Matthew Hayden breaks another Australian record

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Does that make him a worse batsman than Bell who looks a million dollars but ends out being worth about 25 cents.

Hehe well said. Some go for superficialities ahead of substance though don't they (Rachel) All you can do when judging a batsman is compare him against his peers. When comparing Hayden against the pretty boys of world cricket such as Bell or Jayawardene, Hayden stands head and shoulders above them.

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Seamer

When comparing Hayden against the pretty boys of world cricket such as Bell or Jayawardene, Hayden stands head and shoulders above them.

Well said. Poor Matthew Hayden gets a raw deal from most sports media for no fault of his. Considering that he has scored nearly 8000 test runs including 27 centuries at an average of 53 per innings, he should be considered as a truly great batsman, something that Bell will never achieve. I recall that during the 2001 Ashes series, the arrogant English media desribed Hayden as little more than a 'boot filler'; that from a country where no Test batsman has equalled to Hayden's Test statistics in a sustained manner in over 35 years! Oh, I know that Strauss and Pietersen have done well over short periods, but what reflects a players true value is his his performance over the years.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

Poor Matthew Hayden gets a raw deal from most sports media for no fault of his.

Hayden can only play the opposition placed infront of him... and I'd concede that no Aussie batsman has suffered more doubters, in recent times, as folk have wondered about today's inflated averages: few dispute that ALL the current Aussie batsmen have averages 8-10 runs higher than they might have done in an earlier era.. but where many think Ponting would have thrived in ANY era... Hayden attracts doubters.

I think of him as a fortunate Hick: had Hick been batting in Hayden's timeframe (and against the limited opposition Hayden has faced) I think he'd also have averged 50+... but we all know what Hick actually managed after regular maulings by the top attacks of his era.. and I think Hayden would have done the same in Hick's place.

Bottom line: you could have sent the likes of Ponting and Martyn out with a lightweight bat from the 1950s and (as with Mark Waugh before them) it would have made little difference. Same with Jayawardene, Yousuf and many, many others. Take that ultra-modern bat from Hayden... and I reckon he'd have struggled to have anything like the same impact: he's been VERY reliant on short arm jabs, pushing hard on forward defensives and getting through / over the infield with thick edges... and would have had to work a LOT harder for the same rewards!

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hayden can only play the opposition placed infront of him... and I'd concede that no Aussie batsman has suffered more doubters, in recent times, as folk have wondered about today's inflated averages

Today's averages are NOT inflated. He is not getting any special runs added to his tally or bonus not outs.

You cannot compare averages across generations. You never could. You can only compare them amongst contemporaries.

I think of him as a fortunate Hick: had Hick been batting in Hayden's timeframe (and against the limited opposition Hayden has faced) I think he'd also have averged 50+... but we all know what Hick actually managed after regular maulings by the top attacks of his era.. and I think Hayden would have done the same in Hick's place.

As opposed to Hayden, Hick WAS a bully!

A first class bully.

When he stepped up to the big boys, he failed.

Drop him down to his comfort level and he started looking like a world class player.

That was not misfortune on Hick's part or fortune on Hayden's.

Just Hick's failure. Simple.

That does not need to be brought into any discussion of Hayden.

Bottom line: you could have sent the likes of Ponting and Martyn out with a lightweight bat from the 1950s and (as with Mark Waugh before them) it would have made little difference. Same with Jayawardene, Yousuf and many, many others. Take that ultra-modern bat from Hayden... and I reckon he'd have struggled to have anything like the same impact: he's been VERY reliant on short arm jabs, pushing hard on forward defensives and getting through / over the infield with thick edges... and would have had to work a LOT harder for the same rewards!

No. This is needless speculation brought in to, as per usual, cloud the argument.

You can't prove a single thing of what you've said in this paragraph but you still try to pass it off as fact. Saying "bottom line" doesn't make it true.

It's all wishful thinking.

