Hayden vs Hussain

[Fiery]

It may have escaped your notice, but you can't watch off a scorecard.

It has also evidently escaped your notice that three-stroke, boring, blah-blah-ils, batsman is not exempt from being a flat-track bully.

Show me a batsman who doesn't prefer batting on a flat track. You're misusing the term "flat-track bully". A flat-track bully is someone who murders weak bowling on batter-friendly wickets. Richardson never did this so never had a reputation as a flat-track bully. He was equally determined to defend his wicket on any surface.

 

[pup11]

One conclusion to come out from this thread is that Richard is a big Nasser Hussain fan.


I am right Rich?


Yousuf is a player with lazy elegance and natural ability to time and place the ball very well, but on technique and grit and ability to face good bowling attacks i would rate Hussain as a better batsman compared to Yousuf.

 

[Smudge]

It may have escaped your notice, but you can't watch off a scorecard.

What a waste of bandwidth. Dead-set.

 

[pup11]

Richardson was a classic test match opening batsman, he was a pretty defensive batsman and i have hardly seen him play an unorthodox shot on any sort of pitch in his whole test career.



TBH, Richardson would be the last batsmen in the world who i would term as a "flat-track bully".

 

[SJS]

One can be a three stroke batsman and be a flat track champion (getting lots of runs on these wickets and not much elsewhere) but a 'bully' is a bit different.

It would be difficult for a three stroke batsman to bully any decent bowlers unless they just spread their legs and lay down on the floor and begged him to come take them.

 

[sideshowtim]

How can anyone call Hayden a flat-track bully when he scored 119 on a pitch where Pakistan were bowled out collectively for 59 & 53? (Thanks cricinfo)

It's a widespread claim, yet it's rarely backed up. Hayden is a magnificent batsman and one of the greatest openers to ever play the game.

 

[SJS]

Hayden is a magnificent batsman .

Absolutely no doubt about that.

He is fabulous. I love watching him and I AM difficult to please

 

[Smudge]

It would be difficult for a three stroke batsman to bully any decent bowlers unless they just spread their legs and lay down on the floor and begged him to come take them.

A fantasy of yours when you were in the middle of your career, SJS?

 

[tooextracool]

How can anyone call Hayden a flat-track bully when he scored 119 on a pitch where Pakistan were bowled out collectively for 59 & 53? (Thanks cricinfo)

It's a widespread claim, yet it's rarely backed up. Hayden is a magnificent batsman and one of the greatest openers to ever play the game.

Well for one thing, Shane Warne, Danish Kaneria and Saqlain Mushtaq accounted for half of the wickets in that game, so it was hardly a seamer's paradise. Secondly that Pakistan side was about as much as a schoolboy's team as you'll ever see and the fact that Abdul Razzaq was their leading run scorer in the test match says it all IMO.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not agreeing with Richard in this arguement but it is his opinion and we must respect that.

Yeah, this thread wouldn't have ran on and on if it was someone else who expressed an opinion that Hussain was the better player. In fact, it wouldn't even have been started. I'm glad Richard sticks to his guns, it makes CW a more interesting place, yet why people feel the need to bring any of his previous arguments into this one I don't understand.

 

[SJS]

A fantasy of yours when you were in the middle of your career, SJS?

why only in the middle of the career

 

[Richard]

Show me a batsman who doesn't prefer batting on a flat track. You're misusing the term "flat-track bully". A flat-track bully is someone who murders weak bowling on batter-friendly wickets. Richardson never did this so never had a reputation as a flat-track bully. He was equally determined to defend his wicket on any surface.

Richardson did murder weak bowling on flat wickets, and mostly failed against better bowling when there was something there for them.

He just didn't score quickly, but scoring quickly is not a requirement to be a flat-track bully.

 

[Richard]

How can anyone call Hayden a flat-track bully when he scored 119 on a pitch where Pakistan were bowled out collectively for 59 & 53? (Thanks cricinfo)

It's a widespread claim, yet it's rarely backed up. Hayden is a magnificent batsman and one of the greatest openers to ever play the game.

It's backed-up by countless things, Hayden would have been a nothing opener at almost any time in Test history. That Pakistan game the pitch was perfectly flat, Pakistan's batting was just pathetic.

 

[Ikki]

It's backed-up by countless things, Hayden would have been a nothing opener at almost any time in Test history. That Pakistan game the pitch was perfectly flat, Pakistan's batting was just pathetic.

I love your enthusiasm for debate and your love of cricket, but you're taking this to levels of childishness. You're making false generalisations and what you provide as evidence may cover only a hypothetical.

You don't regard other's valid opinions - backed by facts - and you come back with "Purely and simply, Hayden is crap". "Hayden bashes inferior bowling more than anyone else and in any other era wouldn't go past 5 tests".

Now, I thought you may be a stickler for detail and indulge only in your own ideals of cricket, but I think you have a certain disregard, even hate, for Hayden.

 

[pup11]

I think Hayden is one of the best openers in Test cricket history, he has scored big and has scored runs in almost every condition in every part of the world.


When the famous Aussie batting was struggling in the 01/02 test series in India against H.Singh (or lets simply say against Indian spin bowling), Hayden was one batsman who looked comfortable and scored a lots of runs, and mind you it was his comeback series.

 

[silentstriker]

Just want to add (perhaps somewhat OT), that anyone who thinks 'runs are runs' and thinks this 156 counts the same as this 156, is crazy.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah, this thread wouldn't have ran on and on if it was someone else who expressed an opinion that Hussain was the better player. In fact, it wouldn't even have been started. I'm glad Richard sticks to his guns, it makes CW a more interesting place, yet why people feel the need to bring any of his previous arguments into this one I don't understand.

maybe my fault that, I couldnt remember which thread something was mentioned in, but it did have a common theme with this one as well

 

[open365]

Hussain did average more than Hayden, between 1993\94 and 2001, at a time when attacks were, in general, stronger.

And ANYTHING from that point onwards is irrelevant, because such happenings are reprisentative of an unusual period. In such a period, Hayden is clearly much the better. But most times in Test cricket history have not been akin to such a thing. So by the general criteria, Hussain trumps Hayden as a Test batsman.

Ah yes, how could i be so stupid as to think that the whole last 7 years of test cricket have been irrelevant and that anyone averaging over 50 in this period is by default a lucky flat track bully who is obviously not as good as a number of run of the mill test players who averaged 35.

I'm not even going to bother arguing after this post, how do you win against someone who discounts the last 7 years of cricket in one post?

 

[SinisterMinista]

I'm not even going to bother arguing after this post, how do you win against someone who discounts the last 7 years of cricket in one post?

By default.

 

[Richard]

Even just on a single post, I'm prepared to make the guess.

No shopfront, but you know what I mean.