aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
Those statistics are decieving because Hayden played way past his best whilst Langer retired at his best following the 5-0 whitewash of England.Sorry my friend, but Langer doesn't deserve that slight. You list Hayden as one of the top 5 batsmen, but check his record compared to Langer in the 2000s. Ain't much difference - apart from the fact that Hayden made more runs cause he played longer. Also I didn't include runs against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe which discounts Hayden's 380, but honestly it really should be discounted. He showed good stamina, but it certainly wasn't a difficult innings.
Hayden:
90 Tests,
7695 runs,
HS: 203 v India, 2001,
Average: 50.96,
Strike Rate: 59.87
100s: 27, 50s: 27 (100 every 3.33 Tests)
Langer:
60 Tests,
4993 runs,
HS: 250 v England 02/03
Average: 50.43
Strike Rate: 58.92
100s: 16, 50s: 17 (100 every 3.75 Tests)
Everyone thinks Langer's pretty average, but it's only because he averaged 40 in the 90s when he batted at #3 and because he's an 'ugly' batsman. And interestingly he's scored almost as quickly as Hayden in the 00s, another commonly held misconception of Langer - slow and stodgy.
I'm not a Langer fan really, just trying to keep everyone educated:
Hayden was always way better then Langer (even Langer would agree - He thinks Hayden's the best opener ever) but despite Hayden being way better that doesn't that Langer still isn't the best Opener after Hayden from this decade.
