Hayden or Anwar?

[Ikki]

You mean the year preceding, presumably.

Of course that is what I mean. I don't care for how poor a bowler may have been 6 months after a certain test series, what is relevant is how they went into it. And ALL 3 went into i with very good form.

Donald played just 5 Tests, doing reasonably well but clearly not being the force of old, anyone who watched the Tests (and those of the previous season, for that matter) could tell that.

But then again, anyone who actually watched the series, and saw South Africa play, wouldn't deny Hayden his praise. He was too good for them. Donald may have not been his best, but even in that form he would be amongst the best bowlers in the world.

Kallis you've made the mistake of looking at overall average and including Bangladesh, both of which give a false impression of how he bowled. Kallis has never been an outstanding bowler, he just had a fine series in West Indies.

Actually, Bangladesh is not in the period selected. Zimbabwe was, he did averagely, but then again it was as good as Pollock did against them.

And it doesn't matter if he hasn't been great all his career. He is an all-rounder, and for the form he went into the series he was a VERY good one and his bowling alone would have been good enough to put him in the side.

Pollock, meanwhile, has been for an age someone who depends on friendly conditions. He got them - sometimes (and he struggled when he didn't) - in some of the previous Tests. Not once did he get them against Australia. Had he done so, he'd have had Hayden for breakfast.

Listen Richard, I've had enough of your Hayden bashing, I don't buy any of your transparent and silly arguments. I am sure after this thread even less people will put as much weight on your opinion about Hayden. It is clearly a distorted view and conversing this to-and-fro is not my idea of learning anything. It is pretty easy to see, yet you are too busy scrounging for an argument to back your bias.

 

[Richard]

Of course that is what I mean. I don't care for how poor a bowler may have been 6 months after a certain test series, what is relevant is how they went into it. And ALL 3 went into i with very good form.

And form can change in a matter of days.

But then again, anyone who actually watched the series, and saw South Africa play, wouldn't deny Hayden his praise. He was too good for them. Donald may have not been his best, but even in that form he would be amongst the best bowlers in the world.

He quite clearly wasn't. However brilliant Donald may have been at one time, he was clearly nowhere near that by 2001\02. Not close, nowhere near. He was no more than a David Gilbert, really.

Actually, Bangladesh is not in the period selected. Zimbabwe was, he did averagely, but then again it was good as Pollock did against them.

And it doesn't matter if he hasn't been great all his career. He is an all-rounder, and for the form he went into the series he was a VERY good one and his bowling alone would have been good enough to put him in the side.

No it wouldn't. Because it amounts to nothing more than 1 good series. Kallis was poor in summer 2000\01, he was good in the autumn series in West Indies in 2001.

Listen Richard, I've had enough of your Hayden bashing, I don't buy any of your transparent and silly arguments. I am sure after this thread even less people will put as much weight on your opinion about Hayden. It is clearly a distorted view and conversing this to-and-fro is not my idea of learning anything. It is pretty easy to see, yet you are too busy scrounging for an argument to back your bias.

Rubbish is it, if I'd seen fit to change my views on Hayden I'd have done so. I don't, however, and there are good reasons for that. Those of a similar mind are probably less common than more, but frankly I've had enough of those Hayden-worshippers, especially when they go so far as to say he's the 3rd-best opener in history or whatever.

 

[Ikki]

And form can change in a matter of days.

As it often seems to do when I argue for a player and you against.

He quite clearly wasn't. However brilliant Donald may have been at one time, he was clearly nowhere near that by 2001\02. Not close, nowhere near. He was no more than a David Gilbert, really.

Rubbish.

No it wouldn't. Because it amounts to nothing more than 1 good series. Kallis was poor in summer 2000\01, he was good in the autumn series in West Indies in 2001.

Rubbish.

Rubbish is it, if I'd seen fit to change my views on Hayden I'd have done so. I don't, however, and there are good reasons for that. Those of a similar mind are probably less common than more, but frankly I've had enough of those Hayden-worshippers, especially when they go so far as to say he's the 3rd-best opener in history or whatever.

