Hayden or Anwar?

[Richard]

Considering he average mid 50s for Qld during the 90s when the 'Gabba had the most seam of any ground in Australia I beg to differ.

I seem to remember we've done this one before, and we found-out that the attacks he faced weren't quite what they were cracked-up to be.

 

[Mister Wright]

Ntini was rubbish at that time, Donald was nothing but a shadow of a once brilliant bowler, Pollock was not much good on flat pitches by then, Kallis likewise, Klusener was past his best, and Hayward for all his potential never managed to be that good.

That, like almost all other attacks since 2001\02 that Hayden's faced, was wholly average.

So let me get my head around this. You say that Hayden isn't good enough to score big runs against quality attacks - then you list the names. He does, but then you give all sorts of reasons why his scores shouldn't be counted. However, any reasons given for Hayden not performing earlier in his career are again dismissed because he didn't have the ability. I love the way you can pick and choose what you'd like to use for your arguments. Great stuff - makes me laugh every time.

 

[Richard]

So let me get my head around this. You say that Hayden isn't good enough to score big runs against quality attacks - then you list the names. He does, but then you give all sorts of reasons why his scores shouldn't be counted.

He doesn't, though, that's the thing. Those attacks weren't good ones. The names may have made them look like they were, but in reality, they weren't.

However, any reasons given for Hayden not performing earlier in his career are again dismissed because he didn't have the ability. I love the way you can pick and choose what you'd like to use for your arguments. Great stuff - makes me laugh every time.

The reasons for Hayden not performing earlier in his career are exclusively, in my mind, related to not having the ability to combat the high-quality attacks of the time.

 

[Ikki]

Richard, mate, I don't know if you get paid to say outlandish stuff to keep the forums ticking or you actually believe a lot of what you say.

 

[Athlai]

The reasoning is simple, the attack wasn't good because Hayden scored off of it.

 

[Richard]

The reasoning is simple, the attack wasn't good because Hayden scored off of it.

No, you've got the ordering wrong. If I'd considered the attack good before Hayden faced it, I'd not consider him poor, rather consider him good, because he'd scored off said attack.

 

[Athlai]

No, you've got the ordering wrong. If I'd considered the attack good before Hayden faced it, I'd not consider him poor, rather consider him good, because he'd scored off said attack.

What's a good attack though? A full strength English attack? A full strength South African one?

 

[Richard]

Full-strength doesn't matter - an attack can be the best one available and still crap.

If bowlers have done well previously, recently, through demonstration of skills to take wickets on the type of surface the game in question is being played on, they're presenting a challenge. If not, they must be considered easy pickings.

 

[Ikki]

What's a good attack though? A full strength English attack? A full strength South African one?

You haven't been privy to Richard's argument where a good player - or in this case playerS - can switch form at the rate of 1 test. So these bowlers were great and then when they met Hayden they were on a flop, were poor, and hence shouldn't be judged unfavourably. So, Hayden should receive no accolades.

 

[Athlai]

Full-strength doesn't matter - an attack can be the best one available and still crap.

If bowlers have done well previously, recently, through demonstration of skills to take wickets on the type of surface the game in question is being played on, they're presenting a challenge. If not, they must be considered easy pickings.

By that reasoning, good bowling MUST be paid off as opposed to good batting being able to counteract it. You can bowl 1 for 80 in a match and still have bowled perfectly, constantly troubling the batsman, putting it in all the right areas, the job of a good batsman in test cricket is to not get out and score a few runs while they are at it.

And how often do you rate an attack as good? Because I can't see practically any batsman from the modern game being rated by you if you believe that there are no good attacks.

 

[Richard]

You haven't been privy to Richard's argument where a good player - or in this case playerS - can switch form at the rate of 1 test. So these bowlers were great and then when they met Hayden they were on a flop, were poor, and hence shouldn't be judged unfavourably.

Such things are certainly not impossible, but obviously such changes wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Hayden happened to be playing.

 

[Richard]

By that reasoning, good bowling MUST be paid off as opposed to good batting being able to counteract it. You can bowl 1 for 80 in a match and still have bowled perfectly, constantly troubling the batsman, putting it in all the right areas, the job of a good batsman in test cricket is to not get out and score a few runs while they are at it.

And how often do you rate an attack as good? Because I can't see practically any batsman from the modern game being rated by you if you believe that there are no good attacks.

I do indeed tend to rate the many batsmen who've scored so stupendously (there are quite a few) of the last 6 years (incredible how the explosion in several batsmen started at almost the exact same time) nowhere near so highly as so many seem to.

Hayden, though, I feel would not even be Test-class in another era; the Kallises, Pontings, etc. I feel would be.

 

[andyc]

2001/02 season against South Africa. South African attack contained Pollock, Donald, Hayward, Ntini, Kluesner & Kallis.

Scores of 31, 131, 138, 3*, 105.

Enjoy your meal.

Ntini was rubbish at that time, Donald was nothing but a shadow of a once brilliant bowler, Pollock was not much good on flat pitches by then, Kallis likewise, Klusener was past his best, and Hayward for all his potential never managed to be that good.

That, like almost all other attacks since 2001\02 that Hayden's faced, was wholly average.

Knew what the response was going to be before I saw it. You really need some new material, Richard

 

[Perm]

Knew what the response was going to be before I saw it. You really need some new material, Richard

Yup, as soon as I seen that list you just knew Richard was going to dismiss every bowler in that lineup as crap.

 

[Richard]

Knew what the response was going to be before I saw it. You really need some new material, Richard

The material remains the same no matter how many different people question it.

 

[Richard]

Yup, as soon as I seen that list you just knew Richard was going to dismiss every bowler in that lineup as crap.

But you should know I'd do it because they were. I don't see how anything I said was untrue. If someone had actually come-up with convincing reasons as to why said bowlers were better than I suggest it'd be good, but no-one ever does, it's always the same "you just won't give Hayden any credit" crap.

 

[Ikki]

The material remains the same no matter how many different people question it.

I think that's your biggest problem. You should stop trying to be right and start trying to accept being wrong.

 

[Richard]

I only accept I'm wrong where I've been wrong though. And I've never seen any reason to believe I am so in this case.

 

[Goughy]

Ntini was rubbish at that time, Donald was nothing but a shadow of a once brilliant bowler, Pollock was not much good on flat pitches by then, Kallis likewise, Klusener was past his best, and Hayward for all his potential never managed to be that good.

That, like almost all other attacks since 2001\02 that Hayden's faced, was wholly average.

You gotta love the assessment

It was a very good attack before the 2 series against Aus and it was a very good attack afterwards.

Just so happened they turned into a bad attack when Hayden faced them.

 

[Perm]

But you should know I'd do it because they were. I don't see how anything I said was untrue. If someone had actually come-up with convincing reasons as to why said bowlers were better than I suggest it'd be good, but no-one ever does, it's always the same "you just won't give Hayden any credit" crap.

Pollock averaged 21.38 in 2001 and 26.20 in 2002.
Donald averaged 26.45 in 2001 and 101.50 in 2002.
Hayward averaged 38.15 in 2001 and 20.93 in 2002.
Ntini averaged 47.69 in 2001 and 24.40 in 2002.
Klusener averaged 40.39 in 2001 and did not play in 2002.
Kallis averaged 26.66 in 2001 and 26.90 in 2002.

Some of your points are correct, Alan Donald fell away drastically in 2002 while Ntini, Hayward and Klusener were all rubbish in 2001.

Other than that, argue your heart out Richard.