Hayden vs Hussain

[Swervy]

Which is exactly what I meant...

right

 

[Richard]

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

Goodnight folks.

And he played 21 between 1993\94 and 2001. And Hussain still outperformed him in that timeframe.

 

[Richard]

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.

It's not in the Hussain-Hayden one. Nothing much changed in 1976 or 1977, compared to what changed in 2001.

Therefore that Roope was better than Gooch for a short time doesn't really count for much in this.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Actually, he didn't:

You're basically ignoring cold hard statistics. You're ignoring facts.

 

[Swervy]

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.

its a stupid arguremnet when you are talking about half a dozen tests (like The Roope/Gooch thing)...but what I have suggested is that the only valid comparison (when not using just normal logic and common sense like most people do) is that 50 tests before Hussain retired, and hayden was a regular..when hayden averaged double Hussain

 

[Pratters]

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.

Langer 1993-99 averages merely 36.

1996-99, he averages 38.

So is Hussain>Langer by your logic and your stat (that Hussain averages 40)?

 

[Richard]

its a stupid arguremnet when you are talking about half a dozen tests (like The Roope/Gooch thing)...but what I have suggested is that the only valid comparison (when not using just normal logic and common sense like most people do) is that 50 tests before Hussain retired, and hayden was a regular..when hayden averaged double Hussain

Which proves that Hayden was better than Hussain at battering rubbish bowling, simple as.

 

[Swervy]

Which proves that Hayden was better than Hussain at battering rubbish bowling, simple as.

but thats why most of us apply common sense to the arguement as well

 

[Richard]

Actually, he didn't:

You're basically ignoring cold hard statistics. You're ignoring facts.

Yes. He did.

 

[Ikki]

And he played 21 between 1993\94 and 2001. And Hussain still outperformed him in that timeframe.

Stop trying to fool yourself.

Hayden played 1 test in 94, 1 in 96 and 5 in 97. The rest are 2000 and beyond. You want to compare them from 2000 beyond? This is tiresome. Richard, you do yourself a disservice by dumbing yourself down, to remain ignorant of a fact, just to hold a point.

 

[Richard]

Langer 1993-99 averages merely 36.

1996-99, he averages 38.

So is Hussain>Langer by your logic and your wrong stat (that Hussain averages 40)?

Answering that question would probably open another can of worms, TBH.

 

[Swervy]

Langer 1993-99 averages merely 36.

1996-99, he averages 38.

So is Hussain>Langer by your logic and your wrong stat (that Hussain averages 40)?

I dare say Pontings ave was not to great either.

Australia have had such a weak top order!!!!

 

[Richard]

Stop trying to fool yourself.

Hayden played 1 test in 94, 1 in 96 and 5 in 97. The rest are 2000 and beyond. You want to compare them from 2000 beyond? This is tiresome. Richard, you do yourself a disservice by dumbing yourself down, to remain ignorant of a fact, just to hold a point.

No, I want you to compare them 1993-2001. And see that Hayden did nothing of note except one series in India, while Hussain was excellent other than losing form completely in January 2000.

 

[Goughy]

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

Goodnight folks.

Dont go to bed yet.

I just want to point out 1 more thing.

Im going to take strong SA attacks (using Donalds careers as a marker)

In the 90s Hayden averaged 12 against such other worldly attacks including such players as Donald, Pollock, Kallis, Klusener, de Villiers etc. Obviously he would fail against such a good attack as Hayden is rubbish. We all know that.

However, by Richards logic the attack by 2000 had suddenly become terrible and Hayden (after 2000 and before Donald retired) averaged 82 against bowlers such as Donald, Pollock, Kallis, Nel, Ntini etc. Wait...how is that possible?

The quality of the attacks didnt change in this regard and this is the closest you will get to a blind experiment. Hayden changed.

Case Closed

Now bedtime for us all.

 

[Fruitfly]

I could honestly see this turd trying to argue that Peter Such was a better test batsman than Hayden due to him occupying the crease for 100 balls or w/e it was for his longest test duck

He'd compare it to some random occasion where Hayden got out for 0 after only a few balls faced.

 

[Swervy]

Yes. He did.

brilliant bit of work there..make sure you bookend the period with hundreds

 

[Ikki]

Yes. He did.

You're right. Apologies. I put 12 in both days and months. It seems in the last 19 days of that year he raised his average by 4 points.

 

[Pratters]

Answering that question would probably open another can of worms, TBH.

We are here all night. Please answer it.

 

[Richard]

I could honestly see this turd trying to argue that Peter Such was a better test batsman than Hayden due to him occupying the crease for 100 balls or w/e it was for his longest test duck

I could honestly see your contribution meaning nothing... which it does.

 

[Richard]

brilliant bit of work there..make sure you bookend the period with hundreds

Err, yes, because after and before those hundreds a different period clearly applies.