Hayden vs Hussain

[PhoenixFire]

So what? That is totally beside the point. Hayden has nothing to do with the fact that you were calling Hussain a crap player.

 

[Jono]

Hayden is only intimidating for bad bowlers - good ones would be licking their lips (and were, when they were around) at the chance to bowl at him. If you try and dominate good bowlers, the chances are you'll pay for it, and the Hussain way is generally more effective.

Pollock doesn't seem to enjoy bowling to Hayden too often.

 

[Richard]

You're kidding right?

Pollock on a green seamer will eat Hayden for breakfast and always has done.

Sadly, I can't think of a heck of a lot of times such a thing has happened of late...

 

[Richard]

Be that as it may, Hayden still scores an average 15 more runs per innings than Hussain, 15 runs, that's huge, Hayden is more consistently helping his side win matches than Hussain who's "block the ****ing **** out of it" attitude seems to have been mistaken by you for actual ability.

Can i have some evidence that Hussain was acctualy any good please?

And if Hayden been born the same time Hussain was there's a substantial chance he'd have had a career of 10 Tests or so with an average of around about 20. Give me a "blocking the ****ing **** out of it" player who's managed to average in the 40s against top-quality bowling over one like that any time.

Hayden's ability to pound rubbish bowling seems to have been mistaken by many for actual ability.

 

[Anil]

And if Hayden been born the same time Hussain was there's a substantial chance he'd have had a career of 10 Tests or so with an average of around about 20. Give me a "blocking the ****ing **** out of it" player who's managed to average in the 40s against top-quality bowling over one like that any time.

Hayden's ability to pound rubbish bowling seems to have been mistaken by many for actual ability.

wouldn't ramprakash and hick be better than hayden as well?

 

[Richard]

Maybe. We'll never know.

One thing for sure - they are as good at the domestic level.

 

[Swervy]

And if Hayden been born the same time Hussain was there's a substantial chance he'd have had a career of 10 Tests or so with an average of around about 20. Give me a "blocking the ****ing **** out of it" player who's managed to average in the 40s against top-quality bowling over one like that any time.

Hayden's ability to pound rubbish bowling seems to have been mistaken by many for actual ability.

this is justa joke..I half expect you to turn around like you normally do and say that you were being 'sarcastic' all the time, and imply that you are so misunderstood, and all that garbage.

Hussain has definate technical issues and the reason why he averaged 37 (actually 36.92 not including vs Bangladesh)(not in the 40s, although no doubt you will dazzle us with some utter balls about such and such a period) was because he was a typical average test match batsman, nothing more.

Hayden also has his weaknesses, but he scores runs by the bucketful, and he has done it against good bowlers as well. And even if Hayden was as bad as you make out, what would you rather, a batsman who struggles vs good bowling and scores massively vs poor bowling, or a batsman who struggles against all bowling!!!!????

By the way, Hayden is only 3 years younger than Hussain, dont make out that they are players from completly different eras, coz they werent, and as I showed early in the time from 2000 to when Hussain retired, they both played about 50 tests, and Hayden basically did everything Hussain did, but doubled.

And I tell you, if Hussain himself got to hear about this debate, he would probably as embaressed as I think you should be

 

[Swervy]

Maybe. We'll never know.

One thing for sure - they are as good at the domestic level.

its strange isnt it...hayden has been a lynchpin in the success of one of the greatest teams thats ever been played, and Hussain, Hick,and Ramprakash basically sum up the underacheivemnt of the England set up in the 90s, and you can honestly hint at even one of them being a better bat than Hayden.

It just keeps getting better

 

[PhoenixFire]

its strange isnt it...hayden has been a lynchpin in the success of one of the greatest teams thats ever been played, and Hussain, Hick,and Ramprakash basically sum up the underacheivemnt of the England set up in the 90s, and you can honestly hint at even one of them being a better bat than Hayden.

It just keeps getting better

How on earth was Hayden the 'lynchpin'? He was on the verge of being dropped before he scored a load of runs on those flat decks in the West Indies, against ****e bowlers on small grounds.

 

[Richard]

this is justa joke..I half expect you to turn around like you normally do and say that you were being 'sarcastic' all the time, and imply that you are so misunderstood, and all that garbage.

I don't normally do. I've never said I was misunderstood on things like Harmison, Yousuf, Hayden, etc. etc. Purely on the many times I pretend to take things seriously, and people think I actually am taking them seriously. Which happens about 4 or 5 times a day...

Hussain has definate technical issues and the reason why he averaged 37 (actually 36.92 not including vs Bangladesh)(not in the 40s, although no doubt you will dazzle us with some utter balls about such and such a period) was because he was a typical average test match batsman, nothing more.

There's precisely sod-all you can do to change the fact that Hussain did average over 40 for two extended periods - you can call it balls and all that crap, but you can't revoke history.

He may have been not much more than a good Test batsman, but he was categorically more than average. And that's all I've ever claimed.

