Hayden vs Hussain

[Richard]

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.

It had to do with being worked-out, simple as.

Hayden was also far, far inferior to Hussain 1993\94-2001, which is far more significant than anything either did 2001\02-present day.

 

[Richard]

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

No, they were worked-out too.

 

[Goughy]

Would point out that Gooch averaged only 30 in the 70's without a century, less than 40 throughout the entire 1980's and averaged well over 50 in the 'super duper' times of the he-bowlers in the 90s.

Obviously using this information the 1990s were the weakest for seam bowlers for top order batsen to face as Gooch filled his boots rather than struggling in previous decades.

1990s bowers are obviously crap as this indepth analysis of 1 players stats show clearly

Thats obviously bull****, just as its bull**** to take an early part of Haydens career (ignoring the rest) and extrapolate from such limited information some frankly crazy conclusions.

Could it just not be as simple that Hayden and Gooch had a slow start to their career and over time and breaks re-tooled themselves and became superior players? Players quite frankly not comparable to many ordinary players. Of course that would be too simple and logical.

Richard, by your flawed logic Graham Roope is a far superior player than Gooch as he averaged 4 times more (roughly 37 compared to 9) during the time-period they were both playing and facing the same attacks.

 

[Richard]

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

Err, what? Hussain averaged over 40 for most of his career. Only in the calender-year 2000 did he fail to do so.

 

[Richard]

Would point out that Gooch averaged only 30 in the 70's without a century, less than 40 throughout the entire 1980's and averaged well over 50 in the 'super duper' times of the he-bowlers in the 90s.

Obviously using this information the 1990s were the worst for seam bowlers to face for top order batsmen as Gooch filled his boots rather than struggling in previous decades.

1990s bowers are obviously crap as this indepth analysis of 1 players stats show clearly

Thats obviously bull****, just as its bull**** to take an early part of Haydens career (ignoring the rest) and extrapolate from such limited information some frankly crazy conclusions.

Could it just not be as simple that Hayden and Gooch had a slow start to their career and over time and breaks re-tooled themselves and became superior players? Players quite frankly not comparable to many ordinary players. Of course that would be too simple and logical.

Richard, by your flawed logic Graham Roope is a far superior player than Gooch as he averaged more during the time-period they were both playing.

The differences between the 1970s, 80s and 90s are far, far less than the difference between 2001\02-and-after compared to the previous 25 years.

Hayden DID NOT re-tool himself - he was exactly the same player when he was worked-out in 2004-2005 as he was when he was worked-out in 1993\94 and 1996\97.

 

[Pratters]

Err, what? Hussain averaged over 40 for most of his career. Only in the calender-year 2000 did he fail to do so.

1990 (age: 21y 279d) 3 5 0 100 35 34 18 20.00 0 0 1
1993 (24y 279d) 4 8 2 184 71 47* 30 30.66 0 1 2
1996 (27y 279d) 7 12 1 559 128 113 107* 50.81 3 1 1
1997 (28y 279d) 9 15 0 548 207 105 64 36.53 2 1 1
1998 (29y 279d) 15 29 3 954 106 105 94 36.69 2 6 3
1999 (30y 279d) 7 12 2 573 146* 82 70* 57.30 1 4 1
2000 (31y 279d) 11 19 3 240 51 25 23 15.00 0 1 3
2001 (32y 279d) 10 18 1 568 109 85 64 33.41 1 5 1
2002 (33y 279d) 14 24 1 993 155 110 106 43.17 3 6 0
2003 (34y 279d) 11 20 1 711 116 95 76 37.42 1 5 1
2004 (35y 279d) 5 9 2 334 103* 58 58 47.71 1 3 0

 

[Ikki]

It had to do with being worked-out, simple as.

Hayden was also far, far inferior to Hussain 1993\94-2001, which is far more significant than anything either did 2001\02-present day.

Dude, Bro, Mate, let it go. You're judging the best part of Hussain's career - which is mediocre compared to the best part of Hayden's - to the first few test matches Hayden ever played. Do you know how silly that is? You may as well keep referring to 1 great innings that Hussain played, then compare that to 1 poor innings Hayden played and then settle your case on that. Because that way, anyone can be better than anybody. I mean, even the The Don looks human in that sense.

 

[Richard]

1990 (age: 21y 279d) 3 5 0 100 35 34 18 20.00 0 0 1
1993 (24y 279d) 4 8 2 184 71 47* 30 30.66 0 1 2
1996 (27y 279d) 7 12 1 559 128 113 107* 50.81 3 1 1
1997 (28y 279d) 9 15 0 548 207 105 64 36.53 2 1 1
1998 (29y 279d) 15 29 3 954 106 105 94 36.69 2 6 3
1999 (30y 279d) 7 12 2 573 146* 82 70* 57.30 1 4 1
2000 (31y 279d) 11 19 3 240 51 25 23 15.00 0 1 3
2001 (32y 279d) 10 18 1 568 109 85 64 33.41 1 5 1
2002 (33y 279d) 14 24 1 993 155 110 106 43.17 3 6 0
2003 (34y 279d) 11 20 1 711 116 95 76 37.42 1 5 1
2004 (35y 279d) 5 9 2 334 103* 58 58 47.71 1 3 0

I'm talking about the continuous periods excluding everything in calender-year 2000, not every year in itself.

 

[Richard]

Dude, Bro, Mate, let it go. You're judging the best part of Hussain's career - which is mediocre compared to the best part of Hayden's - to the first few test matches Hayden ever played. Do you know how silly that is? You may as well keep referring to 1 great innings that Hussain played, then compare that to 1 poor innings Hayden played and then settle your case on that. Because that way, anyone can be better than anybody. I mean, even the The Don looks human in that sense.

