Hayden vs Hussain

[Richard]

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.

I'm not surprised. That's often the impression people get of players they like and I talk down.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not making false generalisations. I'm basing reasonable judgements on reasonable bases.

I come back with the same thing, meanwhile, because that's all there is to it, and people repeatedly ignore it when I say it. It's not a difficult or complicated thing - Hayden was poor in a certain way in 2001, and was still poor in that way in 2004\05 and 2005. The definitive knowledge that much of the bowling around in the interim period - and thereafter - has been of a very poor quality tells me the rest.

 

[Richard]

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.

No-one has ever said he can't play spin, superbly. The point is he is an opener and being an opener is supposed to be about high-quality play of seam and swing, and this is where Hayden falls down.

 

[Sanz]

No-one has ever said he can't play spin, superbly. The point is he is an opener and being an opener is supposed to be about high-quality play of seam and swing, and this is where Hayden falls down.

Did you write this one back in 1994 and forgot to post ?

 

[Richard]

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?

There's a very definate difference between discounting and taking in context. In case you haven't noticed, I've not called every single player who's scored big in the last 7 years a flat-track bully, merely said runs at the current time are often worth little compared to the 25 years that preceded it (and most of the time before then, too).

And Hussain averaged more than 35, as well.

 

[Richard]

Did you write this one back in 1994 and forgot to post ?

WTF?

 

[pup11]

Yeah Richard you are right about Hayden weakness to the moving ball but he has overcome that weakness a lot in the last 2 years, his patient knock (against the moving ball) at The Oval in Ashes 05 was a prime example of that.


Now every batsman has a certain weakness, Hussain's weakness was the rising ball and he kept on fracturing his fragile set of fingers while playing the rising ball.

 

[pup11]

Yeah Richard you are right about Hayden's weakness to the moving ball but he has overcome that weakness a lot in the last 2 years, his patient knock (against the moving ball) at The Oval in Ashes 05 was a prime example of that.


Now every batsman has a certain weakness, Hussain's weakness was the rising ball and he kept on fracturing his fragile set of fingers while playing the rising ball.

 

[honestbharani]

Cannot believe it has taken 26 pages to settle THIS question......

 

[pasag]

Richard nearly having a third of the posts in this thread might have a little bit to do with that.

 

[Fiery]

Richard nearly having a third of the posts in this thread might have a little bit to do with that.

Does that mean we can close it now!?

 

[pup11]

26 pages.... and still going strong!!

 

[Richard]

Cannot believe it has taken 26 pages to settle THIS question......

It's not the question that needs settling, it's the debate. I've stated the same thing hundreds of times, and people have repeatedly ignored it.

And it's 10 pages!!!

 

[Richard]

Yeah Richard you are right about Hayden's weakness to the moving ball but he has overcome that weakness a lot in the last 2 years, his patient knock (against the moving ball) at The Oval in Ashes 05 was a prime example of that.

But it wasn't. He's barely faced the stuff - again - in the last 2 years. Except against Hoggard at some points in 2006\07, and it was still as obvious as ever.

Anyone can work around a weakness for one innings.

Now every batsman has a certain weakness, Hussain's weakness was the rising ball and he kept on fracturing his fragile set of fingers while playing the rising ball.

Not really - think of all the rising balls he faced in his career, he only broke fingers twice. He also broke one twice more (once in a domestic game) when fielding.

 

[Fiery]

It's not the question that needs settling, it's the debate. I've stated the same thing hundreds of times, and people have repeatedly ignored it.

And it's 10 pages!!!

People have repeatedly ignored you for a reason Richard...you're terribly wrong

 

[Richard]

No, I'm not. I'm 100% correct to state that Hussain's performances 1993\94-2001 were better than Hayden's, and that Hayden played enough games in that time (21) to judge his failures on.

I'm also quite correct in stating that such failures have still been perfectly apparent to the current day.

 

[Fiery]

No, I'm not. I'm 100% correct to state that Hussain's performances 1993\94-2001 were better than Hayden's, and that Hayden played enough games in that time (21) to judge his failures on.

I'm also quite correct in stating that such failures have still been perfectly apparent to the current day.

You've shifted your own goalposts

 

[Richard]

No, I haven't. That's the thing I've been saying over and over, and the thing people have been ignoring over and over, preferring to tell me that Hayden averaged 57 from that point onwards (of which I'm perfectly well aware of and couldn't care less about, and have stated why over and over too) and that this is better than Hussain's.

Plus countless amounts of fiddlydiddling over the use of shorthand approximate dates.

 

[Fiery]

No, I haven't. That's the thing I've been saying over and over, and the thing people have been ignoring over and over, preferring to tell me that Hayden averaged 57 from that point onwards (of which I'm perfectly well aware of and couldn't care less about, and have stated why over and over too) and that this is better than Hussain's.

Plus countless amounts of fiddlydiddling over the use of shorthand approximate dates.

whatever dude...everyone's waiting for an apology on wasting their time on this thread tbh

 

[Richard]

I'm apologising for nothing - if people want to waste their time telling me the same thing over and again and ignoring me posting the same thing over and again that's their choice.

 

[pup11]

How many times has Hussain opened the innings for England is Test cricket??