No, you wouldn't. It's a conclusion many have come to and I have slowly accepted it. You think yourself a reasonable person and thus will change when reason is against you. However, you cannot see your own bias, or need to be 'right', and, hence, it is almost a daily thing where a member(s) tells you you're being hypocritical and that a lot of people are wondering what planet you're on.

BTW, it is a much saner thing to argue Hayden is the 3rd best opener in history than it is to say Nasser Hussain is better than Hayden.

 

[R_D]

You are talking about the India series where they had to face supposedly one of the strongest batting line ups in recent history.

They won that series and repeatedly bowled India out for under 265 in the '3 match' series.

Maybe a batting lineup of Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag etc offered them easy wickets?

Then in the 2 series (ignoring Bangladesh) after Aus they had TEAM bowling averages of 22.2 and 20.5. Remember thats team average, meaning it is all the bowlers from the best to the worst combined.

Those numbers are scary good.

Maybe because SA didn't feel quite comfortable having similar pitches for the Australians as the ones for Indian batsman ? I can certainly see the Indian seamers sending the chills down the SA batsman's spine .
SA knew perfectly well and prepared pretty flat pitches for aussies compared to India. Hence why the SA bowlers went from being good to looking like medicore.
Certainly was bit tasteful the pot shot at Indian lineup which you seem to take whenever you get the chance. I've read enough threads in here.
FOr once Richard's statement are being backed up by those figures shown by Perm.. he wasn't far from the truth.. Pollock was looking average, Donald sking downhill same with Klusner, Nitini a new-comer and Haywayrd is Wayward.

 

[Richard]

As it often seems to do when I argue for a player and you against.

Yes, we have polar opposite standpoints on said issue. I don't really understand why anyone would argue the opposite standpoint to me though.

Rubbish.

Unless you can provide convincing reason as to why, that's poor.

Rubbish.

Ditto.

No, you wouldn't. It's a conclusion many have come to and I have slowly accepted it. You think yourself a reasonable person and thus will change when reason is against you. However, you cannot see your own bias, or need to be 'right', and, hence, it is almost a daily thing where a member(s) tells you you're being hypocritical and that a lot of people are wondering what planet you're on.

I see the need to be "right" because I don't feel there's any point in arguing if you don't believe something. Hence, I won't just give-up where most will.

BTW, it is a much saner thing to argue Hayden is the 3rd best opener in history than it is to say Nasser Hussain is better than Hayden.

It's not. I've argued the Hussain>Hayden case perfectly viably in my own mind. If others are too blinkered to see it, that's their problem.

 

[Ikki]

Maybe because SA didn't feel quite comfortable having similar pitches for the Australians as the ones for Indian batsman ? I can certainly see the Indian seamers sending the chills down the SA batsman's spine .
SA knew perfectly well and prepared pretty flat pitches for aussies compared to India. Hence why the SA bowlers went from being good to looking like medicore.
Certainly was bit tasteful the pot shot at Indian lineup which you seem to take whenever you get the chance. I've read enough threads in here.
FOr once Richard's statement are being backed up by those figures shown by Perm.. he wasn't far from the truth.. Pollock was looking average, Donald sking downhill same with Klusner, Nitini a new-comer and Haywayrd is Wayward.

1) If SA knew Australia do better on flat-tracks...why would they prepare flat-tracks?
2) Maybe you didn't get it, but Goughy was being sarcastic about the Indian batting line-up.
3) Donald, Kallis and Pollock went into the series on great form.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, we have polar opposite standpoints on said issue. I don't really understand why anyone would argue the opposite standpoint to me though.

Because most of the time you're far off the truth.

Unless you can provide convincing reason as to why, that's poor.

Nah, considering your reasoning is usually crap, I'd rather just call it what it is.

Ditto

Glad you agree.

I see the need to be "right" because I don't feel there's any point in arguing if you don't believe something. Hence, I won't just give-up where most will.

The problem is not believing it is right, the problem is knowing when you're wrong.

It's not. I've argued the Hussain>Hayden case perfectly viably in my own mind. If others are too blinkered to see it, that's their problem.

You have argued that case, which is why it's a running joke now.

 

[Richard]

1) If SA knew Australia do better on flat-tracks...why would they prepare flat-tracks?