Hayden also has his weaknesses, but he scores runs by the bucketful, and he has done it against good bowlers as well. And even if Hayden was as bad as you make out, what would you rather, a batsman who struggles vs good bowling and scores massively vs poor bowling, or a batsman who struggles against all bowling!!!!????

Except that Hussain didn't struggle against all bowling, which is patently obvious to anyone with half an eye...

By the way, Hayden is only 3 years younger than Hussain, dont make out that they are players from completly different eras, coz they werent, and as I showed early in the time from 2000 to when Hussain retired, they both played about 50 tests, and Hayden basically did everything Hussain did, but doubled.

As I repeat - for perhaps the 50th time - doesn't matter, I've never said Hussain was better at pounding rubbish attacks. Purely that had Hayden been born the same year Hussain was, he'd almost certainly not have had the chance, as he'd have been 33 by the time the required period rolled around, and almost certainly by then he'd have been written-off as the failure he was at the time.

And I tell you, if Hussain himself got to hear about this debate, he would probably as embaressed as I think you should be

I don't doubt he would, he's a self-affacing guy.

 

[Goughy]

Just seen this thread as I have been away and I cant be bothered to read the whole thing.

Nasser was a pretty bog standard Test player and a worse ODI player.

Hayden was/is a very special player that is heavily underrated by many.

There is NO fathomable way anyone could make an argument based on any cricketing reason or fact that the former is even close to being in the same league as the latter.

Some bizarre discussions take place on here.

 

[Richard]

its strange isnt it...hayden has been a lynchpin in the success of one of the greatest teams thats ever been played, and Hussain, Hick,and Ramprakash basically sum up the underacheivemnt of the England set up in the 90s, and you can honestly hint at even one of them being a better bat than Hayden.

It just keeps getting better

Don't judge a player by his team. Hayden would not have had the chance to be the lynchpin if he'd not been allowed by the rubbishness of the bowling to be such a thing.

Hick and Ramprakash don't sum-up anything, least of all England in the 1990s. Both were either quite good or absolutely useless, depending on the time in question.

 

[Richard]

Hayden was/is a very special player that is heavily underrated by many.

There is NO fathomable way anyone could make an argument based on any cricketing reason or fact that the former is even close to being in the same league as the latter.

Hayden is indeed special - few have his prowess at grinding rubbish bowling into the dust. However, most of the time such traits aren't required in a top-quality player.

Based on that argument, it's fathomable to suggest that someone who was a good player in a tougher time could have been better.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I can't really understand why people rate Hayden so highly. Ever seen him try all of the front foot smashing bollocks on a green pitch, when the ball is swinging, and against a half decent fast bowler. A classic example of this is where Hoggard totally owned him in the 2005 Ashes series.

Nobody is doubting that he is an excellent player when it comes to medium pacers (who are ****e), and flat pitches, where he murders them into oblivion.

 

[Swervy]

Hick and Ramprakash don't sum-up anything, least of all England in the 1990s. Both were either quite good or absolutely useless, depending on the time in question.

and what is an adequate summation of Englands batting in the 90s....either quite good or absolutely useless....you took the words right out of my mouth

 

[Richard]

Except that it rarely coincided with Hick and\or Ramprakash's fortunes.

 

[Anil]

Maybe. We'll never know.

One thing for sure - they are as good at the domestic level.

thanks for clarifying that richard...

its strange isnt it...hayden has been a lynchpin in the success of one of the greatest teams thats ever been played, and Hussain, Hick,and Ramprakash basically sum up the underacheivemnt of the England set up in the 90s, and you can honestly hint at even one of them being a better bat than Hayden.

It just keeps getting better

seriously what did you expect when you started this thread?

 

[Swervy]

I can't really understand why people rate Hayden so highly. Ever seen him try all of the front foot smashing bollocks on a green pitch, when the ball is swinging, and against a half decent fast bowler. A classic example of this is where Hoggard totally owned him in the 2005 Ashes series.

Nobody is doubting that he is an excellent player when it comes to medium pacers (who are ****e), and flat pitches, where he murders them into oblivion.

and as a number of people have said, yes Hayden has his weaknesses, but why do his bashers only focus on those weaknesses. Have a look at the success!!!

Ponting as struggled vs India, does that take away from his total dominance in the last 5 years, loads of batsmen have weaknesses but the strengths outweigh them , and that results in big heavy consistant scoring, which is exactly like what Hayden has done.

 

[Richard]

I can't really understand why people rate Hayden so highly. Ever seen him try all of the front foot smashing bollocks on a green pitch, when the ball is swinging, and against a half decent fast bowler. A classic example of this is where Hoggard totally owned him in the 2005 Ashes series.

Nobody is doubting that he is an excellent player when it comes to medium pacers (who are ****e), and flat pitches, where he murders them into oblivion.

Haha, there were soooo many more classic examples before the 2001\02 season, when near enough every seamer who bowled at him totally owned him.

 

[Swervy]

Except that it rarely coincided with Hick and\or Ramprakash's fortunes.

dont worry Dicky, I think it has gone right over your head