Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[Bracken]

Good call nate-d, Hayden is the master of the pre-medicated 6 atm

The master of the pre-medicated six? Wouldn't that be Shoaib bowling an over?

 

[Prince EWS]

The master of the pre-medicated six? Wouldn't that be Shoaib bowling an over?

Haha, quite scathing, but gold all the same.

*nominates for Skull*

 

[thierry henry]

Eh ? i don't get what you are asking. Obviously not everyone has the same exact set of opportunities and variables, especially if they begin their careers several years apart. They peak at different times, against different players, etc etc.

I view cricket excellence in terms of 'what are the pluses and minuses you bring to the table overall'.
The simple fact is when Tendulkar or Lara hit their peak, bowlers like Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Pollock and Vaas were going around on pitches harder to bat on.
When Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, etc. hit their peaks, more than half those bowlers were gone or nearing retirement and thus far lesser players plus pitches are easier to bat on these days.
Regardless of what the justification is, the bottomline is top 10 bowlers against whom Tendulkar hit his peak are way way way better than top 10 bowlers these guys hit their peaks against.

I was asking for harder (statistical, I suppose) proof that Hayden and co had actually specifically failed against tough attacks, and Lara/Tendulkar had succeeded against them. I suppose you're happy with broad generalisations.

Cricket is a team game- a loss or a win shouldn't hurt player's credibilities and the very fact that cricket rankings have taken that into consideration in personal rankings show that its amatuer in its concept. And no, not all the stats or wins count equally. A world cup win is more important than VB series win. A win in Australia against Australia is worth more than winning vs Zimbabwe in your backyard. Same goes with personal performances.

I think i've answered your question- with the effective backing of one of the greatest sportsmen ever ( yes, Grestsky = Bradman of hockey) as to why performance against the best of the best count for more than performance against mediocres.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that losing to Zimbabwe is therefore WORSE than losing to Australia. Therefore, performing in these games DOES matter. The players who fail to perform against these teams risk contributing to a humiliating defeat, just like a player who performs against Australia is praised for possibly contributing to a great victory.

Individual and team performances do not always correlate exactly, but helping the team cause is the fundamental reason for playing the game. You can't say that performances against poor teams don't matter, because poor performances against poor teams can put you in the ****, and good performances can save a team from embarrassment.

Furthermore, good performances against good teams can be a pointless exercise in a beaten team.

 

[Perm]

At this point in time, Matthew Hayden is the best batsman in the world...

There...I've said it

Ponting for me, no comparison as far as I'm concerned.

Never really been a fan of Hayden, I think I've mentioned this in another thread. I prefer watching him bat in Test's though, because he is less likely to use the incredibly ugly slog over mid-on/midwicket which I find so hard to watch when he is playing ODI's.

 

[Ikki]

This is the reason McGrath picks Lara and Tendulkar as the top batsmen of their generation, not Ponting or Hayden.

You mean besides not having to faced them - since they play in the same team?

You make a mockery out of the intelligence on the board. We already went through a thread dissecting Tendulkar's achievements. There is no need for generalisations.

You say we judge a player by playing the best. Well, apart from Australia, S.A. are the best one day squad and they got walloped by Hayden. He's had 3 of the best one-day innings anyone could hope to achieve in the spain of a couple months, how can you even doubt him? (that was rhetorical).

 

[pasag]

Ponting for me, no comparison as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah Ponting easily for me as well.

 

[Fiery]

Ponting for me

yep, nice rebuttal

 

[C_C]

Well, apart from Australia, S.A. are the best one day squad and they got walloped by Hayden. He's had 3 of the best one-day innings anyone could hope to achieve in the spain of a couple months, how can you even doubt him? (that was rhetorical).

South Africa today = 1/2 South Africa in the 96-2002 period.

 

[thierry henry]

South Africa today = 1/2 South Africa in the 96-2002 period.

