Hayden vs Hussain

[Swervy]

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.

YOU DONT KNOW THAT

 

[Richard]

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

No, he was poor against good bowling and never became anything but.

 

[Richard]

YOU DONT KNOW THAT

And we don't know the sky is blue, either...

 

[Ikki]

No, he was poor against good bowling and never became anything but.

Sure sure. 9 tests out of 96 tests Hussain averaged 40+...WHAT A LEGEND! Screw Hayden, Hussain should be nicknamed "The Nas".

 

[Swervy]

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.

I am sure Hayden would have found the odd ball to hit even in the late 80s, when the ball swing around the stadium twice before pitching and always hit top of off stump, no matter who was bowling


by the way, the bowling around the world wasnt all that great back then.

 

[Swervy]

And we don't know the sky is blue, either...

It isnt!!!

 

[Richard]

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.

It takes more than a few little changes to become a decent player from what Hayden was in 1999 and 2000.

 

[Pratters]

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.

13 tests is a huge assessment basis if you think 8 tests suffice, I would have thought. Hayden v Hussain in the subcontinent, there is a start difference. Hayden ALSO played just 15 tests in the subcontinent.

Hayden: in Asia 15 27 1 1429 203 130 119 54.96 4 6 0

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

Hussain failed as a player in Asia. End of. Whether it was emotional issues or technical ability or whatever, when we compare the two, this aspect weighs heavily in favour of Hayden.

 

[Richard]

Sure sure. 9 tests out of 96 tests Hussain averaged 40+...WHAT A LEGEND! Screw Hayden, Hussain should be nicknamed "The Nas".

Will you stop trying to put down Hussain and instead concentrate on the fact that I am putting down Hayden?

 

[Richard]

13 tests is a huge assessment basis if you think 8 tests suffice, I would have thought. Hayden v Hussain in the subcontinent, there is a start difference. Hayden ALSO played just 15 tests in the subcontinent.

Hayden: in Asia 15 27 1 1429 203 130 119 54.96 4 6 0

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

Hussain failed as a player in Asia. End of. Whether it was emotional issues or technical ability or whatever, when we compare the two, this aspect weighs heavily in favour of Hayden.

I don't think 8 Tests suffice. I think 21 do, though.

And yes, Hayden was indeed a better player of spin than Hussain.

 

[Swervy]

Will you stop trying to put down Hussain and instead concentrate on the fact that I am putting down Hayden?

Its fair game..to be honest, its up to you to prove Hussains superiorty, given the pro-Hayden corner has every single bit of evidence to show you havent a clue

 

[Richard]

I am sure Hayden would have found the odd ball to hit even in the late 80s, when the ball swing around the stadium twice before pitching and always hit top of off stump, no matter who was bowling


by the way, the bowling around the world wasnt all that great back then.

So? There was less of a change between 1996\97 and 1997\98 than there was between 2000\01 and 2001\02.

 

[Richard]

Its fair game..to be honest, its up to you to prove Hussains superiorty, given the pro-Hayden corner has every single bit of evidence to show you havent a clue

I have all the evidence I need, I have proven Hayden to be less than the average Test batsman of the 1990s as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

It isnt!!!

Which is exactly what I meant...

 

[Ikki]

Will you stop trying to put down Hussain and instead concentrate on the fact that I am putting down Hayden?

When you come up with a statement like:

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

You should be concentrating more on Hussain than Hayden.

 

[Swervy]

I have all the evidence I need, I have proven Hayden to be less than the average Test batsman of the 1990s as far as I'm concerned.

but you fail to recognise that a) that time span makes up only 10% of Haydens career
b) players do actually develop and change with time. No matter what you say, hayden is NOT the same batsman as he was 14 years ago

 

[Richard]

When you come up with a statement like:
M
You should be concentrating more on Hussain than Hayden.

No, I shouldn't. Hussain averaged over 40 between 1996 and 1999. Simple as. That proves he was a good player at that time.

Hayden was not. And it's that which is the issue.

 

[Ikki]

I have all the evidence I need, I have proven Hayden to be less than the average Test batsman of the 1990s as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, you proved that in the 90s, where Hayden played 7 test matches - years apart - that he wasn't such a great.

Goodnight folks.

 

[Goughy]

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.

No you didnt. Roope faced the same attacks that Gooch did and averaged 4 times more. By your logic (by only taking the periods Hayden and Hussain played at the same time) Roope must be the better player.

Its a stupid argument.

 

[Richard]

but you fail to recognise that a) that time span makes up only 10% of Haydens career
b) players do actually develop and change with time. No matter what you say, hayden is NOT the same batsman as he was 14 years ago

I don't give a **** how much of his career it makes-up - it'd make-up near enough all of it had the quality of bowling not deteriorated in 2001\02.