Hayden out of World Cup squad?

[Rachael]

I woke to hear Ian Chappell on the radio this morning... and he was saying something along the lines of "the longer this goes on the more time Matthew Hayden is getting to play himself out of a World Cup spot": he reckoned Hayden's lack of form is too poor so close to the tournament.

[greg]

Wouldn't Watson be the replacement opener though and he is unfit so Hayden may sneak in the back door.

An out of form Hayden is still better than anything we have up top.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by greg

An out of form Hayden is still better than anything we have up top.

Hayden's last 20 innings (not including Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or Ireland) have resulted in just four significant knocks (of 40 or more): contributions of 49, 54, 71 and 114. He's averaged 30.78.

Vaughan's been taking flak but in his last 20 games (same basis) he's posted 7 significant knocks: 42, 44*, 57, 59, 70, 74, 86. He's also managed a better average (31.88).

Strauss has just been ina rotten run... but even he tops Hayden's recent form with 6 significant knocks: 45, 50, 50, 56, 74*, 78.. and yes, his average of 31.94 over those matches is better than Hayden's.

Bell's been taking flak but in his last 20 games (same basis) he's posted 9 significant knocks: 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 50, 77, 86*, 88. He actually averages 35.84 over those last 20 knocks... STACKS better than Hayden's recent 30.78.

That's England's preferred openers... all doing better than Hayden!!!

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I woke to hear Ian Chappell on the radio this morning... and he was saying something along the lines of "the longer this goes on the more time Matthew Hayden is getting to play himself out of a World Cup spot":

I heard that too, and thought at the time that I didn't think Hayden was in "bad" form, just in a slight slump. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hayden not only go to the World Cup, but be an influential part of Australia's campaign.

[Ninjaman]

Ah, back to criticising Matthew Hayden.

Things are returning to normal!!

Hayden has proven over time that he is better than all three players mentioned. Michael Vaughan is not fit at present to be compared as a ODI player to Hayden. That he and Bell are yet to register a 100 in ODIs says much.

An average of 31.88 is higher than one of 30.78 but in reality it means nothing. To say one is doing BETTER is folly.

If Hayden was English the opening spot in ODIs would and should be his.

If an acknowledgement of a lack of form can be extended to Strauss, why not Hayden too?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

If an acknowledgement of a lack of form can be extended to Strauss, why not Hayden too?

I was merely responding to Greg's suggestion that "An out of form Hayden is still better than anything we have up top": that's not to deny Hayden's in-form prowess as a ODI batsman... but it puts in perspective all the wittering about England's squad.

If Hayden, despite all the competition from great Aussie batsmen, can retain a place in the all-conquering Aussie side whilst performing at the same level as Vaughan and Strauss... the notion that a similarly-performing Vaughan and Strauss should be axed seems a little off.

That's all incidental though: I was more interested in hearing Aussie perspectives on Chappell's comment.

[Seamer]

I agree with you Ninjaman. Hayden is a matchwinner and would make it into any other team in the world. But the others are correct that their is some pressure beginning to build on Hayden from the likes of Watson and Jacques.

At the end of the day though, experience is crucial - particularly in the high pressure situation of WC finals, so i expect Hayden to be in the West Indies come march.

As for Chappelle - he often has an agenda, and has never liked Mathew Hayden. I will never forget him describing Hayden's maiden test century against the West Indies (Adelaide 1997) as "the worst century i have ever seen"

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

As for Chappelle - he often has an agenda, and has never liked Mathew Hayden. I will never forget him describing Hayden's maiden test century against the West Indies (Adelaide 1997) as "the worst century i have ever seen"

Maybe he's just a good judge of batting and knows a flat track bully when he sees one

[Ninjaman]

Strangely enough all the other teams in the world would kill to have a player score over 7700 runs in just 89 matches with 27 Test centuries at an average of 53.

And weirder than that is, after you've compiled such a record. A record that puts you in such an elite group, you'd think that somewhere along the line you'd gain a little bit of respect.

The constant sniping at Hayden (a phenomena not confined to this board I add) amazes me sometimes.

Maybe he should have scored about 2500-3000 runs less than he has, about a dozen less centuries and -10 on his average.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Seamer

As for Chappelle - he often has an agenda, and has never liked Mathew Hayden.

Trust Seamer to defend a fellow Queenslander