cricket is played in the modern game.