Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[silentstriker]

Again, so? And Sidhu didn't do much apart from that 201, and most of that wasn't against Walsh and Ambrose I think.

 

[Ikki]

Again, so?

What do you mean so? If it were only two players hammering them around, having the best of them, that's one thing and they could take care of the rest. But when 4 batsmen are clearly having it good, it's not so much Tendi's pre-2000 class oozing through. Anyway, I already said I don't mean to say that the job was easy. But at their best, Walsh and, certainly, Ambrose were not.

 

[silentstriker]

But there weren't four players. Only two, Sidhu had only one good innings and five horrible ones, and Jadeja played only two innings and failed in one of them.

 

[Ikki]

1st test:

Walsh - 73 runs for 1 wicket.
Amrose - 35 runs for 0 wickets.

2nd test:

Walsh - 80 runs for 1 wicket.
Amrose - 94 runs for 5 wickets.

3rd test:

Walsh - N/A
Amrose - 110 runs for 5 wickets.

4th test:

Walsh - 37 runs for 1 wicket.
Amrose - 26 runs for 0 wickets.

5th test:

Walsh - 62 runs for 1 wicket.
Amrose - 36 runs for 0 wickets.

 

[Ikki]

But there weren't four players. Only two, Sidhu had only one good innings and five horrible ones, and Jadeja played only two innings and failed in one of them.

So? Anyone can play two innings, score a century in one and a duck the other. The average is 50. Scoring about 20 in all your innings and then a double century is still notable. It still contributes to the large tally of runs conceded by Windies bowlers.

Even though Sidhu played 1 less test match than Tendulkar, he only scored 13 less runs overall. And Jadeja with 2 innings is at a 104.

 

[silentstriker]

So? Anyone can play two innings, score a century in one and a duck the other. The average is 50. Scoring about 20 in all your innings and then a double century is still notable. It still contributes to the large tally of runs conceded by Windies bowlers.

But in a five test match series, he played two innings. So you think the average means anything?

 

[Ikki]

But in a five test match series, he played two innings. So you think the average means anything?

Read the above.

 

[silentstriker]

Read the above.

Sidhu's scores: 10, 0, 201, 26, 3, 36. He was hardly dominating the West Indies bowlers. He had one career best innings amidst being pretty horrible. Good for him. And regardless of what you say, playing two innings in a five test match series is not enough to make any type of judgment.

Only two players were consistently good in West Indies. Sorry, but thats the way it was.

 

[Swervy]

No, not underrated- heavily, heavily overrated.

Hayden doesnt face any good pacer today (save for Bond) who'd make him pay for being the front-foot bully.

Against quality opening bowling, openers *MUST* be excellent on the backfoot- not a front-foot bully like Hayden.

I mean seriously - does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that his front-foot bashfest would've ended horribly if he tried that against Wasim,Waqar, Curtly, Walsh, Donald, etc ?

He is just cashing in on namby-pamby bowling that cannot force him on the backfoot with their speed and bounce (bowled with accuracy ofcourse).

In my opinion, Hayden is the most overrated cricketer ever- i don't see him averaging more than 35 in tests and barely 30 in ODIs if he were to play in any other era- because Hayden is nothing more than a slightly taller and buffer version of Srikkanth (another exclusive front-foot bully opener). We all know how his career went when real bowlers were around.

give it a rest CC, Hayden is so obviously better than Srikkanth was its not funny

 

[Swervy]

I don't think anyone's said he wasn't capable of the 3 consecutive astonishing innings we've seen from him in his last 3 ODIs. It's certainly surprised me that anyone would manage to pull-off such a feat, however.

Such things don't, obviously, change the fact that he was never that good at ODIs for much of his career - he's made several massive scores and had about 3 shortish bouts of impossibly big scoring. He's also, of course, cashed-in big-time on the substandard sides. Otherwise, in his other however-many-it-is games, he's not been anything remotely special.

As to Tests, I've said it a million times - Hayden is not a capable player of seam and swing, specifically back into the left-hander. Anyone prepared to take him seriously as a genuine modern great, because of his ability to relentlessly pound average bowling to a better extent than most, overrates him as far as I'm concerned. I've always said had he been born 5 years earlier (and hence been too old by the time the bowling standards dropped to the paucity levels they dropped to in 2001\02 to have any recall in that period) he'd almost certainly have no Test career to speak of - probably between 10 and 20 games averaging between 20 and 30. About the same as a Graeme Wood or Andrew Hilditch.

and whilst I agree with quite a bit of what you are saying, I would say that he is quite a way ahead of the likes of Wood and Hilditch. One thing is for sure, if those two were playing now, they ouldnt be averaging over 50.

 

[Ikki]

Sidhu's scores: 10, 0, 201, 26, 3, 36. And regardless of what you say, playing two innings in a five test match series is not enough to make any type of judgment.

Judgement of what? That the Windies bled runs? To score a double ton as opener says enough about the attack. Looking at the scorecards, it was Rose who took most of the higher-order wickets, then probably Bishop. Funny that one of the few higher-order wickets Ambrose gets was Sidhu who was at 201.