Pollock is a better bowler now imo, just look at his ODI ranking

 

[Ikki]

I view cricket excellence in terms of 'what are the pluses and minuses you bring to the table overall'.
The simple fact is when Tendulkar or Lara hit their peak, bowlers like Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Pollock and Vaas were going around on pitches harder to bat on.

He may have faced them, but he did poorly against them. So there goes that theory out the window. Again, Ambrose didn't bowl to Sachin pre-Ponting. Warne was crap back then and so was Murali. Pollock debuted the same time as Ponting and Donald owned India. Only Walsh could have been said to be gotten the better of. The rest, nope.

When Ponting, Hayden, Kallis, etc. hit their peaks, more than half those bowlers were gone or nearing retirement and thus far lesser players plus pitches are easier to bat on these days.
Regardless of what the justification is, the bottomline is top 10 bowlers against whom Tendulkar hit his peak are way way way better than top 10 bowlers these guys hit their peaks against.

Yet Tendulkar is having trouble against the same crappy bowlers. Here we go again...

Cricket is a team game- a loss or a win shouldn't hurt player's credibilities and the very fact that cricket rankings have taken that into consideration in personal rankings show that its amatuer in its concept. And no, not all the stats or wins count equally. A world cup win is more important than VB series win. A win in Australia against Australia is worth more than winning vs Zimbabwe in your backyard. Same goes with personal performances.

How do you rate a 130 in the World Cup final against India? Or scoring a World Cup century in record time?

I think i've answered your question- with the effective backing of one of the greatest sportsmen ever ( yes, Grestsky = Bradman of hockey) as to why performance against the best of the best count for more than performance against mediocres.

I think you've mixed apples and oranges.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting's comfortably the best batsman in the world today. Hayden's not even close. In sensational touch, though.

 

[Ikki]

South Africa today = 1/2 South Africa in the 96-2002 period.

Yet they're the 2nd best side in the world? Does that penny seem to drop? Being the "best" is just relative. Hayden has done it against the best in front of him. You're trying to denigrate his performances by not only generalising his era and comparing them with a decade or two ago, but by not even giving him credit in his own era.

 

[Fiery]

Ponting's comfortably the best batsman in the world today. Hayden's not even close. In sensational touch, though.

I'm sure even Ponting himself would admit that Haydos is...hell, Steve Waugh even said Justin Langer was the best batsman in the world at one stage

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not all that keen on getting into another Ponting debate here, but it is worth noting that Ponting's early period he didn't actually struggle against any of the "great" bowlers of the time. Against the Windies, South Africa, Pakistan etc he had a fine record from his debut through to 2000 or so. It was against teams like New Zealand and England that he struggled, and his record suffered accordingly.

The point here is that you have to look at a player's record in a bit more detail than just generalising about the era in which he played. For instance, Michael Slater had a very good record in the 90s when fast bowling was at a peak, but he rarely made big runs against the great seam attacks, he just belted England around and was inconsistent against everyone else. Ponting was more or less the opposite in the early part of his career. He was a good but not a great batsman, but generally performed better against the likes of Ambrose and Wasim than the likes of Gough.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm sure even Ponting himself would admit that Haydos is...hell, Steve Waugh even said Justin Langer was the best batsman in the world at one stage

What's that got to do with it? There's no way you can be serious with this argument really. Ponting's made around 10 centuries in his last 15 or so tests, and has averaged around 70 odd in the last 4 or 5 years. In ODIs Hayden wasn't even in the Australian team six months ago because he got dropped for poor performance, while Ponting's a realistic contender for an all-time world XI.

Hayden's in good form, but he's not the best batsman in the world. Dravid, Kallis, Pietersen etc are better too.

 

[C_C]

I was asking for harder (statistical, I suppose) proof that Hayden and co had actually specifically failed against tough attacks, and Lara/Tendulkar had succeeded against them. I suppose you're happy with broad generalisations.

Hayden bombed utterly when he played against decent attacks on decent pitches in the 90s.
(pre 2001, Hayden : 528 runs @ 26.40).

