Who is the 2nd best Australian batsman of alltime?

[surendar]

Hayden struggled against South Africa before he was settled into world cricket but after he was settled he hammered the same bowlers around the park for years on end. Can you see a pattern?

same bowlers? Walsh and Ambrose were no more after 2001. And West Indies without those two is like a building with 1 pillar(of batsman) trying to stand. Few weeks back they were showing highlights of Aus Vs WI old matches. There only I saw this Hayden's struggle and thats why I told. But you denied that and thats why I had to go by stats which favored me during Walsh and Ambrose period.

First you stated that Hayden did not struggle, now you said after settling down..

Even I meant the same, from the end of 2001 Hayden was in his prime form for 6 solid years which I did not deny. Peak form for full 6 years and he was wonderful to watch especially when he walks down and smash. I never denied all these facts at the same time.

Tendulkar averages under 40 in the most difficult conditions in world cricket - South Africa, against Donald, Pollock, Steyn, etc. I suppose his overrated and wouldn't average over 40 in a bowler friendly era without a helmet. Maybe there is a pattern to this. Tendulkar struggled against McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Wasim & Waqar. Maybe Tendulkar can't play pace bowling? [/Sarcasim King Cricket]

I take that you have been really sarcastic there. : If you would have been real, then I pity that you have very poor knowledge on cricket. I still remember Wasim's words, " why this little man does it again on us? ". McGrath and Tendulkar has always been a classic battle. Tendulkar have dominated without any mercy during his prime forms.. I still remember the 6 which he came down the track against McGrath in one of the Champions trophies. However, one can never deny that McGrath had dominated Tendulkar in last stages though. How many tests you have watched with Donald bowling to Tendulkar? It was the time where India did a horrible performance(where India was allout within 100 in both the innings and SA would get 400+) and Tendulkar was the lonely run getter there. You speak as though you know A-Z of Sachin. Stop it when you are not aware of somethings.

Especially after 2003, Sachin went in bad shape for some time. I have never seen Sachin's hands shaking but it did while facing McGrath in last champions trophy It was the stage Sachin struck the purple patch because of injuries and many reasons, there Sachin went completely out of form. ( This was the period where Sachin spoke, I will never play a dominative role, I am going to change myself as per the situation )

Its too much annoying when some people speak crap with their limited knowledge.

Anyways it was my mistake to mention about Tendulkar. because, lets not make Sachin-Hayden thread. I was pointing about Hayden. But out of interest, as an extra information I provided about Sachin .. And immediately it turned out to be arguable debate. So lets not proceed anymore about Sachin.. He is best or he is crap or he is mediocre.. Lets not bother about all these in this thread. It's my request, Ben!

 

[nightprowler10]

Based what I have read and statistics, I'll have to go with Greg Chappell, although he's got some great competition with Ponting, Trumper, Ponsford, etc in the running.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I love how you try to make out that I turned this arguement into something else when it was you who instigiated it.

First you stated that Hayden did not struggle, now you said after settling down..

Putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying into something it's not. Real classy, surendar.

Hayden didn't struggle against the West Indies. He struggled in South Africa in the early stages of his career. I never changed my arguement saying that Hayden did actually struggle and was only good after 2001. What I meant was that Hayden started to dominate in International cricket after he was settled into world cricket. Not dominating doesn't mean struggling and the the myth that he struggled against the West Indies earlier on in his career is rubbish.

You must feel like a big man telling people on the forum that they don't watch cricket. Why would they join a cricket forum if they don't watch cricket? Tell me, surendar. I'm dying to know.

 

[Biggy]

How could you go past Mitchell Johnson? What a man.

 

[Gurjot95]

I voted for Steve Waugh

 

[surendar]

I love how you try to make out that I turned this arguement into something else when it was you who instigiated it.


Putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying into something it's not. Real classy, surendar.

