Hayden vs Hussain

[Richard]

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.

The reason it's completely different in the Ponting case (not that Ponting's total dominance the last 5 years makes him better than someone who could relatively dominate against far, far better bowling like Tendulkar or Stephen Waugh) is because Ponting's failures are not specific to a certain type of bowling, they just happen to have all come in the same country. Ponting did indeed used to be a very poor player of spin, but he's scored runs against Murali, and there's not much more you can ask of one in the way of proof in that matter.

Hayden's success, as I've said countless times, is success in a respect that, throughout most of Test history, would be unimportant. For most of Test history, being capable of savaging rubbish bowling has not stopped average players being exposed.

 

[Richard]

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

To go over my head, something has to at first make sense.

 

[Richard]

seriously what did you expect when you started this thread?

I daresay he expected what he got, a fair few people saying "it's stupid beyond anything in history to consider Hussain>Hayden" but not bothering to argue the case, and a few others arguing their case pretty effectively.

 

[Swervy]

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.

oh right, so you basing that on the scorecards of what...8 test matches...lets just forget the last 81 tests he has played in (they dont count really I guess, as they only constitute 90% of his career, and he only averaged 57 in that time, which pales in comparison to Hussain averaging 40 in two semi long periods in his record bejeweled career)

 

[PhoenixFire]

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.

Did I not just state some of his strengths.

With this statement, I am being totally honest here, and without bias. I don't really expect anyone to believe me.

I have videos of Hayden's tour of India in 2001, and as good as it sounds, the 200 wasn't nearly as good as some people made it out to be. I know fully well that I am going to get barracked by a hoarde of Aussies who will say that is was the best inning they have ever seen etc, but I really think that in that match where he got his 200, whilst it being a very good innings, was nothing special by any stretch. The first day pitch was as flat as a pancake, and offered little or no movement for seamers in the air or off the pitch. As far as I'm concerned, Harbhajan got those 7 wickets through nothing more than very good bowling, and some really awful playing of spin on Australia's part.

 

[Swervy]

The reason it's completely different in the Ponting case (not that Ponting's total dominance the last 5 years makes him better than someone who could relatively dominate against far, far better bowling like Tendulkar or Stephen Waugh) is because Ponting's failures are not specific to a certain type of bowling, they just happen to have all come in the same country. Ponting did indeed used to be a very poor player of spin, but he's scored runs against Murali, and there's not much more you can ask of one in the way of proof in that matter.

Hayden's success, as I've said countless times, is success in a respect that, throughout most of Test history, would be unimportant. For most of Test history, being capable of savaging rubbish bowling has not stopped average players being exposed.

but you are extrapolating Haydens possible failure in past times purely on guesswork, its pointless, especially when you have a crossover period where you can directly compare the two players, and the one you dont favour completely destroys the one you do favour.....you have no back up what so ever.

And a lot of us dont even need stats to know straight up, that despite Haydens weaknesses vs the moving ball, he is still a far more effective batsman than Hussain ever was. Hussain wouldnt even have gotten a sniff of getting into the Australian team..Hayden one of 5 players who have been instrumental in the success of that team..

 

[Swervy]

I daresay he expected what he got, a fair few people saying "it's stupid beyond anything in history to consider Hussain>Hayden" but not bothering to argue the case, and a few others arguing their case pretty effectively.

well a debate is what i wanted, indeed, but it does feel like its a bit of an unfair fight to be honest

 

[PhoenixFire]

Again it all seems to be coming down to the old fabled view that somehow player with higher strike-rates are better than players with lower ones........

 

[Richard]

oh right, so you basing that on the scorecards of what...8 test matches...lets just forget the last 81 tests he has played in (they dont count really I guess, as they only constitute 90% of his career, and he only averaged 57 in that time, which pales in comparison to Hussain averaging 40 in two semi long periods in his record bejeweled career)

No, on 21 Tests and not just on scorecards, on quite patent testimonies, which funnily enough have been backed-up at points - however rare - in the last 5 years.

And you really, really are going to get nowhere by repeatedly stating Hussain's average being lower, blah-blah-ils - as I've said ad infinitum now, it's not of relevance to my argument.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Again it all seems to be coming down to the old fabled view that somehow player with higher strike-rates are better than players with lower ones........

Where has there been any talk of strikerates?.

 

[Richard]

but you are extrapolating Haydens possible failure in past times purely on guesswork, its pointless, especially when you have a crossover period where you can directly compare the two players, and the one you dont favour completely destroys the one you do favour.....you have no back up what so ever.

I do have backup, and I've stated it soooooooooooooooooooo many times - Hayden was indeed better at Hussain at battering rubbish attacks, which is why Hussain wasn't as good as him between 2001\02 and 2004. This, however, is not relevant to what I am talking about - what I am talking about is under most circumstances - given that the 2001\02-to-current-time is a situation which has been exceedingly rare in Test history.

And a lot of us dont even need stats to know straight up, that despite Haydens weaknesses vs the moving ball, he is still a far more effective batsman than Hussain ever was. Hussain wouldnt even have gotten a sniff of getting into the Australian team..Hayden one of 5 players who have been instrumental in the success of that team..

