Hayden vs Hussain

[Richard]

Plenty of players have played outstanding innings...that doesnt make them outstanding players.

And really Richard, you yourself have set Hussain to be insulted. No-one in their right mind would compare the two players, and by doing so you have made me be quite negative about Hussain.

But compared to your other average type test batsmen, Hussain is as good as the lot of them

Hayden is worse than your average type Test batsman.

Don't insult Hussain in attempting to big-up Hayden beyond his place.

Hussain did indeed play many outstanding innings, innings Hayden could not have played for the life of him. They did not make him an outstanding player, because of that fear of failure of his, but they did make him better than Hayden.

 

[Swervy]

Typos change what is said, not what is meant.

well in that case, you have just cancelled out the one sensible thing of the night...

 

[Pup Clarke]

Hayden is worse than your average type Test batsman.

Now that is really taking the biscuit.

 

[Fiery]

I found it quite embarrasing to see you making the comments you made towards my friend Martin (thierry henry) a while ago. I still respect you, though.

I'm not talking crap as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't be talking it if I thought it was crap.

Fine, carry on. I feel like I'm watching a train crash in slow motion though. I guess I'll just look away

 

[Richard]

I was more referring to you saing that Hussains best was a level that hayden could only dream about.

Its so funny, but in a really odd way , I think you really have a cricket screw loose

Haha, a "cricket screw loose". As I was saying to Rob Cribb (Prince EWS) yesterday, I have a fair few screws loose... but only if you're of the mind that unorthodox=screwloose.

Hussain's best is indeed a level Hayden can only dream about. Hayden could never have played most of Hussain's best innings between 1996 and 1999, never in a million years.

 

[Richard]

Now that is really taking the biscuit.

It's nothing other than the exact same thing I've been saying all along.

Did you think I was saying Hussain was a Stephen Waugh or, heck, even a Ricky Ponting?

Because I wasn't.

 

[Swervy]

Hayden is worse than your average type Test batsman.

Sorry, dont care what you say, but you do not average +55 over over 80 tests, opening the innings, if you worse than average.

You just keep going from one disasterous statement to another

 

[Richard]

Fine, carry on. I feel like I'm watching a train crash in slow motion though. I guess I'll just look away

That's the ticket.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, dont care what you say, but you do not average +55 over over 80 tests, opening the innings, if you worse than average.

You just keep going from one disasterous statement to another

As I say - that's nothing different to what I've been saying all along.

It's perfectly possible to average 57 over 68 Tests - as Hayden does - if things are not what they normally are.

In most eras, Hayden would have been a nothing player who lasted 20-odd Tests and then was discarded.

In the current one, he's been one of the most effective going around.

 

[Swervy]

Haha, a "cricket screw loose". As I was saying to Rob Cribb (Prince EWS) yesterday, I have a fair few screws loose... but only if you're of the mind that unorthodox=screwloose.

dont flatter yourself...wrong doesnt mean unorthodox, stubborn doesnt mean unorthodox.

If you could genuinely fight your way out of this one, then fair enough, but its a no goer I am afraid.

just admit that you have no where to go on this one, and we will leave it at Hayden 1 hussain a galant 0

 

[Ikki]

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.

Playing poorly, against weak opposition, just because there is expectancy of you is just...very very poor.

Pre-2000 Hayden didn't play many test matches,. Yet you seem to see it fit to generalise a weakness he had, and imply he would always have it if conditions remained the same. Now, that's just being obtuse. Hayden at his best is dominating, no matter who the bowler would be. Nasser Hussein has never reached the heights Hayden has, I find it funny that you seem to entertain that Hayden would "dream" to reach heights Nasser Hussein has supposedly reached.

Nasser Hussein himself would laugh at this thread, I can't believe you're actually serious with your assertions.

 

[Swervy]

As I say - that's nothing different to what I've been saying all along.

It's perfectly possible to average 57 over 68 Tests - as Hayden does - if things are not what they normally are.

In most eras, Hayden would have been a nothing player who lasted 20-odd Tests and then was discarded.

In the current one, he's been one of the most effective going around.

make that 80 tests Richard.

Things are what they are now, that is what matters!!!!!

You dont know if hayden would have failed in other eras, you havent got a clue. He may well have improved against the moving ball through pure exposure to it and become a master of it, he may well have thrived vs WI of the arly 80s, you dont know, I dont know...NO-ONE KNOWS!!!!!