Because people don't always prepare the surfaces that suit them best. I'd have loved it if the tracks in SA had offered more to seam than they did, and if Pollock had been fit, and if Donald had still been a brilliant bowler.

Sadly, it didn't happen.

 

[Richard]

Because most of the time you're far off the truth.

According to those people. I don't see how it makes any sense to argue that bowlers have to change over years, not days, because I've seen countless cases of bowlers going up and down between two matches.

Nah, considering your reasoning is usually crap, I'd rather just call it what it is.

Unless you can call it for reasons, you can't have any credibility in calling it.

Glad you agree.

With myself.

The problem is not believing it is right, the problem is knowing when you're wrong.

And if I thought the standpoint was wrong, I'd not have come to it.

You have argued that case, which is why it's a running joke now.

It's a running joke for some, but not actually for all.

 

[R_D]

1) If SA knew Australia do better on flat-tracks...why would they prepare flat-tracks?
2) Maybe you didn't get it, but Goughy was being sarcastic about the Indian batting line-up.
3) Donald, Kallis and Pollock went into the series on great form.

oh i got Goughy comments alright.... heard him repeat those lines in quite a few threads before thats all. Taking a pot shot at them for mine.

Just because Warne and Mcgrath are masters of bowling on flat pitches, doesn't mean Mcgrath and the other pacers are useless on bowler friendly wickets. SA obvious ally thought they had better chance on flat wickets.

 

[Ikki]

According to those people. I don't see how it makes any sense to argue that bowlers have to change over years, not days, because I've seen countless cases of bowlers going up and down between two matches.

Because we're not talking about amateurs here, we are talking about TEST class players. They say form is temporary but class is permanent. We are also discussing the very BEST test class players. They do not go up and down at the flick of a switch; they are largely great and when they're not there are usually reasons.

What you are arguing is so inane that anyone here can argue for ANY player here and say that their drop in runs/wickets was a spontaneous loss of form. You DO get that right? It means that I can say Hayden is the greatest batsmen ever, because his form shows that he is almost always better than the opposition and hence, by that account, when he isn't scoring loads it is because he is out of form. And because I don't have to prove a trend or give a reason, as you don't, my argument is cogent?

Unless you can call it for reasons, you can't have any credibility in calling it.

I've already proved you wrong many times here and the reasons are more than implicit. Either that, or you have comprehension problems.

With myself.

Hahahaha, of COURSE with yourself dear Richard. When has it been any other way?

And if I thought the standpoint was wrong, I'd not have come to it.

Why? Because you're perfect? Because you have no bias? It's a matter of perception, and if you're too short-sighted to see what is going on then you'll never view yourself as the wrong 'standpoint'.

It's a running joke for some, but not actually for all.

Yeah, maybe not everybody knows about it, I guess .

 

[Ikki]

Because people don't always prepare the surfaces that suit them best. I'd have loved it if the tracks in SA had offered more to seam than they did, and if Pollock had been fit, and if Donald had still been a brilliant bowler.

Sadly, it didn't happen.

And they wouldn't prepare the surfaces that suit them best because? They want to lose? Especially SA v Aus? Who are you kidding here?

 

[Ikki]

oh i got Goughy comments alright.... heard him repeat those lines in quite a few threads before thats all. Taking a pot shot at them for mine.

No, you're wrong, again, in a different thread. His argument is on the basis that India is strong, that the line up is strong. For him to belittle that very point means he is shooting himself in the foot.

Just because Warne and Mcgrath are masters of bowling on flat pitches, doesn't mean Mcgrath and the other pacers are useless on bowler friendly wickets. SA obvious ally thought they had better chance on flat wickets.

You're contradicting yourself here. If both Aussie batsmen and bowlers are far better on flat-tracks and the batsmen and bowlers from South Africa are better on bowler friendly wickets, why would they make a flat-track?

1+1=2

 

[Goughy]

oh i got Goughy comments alright.... heard him repeat those lines in quite a few threads before thats all. Taking a pot shot at them for mine.

Links please, as Ive no idea wtf you are talking about

Of course I was commentating on how strong the Indian line-up was. The implication of the comments by others is that if you are saying that SAs bowling was weak and that they had just easily defeated India then the Indian batting therefore must be weak.

