Hayden vs Hussain

[Richard]

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

Well given that I've never even mentioned a "Hussein" that's not really important.

Hayden > Hussain is not fact, it's a MOO. And I'll repeat the reasons for my opinion as many times as you like.

 

[Swervy]

Well given that I've never even mentioned a "Hussein" that's not really important.

Hayden > Hussain is not fact, it's a MOO. And I'll repeat the reasons for my opinion as many times as you like.

I think this one is done and dusted, however I do reserve the right to bring this up in the future if a) I want to know how to appear really quite silly on a forum, b) want to humilate Richard in any way.

saying this: 'Well given that I've never even mentioned a "Hussein" that's not really important.' just goes to show how far you are willing to get your scaper into the barrell

 

[Richard]

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

I don't give a **** about percentage-increases in scoring. All that matters is the cases of these 2 single players and the bowling they faced, which does not require any in-depth knowledge of stats to analyse.

There is no evidence that can suggest that Hayden was the better batsman in the relevant period, and the relevant period IS NOT THE 2001\02-2004 TIME, AS I'VE SAID SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES. The relevant period is 1993\94-1999, and it'd take a complete dunce to suggest Hayden was the better player in that time.

Now, given that that time bears far more relation to most times in Test history than the 2001\02-2004 one does, it's the 1993\94-1999 period that counts for something.

 

[Richard]

I think this one is done and dusted, however I do reserve the right to bring this up in the future if a) I want to know how to appear really quite silly on a forum, b) want to humilate Richard in any way.

saying this: 'Well given that I've never even mentioned a "Hussein" that's not really important.' just goes to show how far you are willing to get your scaper into the barrell

It just shows that I'd like people to debate the thing properly, and if someone's going to pick silly holes in what I say (as KaZo did) then I'll do the same.

 

[Pup Clarke]

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

Mate, that had much to do with Nasser's character and personality. He was at his best when the going got tough.

 

[Pratters]

Hayden was quite clearly a better domestic-level batsman than Hussain (though his average for Essex is rather more than 42).

Nor have I ever said Hayden was a poor player of spin, he was excellent from the very first time I watched him, before the India tour, and I was half-expecting him to succeed there, given that quality seam was likely to be nullified (and doubly so with Srinath injured).

But being an opening batsman is supposed to be about playing seam, not spin.

There are A LOT of aspects to any batsman. Being a batsman is supposed to be about playing bowling. Also, fast bowling does not equal countering top class swing.

If you put Hayden v Hussain, there is a glaring difference. Hayden was a much better batsman. Very suprising you see it differently.

 

[Ikki]

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.

You seem to be missing the point. If said bowlers are rubbish, then everyone else should be taking advantage of them. Yet, there is only one opener with a 50+ average.

I mean, in the 90s he only played 7 test matches. 1 in 94 and 1 in 96 and 5 in 97. Why, even if he DOES have such a glaring weakness, would you base any generalisation - especially the huge one you're making - on so few test matches? You think Hayden was the only one who had problems with the moving ball in the Ashes? Everyone did. Hayden actually scored 138 in the 5th test, if you remember?

 

[Swervy]

I don't give a **** about percentage-increases in scoring. All that matters is the cases of these 2 single players and the bowling they faced, which does not require any in-depth knowledge of stats to analyse.

There is no evidence that can suggest that Hayden was the better batsman in the relevant period, and the relevant period IS NOT THE 2001\02-2004 TIME, AS I'VE SAID SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES. The relevant period is 1993\94-1999, and it'd take a complete dunce to suggest Hayden was the better player in that time.

Now, given that that time bears far more relation to most times in Test history than the 2001\02-2004 one does, it's the 1993\94-1999 period that counts for something.

Hayden only played 8 tests in that time didnt he

 

[Fiery]

It just shows that I'd like people to debate the thing properly, and if someone's going to pick silly holes in what I say (as KaZo did) then I'll do the same.

