Hayden vs Hussain

[adharcric]

Richard, do you have anything to say in response to the critics?

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Clearly Hayden is the superior batsman to Hussain. The only thing I'd say in Hussain's defence is that he had to face Australian bowlers, whereas Hayden's cleverly escaped that, and been able to fill his boots against some pretty poor English bowling over the years

 

[Richard]

Nice try but pretty poor given you already indicated that you knew Richard has previous for this.

It really was absolutely blatant, wasn't it? I knew on the 4th or 5th word.

Can we see if we can get rid of this one a bit quicker than the last?

 

[Richard]

Richard, do you have anything to say in response to the critics?

Haha, give a guy a chance...

I've said it all a million times, and I don't give a damn how much higher Hayden's average is than Hussain from 2001\02 onwards. Hayden did not have sufficient talent to play the seaming and swinging ball of high quality - Hussain did.

Given that most eras of Test cricket involve plenty of this, especially for a top-three batsman, IMO Hussain is the better batsman. Hayden is indeed the better flat-track bully, that much is patently obvious even without reading Hussain's book and even more so upon doing so, but to suggest Hayden would have had a career of any note had he been born even just a couple of years earlier is ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. We have all the evidence we need that he was not good enough.

As to comparing across eras that Manan raised - I'd not define 2001 as the change of an era the way 1970, for instance, was. The change wasn't quite so radical as there.

In any case, I haven't ever actually said you can't compare batsmen across eras - just fingerspinners.

 

[Richard]

richard has got himself a stalker, looks like...

to you.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It really was absolutely blatant, wasn't it? I knew on the 4th or 5th word.

Can we see if we can get rid of this one a bit quicker than the last?

Kudos on not going down the shopfront route this time, even if it took a quiet word from the boss fella to make you see the error of your ways.

 

[Craig]

Well the swinging ball has been and is a flaw for Hayden, I think we can look at the 2005 Ashes. If he were playing a green top it would be interesting to see how he went.

I guess the one thing that will discredit the Australian players to somne extent, and whilst it isn't their fault, is that they never played against Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath.

 

[Fiery]

Can we see if we can get rid of this one a bit quicker than the last?

Moderators, I suggest you do this for Richard on the condition that he admits he's wrong in the Hayden/Hussain debate/debacle

Oh and while you're at it can we change the title of this thread to "Is Richard on another planet?"

 

[social]

Crazy stuff - Hussein's not even in the same class let alone being better than Hayden

 

[Matt79]

Hayden did not have sufficient talent to play the seaming and swinging ball of high quality.

Whereas Hussain was always no more than a quite average Test batsman in all dimensions except grit and attitude. Fortunately for him he was a good captain, because otherwise I doubt he'd have retained his spot even in that England team.

Hayden on the other hand is going to be remembered as one of the greats. That's not to say that he doesn't have stronger and weaker areas of his game, but its not even a serious comparison to make. Its like the Stephen Harmison vs. Dominic Cork debate, except you replace "Harmison" with "Allan Donald" tbh...

 

[tooextracool]

I dont think the comparison is OTT. Fact is that Hussain made a career in both eras, the one that involved playing quality bowlers on competitive wickets as well as poor bowlers on flat wickets(even if he wasnt the greatest at the latter). The same cannot be said about Hayden who was hopeless pre 2001, despite an excellent FC career throughout.

At the end of the day however it is always hard to compare players over eras, and hence i will refuse to pick one out of the 2. However, i seriously cant believe that some people have Hayden over Dravid and Kallis, because in any era, that is an absolute joke.

 

[Fiery]

I dont think the comparison is OTT. Fact is that Hussain made a career in both eras, the one that involved playing quality bowlers on competitive wickets as well as poor bowlers on flat wickets(even if he wasnt the greatest at the latter). The same cannot be said about Hayden who was hopeless pre 2001, despite an excellent FC career throughout.

At the end of the day however it is always hard to compare players over eras, and hence i will refuse to pick one out of the 2. However, i seriously cant believe that some people have Hayden over Dravid and Kallis, because in any era, that is an absolute joke.

I hope Richard hasn't brainwashed you to think a new era of cricket began in 2001

 

[nightprowler10]

I hope Richard hasn't brainwashed you to think a new era of cricket began in 2001

I thought Richard was of the opinion that the new era started in the early '90s.