It's not silly at all, because Hayden is no different now to how he was at the start of his career.

The bowling faced, not the batsman, changed.

 

[Pratters]

Further, a crap record in the subcontinent..

in Bangladesh 2 4 0 188 95 76 17 47.00 0 2 1
in India 3 5 0 191 85 50 43 38.20 0 2 0
in Pakistan 3 6 2 92 51 23 7 23.00 0 1 0
in Sri Lanka 5 10 0 182 109 17 15 18.20 1 0 1

in Asia 13 25 2 653 109 95 85 28.39 1 5 2

 

[Swervy]

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.

so thats ok...but for the 50 tests that each one played in after that, we cant make the comparison..OK.

I actually see what you are driving at here Richard, and have done since the start of the thread really, however what you are saying just doesnt mean anything. A player is a product of the time they play the game...you only need to suceed in the time you play , if only for the fact that you dont play the game outside the span of your career

So in fact given Hayden does have his weaknesses, and yeah he may well have averaged lower in the 90s if he had played the majority of his career then, it really doesnt mean a thing...and you simply cannot judge a play on how you imagine he would play in a different era. Its just a silly thing to be playing around with in your head. It makes no sense.

Statisically, run scoring is 10% easier, and so the thing you can say is that the chances are Haydens average would be about 10% lower, which still leaves it miles ahead of Hussain.

And even that is pure speculation of course, so the only real comparison is between the two players when they played test cricket at the same time...and given Hayden completely blows Hussain out of the water on that front, the only logical conclusion is Hayden is by far the more successful batsman, which in most peoples talk means the better batsman.

 

[Goughy]

The differences between the 1970s, 80s and 90s are far, far less than the difference between 2001\02-and-after compared to the previous 25 years.

Hayden DID NOT re-tool himself - he was exactly the same player when he was worked-out in 2004-2005 as he was when he was worked-out in 1993\94 and 1996\97.

Respond to my frankly stupid applicaltion of your flawed logic to state Graham Roope is far superior than Gooch.

 

[Ikki]

Err, what? Hussain averaged over 40 for most of his career. Only in the calender-year 2000 did he fail to do so.

Err, yeah...



That's all he ever did.

 

[Richard]

Further, a crap record in the subcontinent..

in Bangladesh 2 4 0 188 95 76 17 47.00 0 2 1
in India 3 5 0 191 85 50 43 38.20 0 2 0
in Pakistan 3 6 2 92 51 23 7 23.00 0 1 0
in Sri Lanka 5 10 0 182 109 17 15 18.20 1 0 1

Hussain played just 11 Tests in the subcontinent, one tour in which he fell ill and the other which came during the worst period of his career, during which he was abysmal everywhere.

 

[Ikki]

It's not silly at all, because Hayden is no different now to how he was at the start of his career.

The bowling faced, not the batsman, changed.

Gee, 89 test matches and he never changed? So he was an all-time great even in the beginning?

 

[Swervy]

The differences between the 1970s, 80s and 90s are far, far less than the difference between 2001\02-and-after compared to the previous 25 years.

Hayden DID NOT re-tool himself - he was exactly the same player when he was worked-out in 2004-2005 as he was when he was worked-out in 1993\94 and 1996\97.

You have made two statements there..care to back them up with evidence..or is it presumption YET AGAIN

 

[Goughy]

Hayden DID NOT re-tool himself - he was exactly the same player when he was worked-out in 2004-2005 as he was when he was worked-out in 1993\94 and 1996\97.

So for years he though, "hmm, I could work on my game here or I can waste the time and twiddle with my balls for a few years and be exactly the same player"?

Frankly its impossible to know the mental changes that happen within a batsman and there are small technical things you would never pick up on.

Its quite possible the most idiotic and egotistical thing Ive heard is that you can announce that Hayden was exactly the same player and that you possess the knowledge to state it.

 

[Richard]

so thats ok...but for the 50 tests that each one played in after that, we cant make the comparison..OK.

I actually see what you are driving at here Richard, and have done since the start of the thread really, however what you are saying just doesnt mean anything. A player is a product of the time they play the game...you only need to suceed in the time you play , if only for the fact that you dont play the game outside the span of your career

So in fact given Hayden does have his weaknesses, and yeah he may well have averaged lower in the 90s if he had played the majority of his career then, it really doesnt mean a thing...and you simply cannot judge a play on how you imagine he would play in a different era. Its just a silly thing to be playing around with in your head. It makes no sense.

Statisically, run scoring is 10% easier, and so the thing you can say is that the chances are Haydens average would be about 10% lower, which still leaves it miles ahead of Hussain.

And even that is pure speculation of course, so the only real comparison is between the two players when they played test cricket at the same time...and given Hayden completely blows Hussain out of the water on that front, the only logical conclusion is Hayden is by far the more successful batsman, which in most peoples talk means the better batsman.

To suggest that every single case would be the same is crazy.

Hayden's average had he started in 1989, say, would almost certainly be a good 30 runs lower.

 

[Swervy]

Hussain played just 11 Tests in the subcontinent, one tour in which he fell ill and the other which came during the worst period of his career, during which he was abysmal everywhere.

why is there always an excuse????

But fair play to Hussain, he was subject to some real howlers from umpires around that time, but yeah he was in shocking form as well...but I guess being in bad form isnt a luxury afforded to th eplayers you dont like ie Hayden

 

[Richard]

Respond to my frankly stupid applicaltion of your flawed logic to state Graham Roope is far superior than Gooch.

I just did. I stated it's not as simple as looking at things exactly decade-by-decade. "1990s" and "2000s" are nothing but shorthand terms.