Hayden didn't struggle against the West Indies. He struggled in South Africa in the early stages of his career. I never changed my arguement saying that Hayden did actually struggle and was only good after 2001. What I meant was that Hayden started to dominate in International cricket after he was settled into world cricket. Not dominating doesn't mean struggling and the the myth that he struggled against the West Indies earlier on in his career is rubbish.

You must feel like a big man telling people on the forum that they don't watch cricket. Why would they join a cricket forum if they don't watch cricket? Tell me, surendar. I'm dying to know.

With avg of 30, it's not a struggle? You had a word called " Just " for chanderpaul while comparing with KP for the same average 30 I am not contradicting Ben

I didn't say that you don't watch cricket. I asked how many of the matches you have watched with Y struggling against X when you made a confirming statement like Y struggles against X and Y doesnt know to handle X! If you are confiming it, definitely you would have witnessed it too. Thats why I asked how many of those you have evidenced?

Note : I mentioned X and Y because I don't want it to be Sachin-Hayden thread.

Anyways back to 2nd best,

Tell me Ben, in what way you feel that Hayden must be given a second best over Steve Waugh? Or in what way Steve Waugh has gone lower to Hayden? Tell me this.

Didn't he have right leadership skills? didn't he have pro batting skills? didn't he have exquisite handling skills as per match situations? didn't he have a perfect " Team Man " attitude in him? didn't he have fighting skills with tail ender and turing a match from nowhere? didn't he helped in many occassions with his handy bowling? What else did you find that this man doesn't deserve to be best?

I seriously expected that many people will go for Steve Waugh

 

[aussie_ben91]

With avg of 30, it's not a struggle? You had a word called " Just " for chanderpaul while comparing with KP for the same average 30 I am not contradicting Ben

We were comparing two players. As I said before, Chanderpaul played 12 games, Hayden played 3. What a coicindence that you ignored that little stat?

I didn't say that you don't watch cricket. I asked how many of the matches you have watched with Y struggling against X when you made a confirming statement like Y struggles against X and Y doesnt know to handle X! If you are confiming it, definitely you would have witnessed it too. Thats why I asked how many of those you have evidenced?

Note : I mentioned X and Y because I don't want it to be Sachin-Hayden thread.

Okay surendar, no one on this forum should argue anything unless they've watched every single detailed single of what they are talking about.

Anyways back to 2nd best,

Tell me Ben, in what way you feel that Hayden must be given a second best over Steve Waugh? Or in what way Steve Waugh has gone lower to Hayden? Tell me this.

Didn't he have right leadership skills? didn't he have pro batting skills? didn't he have exquisite handling skills as per match situations? didn't he have a perfect " Team Man " attitude in him? didn't he have fighting skills with tail ender and turing a match from nowhere? didn't he helped in many occassions with his handy bowling? What else did you find that this man doesn't deserve to be best?

I seriously expected that many people will go for Steve Waugh

Hayden was an opener. Steve Waugh was a lower-middle order batsman. Steve Waugh played 65 more Tests then Hayden and only scored 1 more 100. Opening Batsman face the new ball, when the ball is swinging, seaming and when the bowlers are fresh. Lower-middle order batsman face the old ball (even if they face the 2nd new ball, they usually have batted for 20 odd overs), when the ball is all ruined and when the bowlers are fatigued. Opening batsman also have the uneviable task of going out to bat for an hour at the end of the days play after fielding for a day of two (unless you are Virender Sehwag and send Rahul Dravid out there instead).

30 centuries in just 94 Tests. No one else has reached 30 Test centuries in as little Tests as Matthew Hayden. Not even Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[sifter132]

mate...hayden is not better than tendulkar...forget the stats...see the class...

You're confusing class for style my friend. A stylish batsman is not always better. Eg. Mark Waugh was classy as, but not as effective as his brother Steve who looked edgy and uncomfortable at the crease pretty well all the time. But he ground out runs.


As for Hayden not being good against West Indies early on - so what?? The Don wasn't good against Bodyline. Ponting has been dismissed regularly by Harbhajan. Every batsman has a hole somewhere or they would be averaging a massive amount.