So all these other guys, who score runs now along with Hayden in the same era of "inlfated" averages, would be able to play in the 1950s with a "lightweight" bat but not Hayden? Hmmm.......

My grandfather had a bat from the 50s once used by Worrell. I can assure you it was not lightweight.

You've used this "time travelling" argument to promote the charms of Carl Hooper, who though he had average to low success in his own time, would have miraculously been a bigger success if he had played earlier!

Hayden is one of the game's elite players. I don't believe he is a great but he is on the rung below that. His record DEMANDS that he be given that respect.

Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Malcolm Marshall (to name just five players) are greats of the game of cricket.

They are not great because they did what they did in 1947 or 1977 or 1997 etc..

They are great because of what they do.

Greatness in sport is about delivery and performance.

If you can do it and look good at the same time then they'll love you even more but doing it is what counts first and foremost.

At the tail end of his career, Hayden can look back at what he has ACHIEVED in the only timeframe he could achieve it in (i.e. his own reality and space in time!) and consider his career a huge success!!

[Nostromo]

QUOTE=Rachael I think of him as a fortunate Hick: had Hick been batting in Hayden's timeframe (and against the limited opposition Hayden has faced) I think he'd also have averged 50+... but we all know what Hick actually managed after regular maulings by the top attacks of his era.. and I think Hayden would have done the same in Hick's place

.
I am sorry, but I cannot agree to that assessment. IMO, Hick was and always will be a second-rate batsman whose status is reflected in his mediocre Test record. He is one of several players who could do well in the First Class arena but fail to make the next grade convincingly. Mark Ramprakash is another of the same genre.

Take that ultra-modern bat from Hayden... and I reckon he'd have struggled to have anything like the same impact: he's been VERY reliant on short arm jabs, pushing hard on forward defensives and getting through / over the infield with thick edges... and would have had to work a LOT harder for the same rewards!

Hayden has faced similar opposition to Ponting & Waugh, being more or less from the same era. As you say, he can only bat against what's in front of him. As long as he is getting results fair and square (which is a lot more than what some of his English counterparts can claim to be doing), it hardly matters what kind of bat he is using or the nature of his strokeplay.

By far the most awful batting technique that I have ever seen was that of Graham Gooch. Yet, the same people who criticise Hayden think of Gooch as demi-god, even though the latter's overall batting record is significantly inferior to that of the Australian.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

.IMO, Hick was and always will be a second-rate batsman [...] Mark Ramprakash is another of the same genre.

I always had doubts about Hick, tending to regard him as a bully, but I don't think his weaknesses were any greater than Hayden's... and I've no doubt Steve Waugh was completely right to think that had Hick moved to Australia rather than England... he'd have been a huge, huge success (rather as Hayden has been).

For starters... he'd not have had to face the Aussie attack!

Equating Hick with Ramps, however, makes no sense: Ramps was far, far more accomplished and sophisticated... and did NOT struggle against the best opposition. Hick always looked more likely to thrive when the going got easy and the opposition was weak... but Ramps (and this is the frustrating bit) was quite the reverse!

Ramps was one of the few England players EVER who could (with different management and captaincy) have been as accomplished as Dravid.

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ramps was far, far more accomplished and sophisticated...

I absolutely agree...a great dancer!! Pity he did not take that as a career.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ramps was one of the few England players EVER who could (with different management and captaincy) have been as accomplished as Dravid.

The brilliant Test average of 27.32 would say otherwise

[Quagmire]

One question if Hayden is only averaging 53+ because he is playing currently what does it say for ever other batsman in world cricket who average 40. Hayden could of walked into any side in the history of the game, his power doesn’t come from his bat have you ever seen him his is massive his chest and shoulders are bigger than most rugby players. Yes I would agree that his last hundred came against poor opposition, 153 at the MCG vs England.

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ramps was one of the few England players EVER who could (with different management and captaincy) have been as accomplished as Dravid.

Why stop there? With a different head, arms & legs maybe he could have been better than Dravid.