 

[Fiery]

I thought Richard was of the opinion that the new era started in the early '90s.

He's got a few now I think. 2001 is a new new era that he's been talking about. I'm sure he'll be able to explain it better

Haha, give a guy a chance...

I've said it all a million times, and I don't give a damn how much higher Hayden's average is than Hussain from 2001\02 onwards. Hayden did not have sufficient talent to play the seaming and swinging ball of high quality - Hussain did.

Given that most eras of Test cricket involve plenty of this, especially for a top-three batsman, IMO Hussain is the better batsman. Hayden is indeed the better flat-track bully, that much is patently obvious even without reading Hussain's book and even more so upon doing so, but to suggest Hayden would have had a career of any note had he been born even just a couple of years earlier is ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. We have all the evidence we need that he was not good enough.

As to comparing across eras that Manan raised - I'd not define 2001 as the change of an era the way 1970, for instance, was. The change wasn't quite so radical as there.

In any case, I haven't ever actually said you can't compare batsmen across eras - just fingerspinners.

 

[SJS]

The basic gist of it is, Richard is of the opinion that Nasser Hussain was a better batsman Hayden is. He has said that Haydos is a flat track bully and would get exposed on the pitches and vs the bowling Hussain had to face.

.....And you think thats reason enough to start a new thread ??

Thank God you havent read all of Richards' tens of thousands of posts.

....and about 2500 completely original opinions

 

[Swervy]

.....And you think thats reason enough to start a new thread ??

Thank God you havent read all of Richards' tens of thousands of posts.

....and about 2500 completely original opinions

I started it because it was taking over the Sobers thread...arguing about Hussains batting prowess in a Sobers thread seemed dirty

 

[Swervy]

Well the swinging ball has been and is a flaw for Hayden, I think we can look at the 2005 Ashes. If he were playing a green top it would be interesting to see how he went.

I guess the one thing that will discredit the Australian players to somne extent, and whilst it isn't their fault, is that they never played against Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath.

the common misconception however is that pitches pre-2001 or when ever were all green tops, and the bowlers were pinpoint accurate. The truth is a long way from that

 

[Craig]

the common misconception however is that pitches pre-2001 or when ever were all green tops, and the bowlers were pinpoint accurate. The truth is a long way from that

I wasn't saying that all, but I'm sure the quality was helluva lot higher pre-2001 then post 2001.

Look at Ricky Ponting, I know maturety and eventually getting the ODI captaincy then later the Test one two years later, when up to his 144 in Headingly 2001, he was very much the inconsistent player, having been dropped a few times and was lucky to keep his spot after the debacle of India earlier that year. He has averaged 71.74 since and has scored a staggering 26 tons since whereas he was averaging only 40.50. Look as great as he is (and I've certainly acknowledged and agreeded with it), I mean come on though, there has to be a dip though.

He is just one example out there though.

 

[pasag]

Haha, give a guy a chance...

I've said it all a million times, and I don't give a damn how much higher Hayden's average is than Hussain from 2001\02 onwards. Hayden did not have sufficient talent to play the seaming and swinging ball of high quality - Hussain did.

Given that most eras of Test cricket involve plenty of this, especially for a top-three batsman, IMO Hussain is the better batsman. Hayden is indeed the better flat-track bully, that much is patently obvious even without reading Hussain's book and even more so upon doing so, but to suggest Hayden would have had a career of any note had he been born even just a couple of years earlier is ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. We have all the evidence we need that he was not good enough.

As to comparing across eras that Manan raised - I'd not define 2001 as the change of an era the way 1970, for instance, was. The change wasn't quite so radical as there.

In any case, I haven't ever actually said you can't compare batsmen across eras - just fingerspinners.

Spot the Englishman.









YES THIS POST WAS MADE IN JEST!!!!

 

[Swervy]

I wasn't saying that all, but I'm sure the quality was helluva lot higher pre-2001 then post 2001.

Look at Ricky Ponting, I know maturety and eventually getting the ODI captaincy then later the Test one two years later, when up to his 144 in Headingly 2001, he was very much the inconsistent player, having been dropped a few times and was lucky to keep his spot after the debacle of India earlier that year. He has averaged 71.74 since and has scored a staggering 26 tons since whereas he was averaging only 40.50. Look as great as he is (and I've certainly acknowledged and agreeded with it), I mean come on though, there has to be a dip though.

He is just one example out there though.

players do get better though