I do think it's funny though that Matt Hayden's lowest averages are against Bangladesh and New Zealand. He's regarded as a minnow feaster, probably based on his 380 v Zimbabwe.

 

[surendar]

We were comparing two players. As I said before, Chanderpaul played 12 games, Hayden played 3. What a coicindence that you ignored that little stat?

3 test matches? When I searched, it showed me 8 test matches vs WI before 2001 and 15 test matches overall before 2001 For me alone, separate cric info came?

Okay surendar, no one on this forum should argue anything unless they've watched every single detailed single of what they are talking about.

arguable statement indeed has difference with confirming/conclusive statement.

Hayden was an opener. Steve Waugh was a lower-middle order batsman. Steve Waugh played 65 more Tests then Hayden and only scored 1 more 100. Opening Batsman face the new ball, when the ball is swinging, seaming and when the bowlers are fresh. Lower-middle order batsman face the old ball (even if they face the 2nd new ball, they usually have batted for 20 odd overs), when the ball is all ruined and when the bowlers are fatigued. Opening batsman also have the uneviable task of going out to bat for an hour at the end of the days play after fielding for a day of two (unless you are Virender Sehwag and send Rahul Dravid out there instead).

30 centuries in just 94 Tests. No one else has reached 30 Test centuries in as little Tests as Matthew Hayden. Not even Sachin Tendulkar.

So you mean to say, only those who knows to play new ball are better?

And if you can argue for new ball, I can also argue for old ball where it can spin a lots and Steve Waugh had indeed played spinners well. Spinners and seamers are both the strengths of bowling.

Plus, what about reverse swing with the old ball? Just because Hayden has dominated in new ball, & Steve Waugh dominated in old ball that too because he was a lower order batsman, you can rule Stevie out?

You do have to know that, pressure when comes to the lower order batsmen are immense than the openers. Openers come and hit or get out! As it goes down and down, and especially when you bat with tail(which Steve Waugh has done many many times), you need some extra-ordinary talent to convert that crisis scenario to driver-seat scenario.

And 100's! I seriously won't talk about 100's, because I don't understand why you see that 100's columns alone.


Attitude + mentality(in handling various pressure scenarios)+ leadership role + team member role + skills(where batting/bowling skills and here is where those 100's and highest run getters & all those come ) + dynamic factor + flexibility is how I generally rate a player.

As for Hayden not being good against West Indies early on - so what??

Definitely not a problem. But you have agreed not being good where the other person still supports he didn't struggle.

Probably, for other members who suddenly visits this thread won't understand what has been going on. Only myself and Ben will understand

 

[aussie_ben91]

3 test matches? When I searched, it showed me 8 test matches vs WI before 2001 and 15 test matches overall before 2001 For me alone, separate cric info came?

The attack that Hayden faced in 1997 had Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Ian Bishop. The attack Hayden faced in 2000 only had Courtney Walsh.

So you mean to say, only those who knows to play new ball are better?

I only rate top 4 batsman because if you are good enough to average over 50 but not bat in the top four then their will always be questions marks as far as I'm concerned. Waugh had great character, which probably overshadows his batting ability and made him more successful then what his talent levels could bare.

And if you can argue for new ball, I can also argue for old ball where it can spin a lots and Steve Waugh had indeed played spinners well. Spinners and seamers are both the strengths of bowling.

Plus, what about reverse swing with the old ball? Just because Hayden has dominated in new ball, & Steve Waugh dominated in old ball that too because he was a lower order batsman, you can rule Stevie out?

You do have to know that, pressure when comes to the lower order batsmen are immense than the openers. Openers come and hit or get out! As it goes down and down, and especially when you bat with tail(which Steve Waugh has done many many times), you need some extra-ordinary talent to convert that crisis scenario to driver-seat scenario.

And 100's! I seriously won't talk about 100's, because I don't understand why you see that 100's columns alone.