If we want to take the form by a match basis. Ambrose doesn't get a wicket in 3 tests and gets 5 in two. Walsh gets 1 wicket in every one of the 4 matches he plays. I think it's quite clear they weren't bowling well. But you can take it as you like.

 

[Swervy]

I find it amusing how all bowlers suddenly become "useless medium pacers typical of the crap attacks of today" as soon as Hayden scores runs against them, but not if Lara or Tendy do.

without wishing to be controversial, but Tendulkar doesnt score runs , well certainly not in the way Hayden has done.

So even the wonderous Sachin struggles against the 'crap' bowling of today (or say the last 5 years)

(In the last 5 years *not including tests vs B'desh*, Tendulkar has played 42 tests, Hayden 55 tests, the comparison is interesting

Runs Scored: Hayden 5217 Tendulkar 2711
Ave: H 56.1 T 43.0
100's: H 19 T 6
Scores under 10: H 17 T 22


So I guess Tendulkar since the age of about 28 would have been utterly awful in the 80's

 

[silentstriker]

He would have. Tendulkar post 2002 is certainly no where near the player he was in the 90s.

 

[Swervy]

He would have. Tendulkar post 2002 is certainly no where near the player he was in the 90s.

I guess what CC is failing to see is that players do change over time...some get better whilst having the same fundamental style of play, other get worse.

The fact that Hayden failed in the mid 90s in no way proves that he would have failed against similar quality of bowling now. My take on it is that he has developed as a batsman into a better player than 12 years ago.

In the same way as Tendulkars light has dimmed since his late 20's (which is in fact quite young for a batsman to 'lose it'), people/players change.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I guess what CC is failing to see is that players do change over time...some get better whilst having the same fundamental style of play, other get worse.

The fact that Hayden failed in the mid 90s in no way proves that he would have failed against similar quality of bowling now. My take on it is that he has developed as a batsman into a better player than 12 years ago.

In the same way as Tendulkars light has dimmed since his late 20's (which is in fact quite young for a batsman to 'lose it'), people/players change.

How do you know that he has improved? He has faced ordinary bowlers on flat pitches (as a general rule), you don't know until you see him against quality swing/seam bowlers, on green/hard pitches.

 

[Swervy]

How do you know that he has improved? He has faced ordinary bowlers on flat pitches (as a general rule), you don't know until you see him against quality swing/seam bowlers, on green/hard pitches.

well are you saying then he has NEVER succeeded against quality swing or seam, or whatever, or on green/hard pitches.

I am afraid you do not go from being a player who averages mid 20's to one who averages mid 50s in tests, whilst other players havent shown anywhere near a statistical improvement of that nature, without being a better player.

I think some people suffer from a bit of a romantic view of test cricket back in the 80's and early/mid 90s. Not all pitches were green tops, not every ball the West Indies bowled in the eighties was the 'perfect' ball, and not every pitch these days is a road, and beleive it or not there are some bowlers out there today who would have had success 15 years ago as well. Cricket back then was full of poor play, just as today is.

Its funny how certain peoples view of the world game changes just about the time Australia become the dominant force.

The reality is:

England were crap...way way worse than now and that is throughout the entire 80's and 90s.
Australia were crap for much of the 80s
NZ were on a high in the 80's, but man for man (Hadlee excepted), I would take the current NZ team.
Pakistan were average for a while, but obviously better than now
India were rank poor for a long time, but even then good enough to beat England, and are so much better now than back 15 years ago
Sri Lanka were a joke for the first 11 years as a test team
It took quite a while for South africa to get going

Which I think leave West Indies, the one team that had prolonged success and are worse now.

So in fact is the standard really that bad now.

 

[silentstriker]

In the same way as Tendulkars light has dimmed since his late 20's (which is in fact quite young for a batsman to 'lose it'), people/players change.

He lost it after 13 years of international cricket, which is not all that young. Its about miles put on the body as much as the age. Thats why you see two decade careers being seen less often now. Almost 400 ODI games and 130+ Test games take their toll, regardless of age.

 

[PhoenixFire]

He lost it after 13 years of international cricket, which is not all that young. Its about miles put on the body as much as the age. Thats why you see two decade careers being seen less often now. Almost 400 ODI games and 130+ Test games take their toll, regardless of age.

I swear you have told Kaz that at least 15 times

 

[C_C]

As Gretsky said - some of the lesser players are the ultimate masters of bashing substandard opposition. Hayden in that category.

Swervy- i dont see how Hayden could've succeeded against any worldclass pace bowling attack. Front foot play only gets you murdered as an opener on decent wickets.

Tendulkar's form has suffered massively through injuries. That much is obvious.

 

[mavric41]

As Gretsky said - some of the lesser players are the ultimate masters of bashing substandard opposition. Hayden in that category.

Swervy- i dont see how Hayden could've succeeded against any worldclass pace bowling attack. Front foot play only gets you murdered as an opener on decent wickets.

Tendulkar's form has suffered massively through injuries. That much is obvious.

Its nice to see that you ignored my post from where I explained in detail Hayden's early career or was there too many words for you.