Matthew Hayden

[Captain Sensible]

Have to admit I was wrong about him. I had him down as a flat track Wally who didnt have the footwork to succeed at the top level.


How wrong was I?

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by localyokel
Have to admit I was wrong about him. I had him down as a flat track Wally who didnt have the footwork to succeed at the top level.


How wrong was I?

What he showed at Shield level over the years was that he could murder average bowling attacks. Unfortunately for world cricket, most countries these days have average bowling attacks.

Averaged 60-odd for his first few years in First Class cricket, so even if he was a bit of a flat track bully, he was still a class above most of the blokes he played against & with.

Still, you can only beat who you come up against, and he has done that above the expectations of most.

 

[Becker]

Originally posted by localyokel
Have to admit I was wrong about him. I had him down as a flat track Wally who didnt have the footwork to succeed at the top level.


How wrong was I?

Nice to hear someone else admit it. I didn't think Hayden was good enough either. To be fair to both of us, he's put in a lot of work over the past 2-3 years, and has improved a lot.
I used to rate Elliott a better opening bat than Hayden ... not any more.

 

[DaveW]

Hayden was a most underrated player throughout the nineties and was most unfortunate to see Slater get a Test spot ahead of him.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

The only thing Hayden ever lacked at International level was a bit of self belief. He wasn't aided by the poor faith shown in him by the Aussie selectors for many a year and now that he's been given the extended chance and has grown into a confident man many a person around the country's probably done an about face on him.
It's good to see some people openly declaring they were wrong on the matter. We all have our opinions and being man enough to admit in hindsight that they were flawed shows plenty of character

 

[DaveW]

Towards the end of the 200 Seasons of Australian Cricket book, there's this piece from the 1996-97 season:

"Hobart, Nov 18. Mark Ray in the Sunday Age wrote of the Australian XI first innings against a depleted West Indian attack: 'Watching Matthew Elliott and Matthew Hayden together was to see why the former will play plenty of Test matches and the latter, despite mountains of runs, might only play one.'"

To that I say bwahahahahahahahaha

 

[bunsen burner]

I used to rate Elliott and Blewett. Blewett has used up his chances (46 tests @ 35), and Elliott would be worth another shot, but his current form, along with his age make it highly unlikely. Let's say Langer has 4 bad tests in a row and the selectors want to replace him for the Windies tour. I would say Jimmy Maher has a mortgage on the next opening position. Things can change very quickly, but I think the selectors would want to go with someone who is under 28-29.