Someone who saw Hayden bat during those days said that Hayden was essentially the same batsman but played as if he lacked confidence. I had the same impression- but its not rocket science why. When you don't have any backfoot play to speak of and you gotto actually face good opening bowlers on decent pitches, you have to be mad not to lack confidence.

I dunno if you watched cricket in the 90s- but there is absolutely no question that bowling attacks and pitch quality were far harder for batsmen to deal with than they are in the 2000s. Australia, India, South Africa, Pakistan,West Indies and even England had a better attack in the 90s ( Gough-Caddick-Fraser were around and doing decently for helluva lot longer than Jones-Flintoff-Giles-Harmy-Hoggy) and New Zealand were about on-par to what they are today (since Bond doesnt really play more than 1 outta 5 games).

This makes runs made by Lara/Tendulkar/Steve Waugh much more valuable than runs made by Ponting, Hayden, Dravid, Sehwag.

Once you start to take into consideration such factors as batting under pressure, batting with the team collapsing around you, chasing ludicrously high totals, etc, it becomes obvious that the former group is significantly better than the latter.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that losing to Zimbabwe is therefore WORSE than losing to Australia. Therefore, performing in these games DOES matter. The players who fail to perform against these teams risk contributing to a humiliating defeat, just like a player who performs against Australia is praised for possibly contributing to a great victory.

Individual failure against weak teams mean less because on average, a strong team will beat a really weak one 9 times out of 10 and a LOT more players will put their hands up.
For eg, Sobers didnt really bother doing much against the dibbly-dobbly Kiwi attacks of his day but his failures mattered not since many others made up for it. Same with Gillchrist's spotty record against India in tests. But against stronger teams, your success/failure plays a much more crucial role to the team's fortunes. Therefore, greats are evaluated in terms of what they did against the best of the best.

Anyways, maybe you should argue this with Gretsky and almost all professional sportsmen i've run across who'd trade their collective records for a more dominating performance against the best of the best.

 

[Ikki]

Actually, I retract saying Tendulkar did poorly. He was just inconsistent and didn't really match the class in bowling. I think that's a fair statement.

 

[C_C]

Yet they're the 2nd best side in the world? Does that penny seem to drop? Being the "best" is just relative.

Not relative. Its also empiric.
In a post-nuclear holocaust world, where cricket is played by spastic people and lepers, the second best or best side is really an irrelevant benchmark.

Sorry if i have to use extreme examples to drill some sense in your head.

I think i've already explained why being the best in relative terms for your era is utterly meaningless without an empiric benchmark.

 

[C_C]

He may have faced them, but he did poorly against them.

False.

Again, Ambrose didn't bowl to Sachin pre-Ponting.

Tendulkar = averaged 57 in Ambrose's own backyard. Ponting = umm. nowhere close.
Case closed, really.

Warne was crap back then and so was Murali

False. Read my quote again. I am comparing the peaks of Tendulkar and Ponting and seeing who the top bowlers and how easy batting was when they hit those peaks.

How do you rate a 130 in the World Cup final against India?

It was okay. Seen several dozen better one-day innings, really.

I think you've mixed apples and oranges.

And i think you won't see sense even if an alltime great sportsman categorically tells you why/how performance against best of the best is the benchmark for alltime greats, not bashing weak mediocre opposition.

 

[Ikki]

Not relative. Its also empiric.
In a post-nuclear holocaust world, where cricket is played by spastic people and lepers, the second best or best side is really an irrelevant benchmark.

Sorry if i have to use extreme examples to drill some sense in your head.

I think i've already explained why being the best in relative terms for your era is utterly meaningless without an empiric benchmark.

I think you have to drill some sense into your own head. You've explained nothing, you've generalised - shotty generalisations at that.

The difference between this era and last is probably an avg of 5 runs when looking at the respective players' careers. It still can't ignore the consistent and dominant century making of players like Ponting or Hayden.