"pick silly holes". Your argument looks like the side door of Bonnie and Clyde's 1934 Ford V8

 

[Ikki]

Mate, that had much to do with Nasser's character and personality. He was at his best when the going got tough.

Yet poor - in comparison - when the going was easy? Such a deficiency far outweighs a weakness Hayden has against one type of bowling.

 

[Swervy]

Mate, that had much to do with Nasser's character and personality. He was at his best when the going got tough.

but his best in fact is only what is expected of any test batsman to be honest. During his good spells, an average of 40 is the minimum I would expect, and thats what he produced

 

[Pup Clarke]

Yet poor - in comparison - when the going was easy?

The going was never "easy" when Nasser played test cricket against any attack. As it states in his book he couldn't handle the responsibility of getting big runs when the pressure was off of him.

 

[Ikki]

The going was never "easy" when Nasser played test cricket agianst any attack. As it states in his book he couldn't handle the responsibility of getting big runs when the pressure was off of him.

I'm talking about poorer attacks - not what Nasser dear thought was pressure. Really, this argument is actually detrimental to any legacy he may have had.

 

[Swervy]

The going was never "easy" when Nasser played test cricket against any attack. As it states in his book he couldn't handle the responsibility of getting big runs when the pressure was off of him.

which doesnt bode well for him being considered highly as a test batsman

 

[Ikki]

Just checked, only 9 tests in 96 did Nasser average more than 40+. Yep, he's da king.

 

[Richard]

You seem to be missing the point. If said bowlers are rubbish, then everyone else should be taking advantage of them. Yet, there is only one opener with a 50+ average.

Hayden is better than most at pounding rubbish attacks. That doesn't change their rubbishness, nor his inability against stronger ones.

I mean, in the 90s he only played 7 test matches. 1 in 94 and 1 in 96 and 5 in 97. Why, even if he DOES have such a glaring weakness, would you base any generalisation - especially the huge one you're making - on so few test matches?

Hayden failed at the start of the 2000s, too, in case you missed it. 18 of his first 21 Tests, aside from the India tour, were exceptionally poor.

You think Hayden was the only one who had problems with the moving ball in the Ashes? Everyone did. Hayden actually scored 138 in the 5th test, if you remember?

Err, yes, everyone did, that why Ponting (at Old Trafford and Edgbaston), Katich (at Lord's), Langer for much of the tiem and heck, even Warne on several occasions, managed to cope with it?

In any case, most of the rest of the side don't have previous when it comes to struggling against seam and swing.

 

[Richard]

Hayden only played 8 tests in that time didnt he

But he also played a fair few more in the next year, in which time Hussain was hopelessly out of nick.

Even so, his 1996-2001 record trumps Hayden's 1993\94-2001 one.

 

[Ikki]

Hayden is better than most at pounding rubbish attacks. That doesn't change their rubbishness, nor his inability against stronger ones.

Hayden failed at the start of the 2000s, too, in case you missed it. 18 of his first 21 Tests, aside from the India tour, were exceptionally poor.

Err, yes, everyone did, that why Ponting (at Old Trafford and Edgbaston), Katich (at Lord's), Langer for much of the tiem and heck, even Warne on several occasions, managed to cope with it?

In any case, most of the rest of the side don't have previous when it comes to struggling against seam and swing.

Let me break it down for you: What Hayden averaged in that series is pretty much Nasser's career average. And that was Hayden's POOR series - which has more to do with the slump he had prior than any weakness you seem to be inflating.

 

[Richard]

but his best in fact is only what is expected of any test batsman to be honest. During his good spells, an average of 40 is the minimum I would expect, and thats what he produced

An average of 40 is good going, not a minumum.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Err, yes, everyone did, that why Ponting (at Old Trafford and Edgbaston), Katich (at Lord's), Langer for much of the tiem and heck, even Warne on several occasions, managed to cope with it?

So Gilchrist, Martyn and Clarke coped with it well did they?.