Hayden's 30

[Nostromo]

Matthew Hayden joined the select band of cricketers to have scored 30 or more Test centuries but unless I am mistaken, he is the first to do it in under 100 Tests. Whatever people say about his batting technique, this is no small achievement and cannot be dismissed by the same old (and boring) "flat track bully" nonsense. Well done.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

this is no small achievement and cannot be dismissed by the same old (and boring) "flat track bully" nonsense. Well done.

I'm in full agreement: Hayden has been effective... and whilst he's without question a bully... it's unfair to term him a "flat track" bully - Hayden's bullied bowlers even on more sporting wickets!

That doesn't mean I've suddenly started rating Hayden above (say) Taylor, Slater, Langer, Ponting, Clarke, Martyn or the Waugh brothers (amongst others)... but he's surely an "any track bully"

[acker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm in full agreement: Hayden has been effective... and whilst he's without question a bully... it's unfair to term him a "flat track" bully - Hayden's bullied bowlers even on more sporting wickets!
... but he's surely an "any track bully"

Keep a lid on it Rachael

The words Symonds and good might accidentally pop out in the same sentence.

[Warne]

Hayden's fantastic, but he's still the 2nd best batsman in the side, behind Ponting.

[Milo]

I do wish people would stop putting historical perspectives on modern day cricketers' achievements. Hayden, whilst clearly the leading opening batsman of the last ten years has played over 85 tests matches in a little over 7 years. One really should never talk about him being the 'xth' person to do something within a period of time. He has played more tests at peak than any other opening batsman in history and is therefore clearly going to have different figures than someone like Hutton (or many more) would played fewer tests in double the time.

Hayden has played over 75 tests at the five year peak - something that only players playing since 1990 have had the luxury of experiencing.

Other people's opinions may bore you Nostromo, but I'm surely not the only one who finds your continued repetition of points (I've read your justification of Kallis at least a dozen times on separate threads) rather tiresome.

For me, there is still a huge question over Hayden's consistency away from the lovely batting pitches of Australia. At home, he is without question a very very impressive batsman but he still fails to convince me that he is the complete player when going elsewhere.

[sanketh84]

well he does seem to like the indian bowlers and conditions fairly well Milo, i cant comment too much on his performance in england with the swinging ball but then i think most aussies have a trouble with that and evidence is India's win in perth when the ball swings. taking nothing away from the people of the past like hutton as u quoted, i do feel the modern day cricketers are under much more pressure to perform, they have much more games to play and much more stakes involved, every missed chance is scrutinized. so its not fair to take away credit from modern day cricketers for their records. u talk about people in the past playing fewer tests in double the time so u have to factor in fatigue and recovery times of the modern day cricketer. if u see teams like india, pakistan, england and australia literally have no offseason, which makes it difficult to keep fitness and recover from injuries, how often have we seen players injured and someone else steal the thunder and it gets difficult to get back into the team and play again leave alone creating records. can u believe with all the cricket that australia and india play that adam gilchrist and dravid share the record of playing 96 tests continously without a break? dont u think thats a remarkable feat? hitting 30 centuries in less than a 100 tests is no mean feat my friend, it means a century almost every 3 games and that to me hands down is amazing consistency and its gotta be on all kinds of pitches. i disagree with u my friend, a modern day cricketer deserves as much respect as the guys in the past.

[Quagmire]

Hayden has been a blessing for Australian cricket for a long time.

94 tests, 167 innings, 8242 runs at 53.52, Hs 380, 30x100, 27x50

He has made hundreds against everyone.

England - 197, 153, 138, 103 & 102
ICC World XI - 111
India - 203, 136, 124, 123, 119 & 103
New Zealand - 136
Pakistan - 119
South Africa - 138, 137, 131, 122, 105 & 102
Sri Lanka - 132, 130 & 117
West Indies - 177, 125, 118, 110 & 100*
Zimbabwe - 380 & 101*

His average test hundred 136.

He has never made a test pair and has only made 11 ducks. Along with 121 catches, 4 in one innings and 7 in a match, he is one of the best slips fieldsmen in the modern era.

How many cricketers have 30 centuries in test cricket, in under 100 tests. He will be second only to Ricky Ponting in test centuries for Australia. An amazing cricketer

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by sanketh84

i do feel the modern day cricketers are under much more pressure to perform, they have much more games to play and much more stakes involved, every missed chance is scrutinized. so its not fair to take away credit from modern day cricketers for their records. u talk about people in the past playing fewer tests in double the time so u have to factor in fatigue and recovery times of the modern day cricketer. if u see teams like india, pakistan, england and australia literally have no offseason, which makes it difficult to keep fitness and recover from injuries, how often have we seen players injured and someone else steal the thunder and it gets difficult to get back into the team and play again leave alone creating records. hitting 30 centuries in less than a 100 tests is no mean feat my friend, it means a century almost every 3 games and that to me hands down is amazing consistency and its gotta be on all kinds of pitches. i disagree with u my friend, a modern day cricketer deserves as much respect as the guys in the past.

Agreed on all counts Sanketh. The problem is that some people are biased to the extent that they would be prepared to place cricketers with modest to good records (like Vaughan, Gower etc) over those with better ones like Hayden or Kallis simply based on technique and maybe other factors. I agree that batting technique is important, but if a player is able to perform well enough with his unconventional approach, then so be it. At the end of the day, results are what make the difference to winning and losing and not just a wonderful technique. Trying to make a non-entity of Hayden simply based on some patronising opinions is quite common in certain parts of the world and not worth arguing over. That's why I posted this in the Oz forum.

[Milo]

Surely you posted it in the Australian forum because he is an Australian batsman! If you agree with the previous person's post on all accounts, I find it very bewildering that you also believe that modern cricketers play much more circket. They may well play more test cricket, which was my point, but there is no way they actually play more cricket. In addition, modern training and medicine have made the points about injury completely spurious.

It is comments like 'He will be second to Ricky Ponting in test centuries for Australia' that makes me wonder. What exactly is this meant to mean/prove? (apart from a numerical fact) In fifty years time, I am sure that Hayden's records will look statistically as unimpressive as those of 50 years ago now. I've said Hayden was the best opening batsman of his generation, but still people think I devalue his achievements (apparently because I come from a certain part of the world - which part out of interest???). It is the historical comparisons of players who played under different conditions, different opposition and often with different rules that often surprises me - for they are always argued through with simple selective statistical analysis. Next thing, people will start telling me that Marcus Trescothick is as good an opening batsman as Gordon Greendige because they both average about 44.

[greg]

One surprising thing about Hayden is the fact that he has only passed 150 on 5 occasions out of the 30 times he has got a hundred.I would have thought he would do it more often than that.

Perhaps he gets bored?