It just makes this debate look daft.

What i have done is back up what I say with facts...facts like, scoring has increased by 10% and so Hayden having an average almost double that of Hussain in the overlapping years is a valid statistical piece of evidence to suggest (and strongly suggest) that Hayden was by far the better batsman.

All you do, is come up with some half arsed guessing about a mythical time when all the pitches were green and you could go a whole series watching every single ball dart about at high speed...it simply is a fanasty world that you are living in when it comes to this discussion

 

[Richard]

dont flatter yourself...wrong doesnt mean unorthodox, stubborn doesnt mean unorthodox.

If you could genuinely fight your way out of this one, then fair enough, but its a no goer I am afraid.

just admit that you have no where to go on this one, and we will leave it at Hayden 1 hussain a galant 0

I've already gone everywhere it's possible to go.

As far as I'm concerned, Hussain > Hayden. Simple as.

Nothing to fight out of AFAIC.

 

[Goughy]

Hayden is worse than your average type Test batsman.

yeah ok Could someone close this thread already?

What a farce.

 

[Swervy]

I've already gone everywhere it's possible to go.

As far as I'm concerned, Hussain > Hayden. Simple as.

Nothing to fight out of AFAIC.

http://www.iksv.org/film/i/2006/f/150/monty python and the holy grail.jpg

springs to mind

 

[Richard]

Playing poorly, against weak opposition, just because there is expectancy of you is just...very very poor.

Pre-2000 Hayden didn't play many test matches,. Yet you seem to see it fit to generalise a weakness he had, and imply he would always have it if conditions remained the same. Now, that's just being obtuse. Hayden at his best is dominating, no matter who the bowler would be. Nasser Hussein has never reached the heights Hayden has, I find it funny that you seem to entertain that Hayden would "dream" to reach heights Nasser Hussein has supposedly reached.

I repeat - Matthew Hayden could never have played some of the innings Nasser Hussain did between 1996 and 1999. I don't give a **** whether Hussain dominated or not during those innings, domination, frankly, means ****-all if you can't score runs, which Hayden didn't against decent bowling. He played 21 Tests before the 2001\02 season, and the weaknesses which were blatantly apparent in that time were still blatantly apparent thereafter, and occasionally were even exposed. I might remind you that his form in 2004\05 and 2005 was very weak indeed. Therefore it's not remotely illogical to imply that he'd have continued to fail had things remained as they were in the 1990s.

Nasser Hussein himself would laugh at this thread, I can't believe you're actually serious with your assertions.

Old news.

 

[Ikki]

As I say - that's nothing different to what I've been saying all along.

It's perfectly possible to average 57 over 68 Tests - as Hayden does - if things are not what they normally are.

In most eras, Hayden would have been a nothing player who lasted 20-odd Tests and then was discarded.

In the current one, he's been one of the most effective going around.

LOL, so batting in this era went from needing to average 10+ - to compare with a decade ago - to now implying that current batsmen are so overrated that they'd have been discarded after 20 tests. Can you find me any other opener currently averaging 50+? Thanks.

 

[Richard]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...um=1&hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-36,GGGL:en&sa=N

springs to mind

There's a surprise.

 

[Ikki]

I repeat - Matthew Hayden could never have played some of the innings Nasser Hussain did between 1996 and 1999. I don't give a **** whether Hussain dominated or not during those innings, domination, frankly, means ****-all if you can't score runs, which Hayden didn't against decent bowling. He played 21 Tests before the 2001\02 season, and the weaknesses which were blatantly apparent in that time were still blatantly apparent thereafter, and occasionally were even exposed. I might remind you that his form in 2004\05 and 2005 was very weak indeed. Therefore it's not remotely illogical to imply that he'd have continued to fail had things remained as they were in the 1990s.

Old news.

You can repeat it till your fingers fall off. Hayden > Hussein.

 

[Richard]

LOL, so batting era went from needing to average 10+ - to compare with a decade ago - to now implying that current batsmen are so overrated that they'd have been discarded after 20 tests. Can you find me any other opener currently averaging 50+? Thanks.

I don't need to, I just need to find-out that Hayden wasn't good enough to do anything of note against the quality seamers he faced in the 1990s.

As I've said hundreds of times, averages are really not important here, you could average 70 against rubbish bowling and it'd not change your inability against better ones.