That is obviously not the case and therefore SAs bowling wasnt weak. Wasnt exactly complicated or difficult to understand

 

[R_D]

Links please, as Ive no idea wtf you are talking about

Of course I was commentating on how strong the Indian line-up was. The implication of the comments by others is that if you are saying that SAs bowling was weak and that they had just easily defeated India then the Indian batting therefore must be weak.

That is obviously not the case and therefore SAs bowling wasnt weak. Wasnt exactly complicated or difficult to understand

Sorry if i misunderstood you're post...... heard you say the same thing few times before thou so thought you were taking a pot shot.

 

[R_D]

You're contradicting yourself here. If both Aussie batsmen and bowlers are far better on flat-tracks and the batsmen and bowlers from South Africa are better on bowler friendly wickets, why would they make a flat-track?

1+1=2

All i said was Mcgrath and Warne are masters at extracting wickets on flattest of the decks around thats why Aus has such good record. It doesn't mean they are useless on bowler friendly wicket,s it means they become even more dangerous on bowler aiding wickets.

So you can see that SA thought they had much better chances on flatter pitches than the bowler friendly ones.

 

[Ikki]

All i said was Mcgrath and Warne are masters at extracting wickets on flattest of the decks around thats why Aus has such good record. It doesn't mean they are useless on bowler friendly wicket,s it means they become even more dangerous on bowler aiding wickets.

So you can see that SA thought they had much better chances on flatter pitches than the bowler friendly ones.

You're still wrong. Because

1) Australia is just as lively, if not moreso than S. Africa. By Mohammad Yousuf's estimations, Brisbane - which just so happens to be Hayden's home ground - is the liveliest pitches around. He goes to say that the South African ones aren't that good at all.

2) If they had livelier pitches it would give them a chance - whereas on a flat-track, by your reckoning, they had none.

 

[R_D]

You're still wrong. Because

1) Australia is just as lively, if not moreso than S. Africa. By Mohammad Yousuf's estimations, Brisbane - which just so happens to be Hayden's home ground - is the liveliest pitches around. He goes to say that the South African ones aren't that good at all.

2) If they had livelier pitches it would give them a chance - whereas on a flat-track, by your reckoning, they had none.

Australian pitches provide more bounce and you can undestand why Yousuf would say they were more lively. After being used to the ball not coming above your waist in India and Pakistan. He'll think the pitch is lively because the ball is bouncing above waist height.

2. I can certainly see where SA are coming from, With Mcgrath, Gillespie and Lee or whoever was the 3rd seamer that time. Would you really want to give those guys a lively pitch. They terrorise batsman on relatively flat pitches so you could only imagine what they would do on lively pitches. That would've been their thinking behind preparing pitches on flatter side.

 

[Ikki]

Australian pitches provide more bounce and you can undestand why Yousuf would say they were more lively. After being used to the ball not coming above your waist in India and Pakistan. He'll think the pitch is lively because the ball is bouncing above waist height.

2. I can certainly see where SA are coming from, With Mcgrath, Gillespie and Lee or whoever was the 3rd seamer that time. Would you really want to give those guys a lively pitch. They terrorise batsman on relatively flat pitches so you could only imagine what they would do on lively pitches. That would've been their thinking behind preparing pitches on flatter side.

I'm sorry mate, I think you've thought about it a bit too hard and you're not exactly going about it the right way.

BTW, Hayden also did poorly in the series right after SA against Bangladesh, was it because their pitches were lively?

 

[R_D]

I'm sorry mate, I think you've thought about it a bit too hard and you're not exactly going about it the right way.

BTW, Hayden also did poorly in the series right after SA against Bangladesh, was it because their pitches were lively?

It wasn't just Hayden.... Aus team didn't play well in the series. 2 match series, There was a point in the first test where people thought Bangladesh might actually win this. Call it crap preparation or lack or respect.. either would fit well of that series. Australia thought they'd win by just turning up to the pitch in that first match.
It just ticks me off bit how the failures are ticked off as bad form and than when conditions are favourable again that bad form disappears again. anyway we are not getting anywhere this... time to go to bed mate.