Well Steve Waugh wasn't a better player of spin then Matthew Hayden and how many bowlers get the ball to reverse swing? Not many. If anything, batting with the tail is more beneficial to you because it boosts your average with not outs.

I'm not ruling Steve Waugh out of anything. He was one of Australian's greatest ever cricketers, much like Matthew Hayden. You talk as if being compared to Hayden is a disgrace, which is rubbish. His one of the best-ever Opening Batsman of alltime. Open your eyes. If anything, I thought you'd be infavour of Hayden seeing as he dismantled your cricket team for the better part of a decade.

Attitude + mentality(in handling various pressure scenarios)+ leadership role + team member role + skills(where batting/bowling skills and here is where those 100's and highest run getters & all those come ) + dynamic factor + flexibility is how I generally rate a player.

Really? I rate players on how I see them and how much they impress me and I don't tick square boxes on a clipboard that I hold infront of me everytime I watch the cricket to make sure a specific cricketer forfils the requirements to be considerded 'great'.

 

[Aditya]

Steve waugh.

 

[shravi]

"forfils" lol, not even a word.

IMO Ricky Ponting with Matthew Hayden/Steve Waugh coming second. Damien Martyn, Justin Langer, Adam Gilchrist, Mark Waugh and Mike Hussey don't deserve to be on the list and Philip Hughes is just there for kicks. I don't care about the rest cause I haven't seen 'em play.

 

[usy]

Justin Langer all day.

Probably my favourite Australian batsman ever, and probably the Australian player I enjoyed watching the most during past years. I?ll most remember him for the great Perth innings againt Pakistan, was amazing against Shoaib Akhtar. Steve Waugh was the best Australian Batsman.

 

[sifter132]

Definitely not a problem. But you have agreed not being good where the other person still supports he didn't struggle.

Probably, for other members who suddenly visits this thread won't understand what has been going on. Only myself and Ben will understand

Yeah that's true, nothing like wacky arguments to get people to ignore a thread.

But honestly saying Hayden didn't struggle is a bit stupid. If he didn't struggle, why on earth did he only play 7 Tests in the 90s??? It's not as though he wasn't in form, he crashed runs for Queensland every year. He happened to be unlucky in those 7 Tests he got picked for - 3 v WI and Ambrose & Walsh and 4 v SA over in SA, which is a difficult place to open. I'm not excusing him, but it's pretty obvious his failures against good pace bowling turned the selectors off.

If you look at history, he was lucky to get most of those Tests too, since Matthew Elliott had wrecked his knee in the 2nd Test v WI in 96/97 after colliding with Mark Waugh. So Hayden was Elliott's replacement for 6 Tests and was dropped for the '97 Ashes.

Mark Taylor retired and Slater needed a partner, but they didn't turn to Hayden. Why?? Was he injured? No. Out of form? Not really, but he hadn't been dominant in 98/99 like other seasons. But if the selectors really liked him, surely they would pick him. However, the selectors were concerned he was a flat track bully, bashing Shield bowlers and not being able to handle international quality quicks as his 7 Tests had shown. So the selectors turned to Greg Blewett. Anyone remember that?? Blewett was the regular opener for all 1999, he averaged 35, but tailed off at the start of 2000 so M.Hayden finally got a Test v NZ.

Does this make Hayden less great because he couldn't beat out Slater, Taylor, Elliott and Blewett for the opening spot? But when he got his shot permanently in 2000/01, he took it really well and was dominant for a few years. It brings up a few questions: Does a batsman need to be very successful across his whole career, 10 years, 5 years, 1 year, 1 match?? How long does it take to judge greatness or decide who was 'best'??

 

[aussie_ben91]

Steve Waugh averaged only 36 after his first 50 Test matches. He wasn't always great.

Waugh believed that Hayden was a 50+ average batsman and he wanted Hayden in the team as soon as he took over the captaincy.

Obviously when you've got 2 established Opening Batsman averaging in the mid 40's then it is going to be extremely difficult to crack into any team, no matter how well you do in domestic cricket.