Hayden didn't get a sniff of staying in there long in the 1990s, either - and didn't contribute anything to any success of the team at that time.

 

[Richard]

Again it all seems to be coming down to the old fabled view that somehow player with higher strike-rates are better than players with lower ones........

Where has anyone talked about strikerates?.

They haven't, but Hayden's dominance has been invoked several times, and even where it's not everyone with any sense can tell that it's pervading the subconscious.

Do you really imagine that there'd be as much and as vociferious complaint about someone arguing that Mark Richardson, who also averaged well over 50 in Tests for a time, was inferior to Hussain? Or if Hussain had done what he'd done while scoring at a faster pace?

Of course there wouldn't be. People can't take the fact that someone who dominated could possibly be worse than someone who didn't.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I do have backup, and I've stated it soooooooooooooooooooo many times - Hayden was indeed better at Hussain at battering rubbish attacks

Richard, do you have to repeat the same thing about a dozen times?. Swervy has his own views on the debate and he already knows your feelings regarding "Hayden is better at battering rubbish bowlers". This debate is just going round in circles TBH.

 

[Anil]

I daresay he expected what he got, a fair few people saying "it's stupid beyond anything in history to consider Hussain>Hayden" but not bothering to argue the case, and a few others arguing their case pretty effectively.

yeah i know, absolutely open-and-shut....what on earth was swervy thinking about?

 

[Swervy]

Did I not just state some of his strengths.

With this statement, I am being totally honest here, and without bias. I don't really expect anyone to believe me.

I have videos of Hayden's tour of India in 2001, and as good as it sounds, the 200 wasn't nearly as good as some people made it out to be. I know fully well that I am going to get barracked by a hoarde of Aussies who will say that is was the best inning they have ever seen etc, but I really think that in that match where he got his 200, whilst it being a very good innings, was nothing special by any stretch. The first day pitch was as flat as a pancake, and offered little or no movement for seamers in the air or off the pitch. As far as I'm concerned, Harbhajan got those 7 wickets through nothing more than very good bowling, and some really awful playing of spin on Australia's part.

a double hundred is a double hundred, lets not forget the century, the 90odd, and the other 50 he scored in that series as well

 

[Ikki]

Did I not just state some of his strengths.

With this statement, I am being totally honest here, and without bias. I don't really expect anyone to believe me.

I have videos of Hayden's tour of India in 2001, and as good as it sounds, the 200 wasn't nearly as good as some people made it out to be. I know fully well that I am going to get barracked by a hoarde of Aussies who will say that is was the best inning they have ever seen etc, but I really think that in that match where he got his 200, whilst it being a very good innings, was nothing special by any stretch. The first day pitch was as flat as a pancake, and offered little or no movement for seamers in the air or off the pitch. As far as I'm concerned, Harbhajan got those 7 wickets through nothing more than very good bowling, and some really awful playing of spin on Australia's part.

But I'm sure if Pieterson scored those runs it would somehow be "amazing".

What a joke of an argument.

Hayden will be regarded as one of the greatest openers of all-time while Nasser Hussein will not come near any such titles.

 

[Ikki]

I do have backup, and I've stated it soooooooooooooooooooo many times - Hayden was indeed better at Hussain at battering rubbish attacks, which is why Hussain wasn't as good as him between 2001\02 and 2004. This, however, is not relevant to what I am talking about - what I am talking about is under most circumstances - given that the 2001\02-to-current-time is a situation which has been exceedingly rare in Test history.

LOL, so let me get this: Hussein is good against the better attacks, but worse against the poorer ones? Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Swervy]

They haven't, but Hayden's dominance has been invoked several times, and even where it's not everyone with any sense can tell that it's pervading the subconscious.

Do you really imagine that there'd be as much and as vociferious complaint about someone arguing that Mark Richardson, who also averaged well over 50 in Tests for a time, was inferior to Hussain? Or if Hussain had done what he'd done while scoring at a faster pace?

Of course there wouldn't be. People can't take the fact that someone who dominated could possibly be worse than someone who didn't.

but with Richardson and Hussain , you are talking about two players who I guess could be compared in terms of their batting success, what hayden has done puts him in a completely different division...Hayden probably mid table Premiership, Hussain fighting for a playoff place in League One

 

[Richard]

LOL, so let me get this: Hussein is good against the better attacks, but worse against the poorer ones? Yeah, that makes sense.

Err, it actually does. Read Hussain's book - he had a fear of failure that made him very susceptible to failing to cash-in against lesser attacks, because runs were expected from him.

When he played against better attacks and others were failing around him, it lessened his own fear, meaning he was capable of playing at his not-inconsiderable best.

And that best is a level Hayden can only dream of. Many of the bowlers Hussain scored runs against ate Hayden for breakfast, and would have hounded him out of Test cricket had he not got a last-minute reprieve just as those bowlers moved on and the standard deteriorated.

 

[Richard]

but with Richardson and Hussain , you are talking about two players who I guess could be compared in terms of their batting success, what hayden has done puts him in a completely different division...Hayden probably mid table Premiership, Hussain fighting for a playoff place in League One

Richardson's average was vastly superior to Hussain's for most of his career, and fairly close to Hayden's. Yet both Richadson and Hayden were flat-track bullies.