Hayden or Anwar?

[Beleg]

Hayden is grace personified.

Anwar was crap extraordinare.

 

[R_D]

Hayden is grace personified.

Anwar was crap extraordinare.

hehehe...... i guess some may call it grace.. personally i don't

 

[Richard]

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?

It's completely different for batsmen than it is for bowlers, really. Almost any batsmen can be worked-out; Hayden was at the start of his career; for most of the time from 2001\02 onwards the bowlers weren't good enough to. I've proven, as far as I'm concerned, why this is the case. Nonetheless, a batsman can go in and out of nick, and even the very best ones do. I don't think it takes a genius to work-out when a batsman's out of nick and when he's been worked-out, because if someone's been worked-out there's a similarity in his dismissals, and there always has been in the times when Hayden's had lean patches.

A bowler, on the other hand, can (however good he is) go from inept to brilliant in the twinkling of an eye, for no obvious reason (though the flick of a switch is pretty unlikely), and certainly reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the batsman. I simply cannot believe that anyone can deny this, because it happens so, so often, to bowlers of any level of skill. Test-class bowlers struggle sometimes, then something clicks and they get it right. Sometimes it's just the odd bad spell; sometimes it's 6 or 7 bad games in a row.

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

I don't think you have proved me wrong. If you wish to do so, you need far more than a one-word post of "rubbish".

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

Quite a bit TBH.

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'.

If I think a standpoint of mine has become wrong I'll change it. This has happened several times. However, I have never had any reason to believe I've been wrong about Hayden. Every single thing that's happened throughout his career has backed-up what I've thought since the very first time I came accross him.

 

[Richard]

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?

Because people don't always realise what's best for them (same thing as happens when selectors pick the wrong players); sometimes you get idiot groundsmen who refuse to prepare the pitch they're told to; sometimes the weather doesn't allow him to prepare the sort of pitch he's trying to; heck, sometimes you get idiot Cricket Assocation chiefs who deliberately sabotage their own national team's chances. There are all sorts of reasons.

 

[Richard]

Anwar was crap extraordinare.

If Anwar was crap, is there any Pakistani batsman who's ever been good?

 

[Goughy]

Out of interest, out of the X number of games Hayden has played how many have been against good attacks that he has failed against, and what average against those attacks would be acceptable to you (Richard and whoever else) for him to be considered a top player?

 

[Ikki]

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.

By the same standard the Ashes wasn't just Hayden either.

 

[Ikki]

It's completely different for batsmen than it is for bowlers, really. Almost any batsmen can be worked-out; Hayden was at the start of his career; for most of the time from 2001\02 onwards the bowlers weren't good enough to. I've proven, as far as I'm concerned, why this is the case. Nonetheless, a batsman can go in and out of nick, and even the very best ones do. I don't think it takes a genius to work-out when a batsman's out of nick and when he's been worked-out, because if someone's been worked-out there's a similarity in his dismissals, and there always has been in the times when Hayden's had lean patches.

I listed innings in another thread where Hayden played for Australia A or Queensland and played touring sides and did very well. All this in the 90s. Plus Australia's domestic teams are just as strong (if not stronger) than most test sides and Hayden averages very healthily there too.

And what are the similarities in his dismissals? Very good bowls?

A bowler, on the other hand, can (however good he is) go from inept to brilliant in the twinkling of an eye, for no obvious reason (though the flick of a switch is pretty unlikely), and certainly reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the batsman. I simply cannot believe that anyone can deny this, because it happens so, so often, to bowlers of any level of skill. Test-class bowlers struggle sometimes, then something clicks and they get it right. Sometimes it's just the odd bad spell; sometimes it's 6 or 7 bad games in a row.

Rubbish. The difference is that a bowler can stuff up a few times and at most will concede 6 runs off those balls. Batsmen have only 1 instance for error. Your theory of spontaneous form is tripe.

I don't think you have proved me wrong. If you wish to do so, you need far more than a one-word post of "rubbish".

Well, I've proved you wrong plenty, it's just that you must have some filter which stops you conceding a point. And just saying 'rubbish' is a whole lot more proving you've done.

Quite a bit TBH.

LOL, sure. You concede points? When? What? Huh?

If I think a standpoint of mine has become wrong I'll change it. This has happened several times. However, I have never had any reason to believe I've been wrong about Hayden. Every single thing that's happened throughout his career has backed-up what I've thought since the very first time I came accross him.

That's exactly the point. You never see yourself as wrong, so you never change it. Everything in his career has proved you wrong, but everything that YOU think matters backs up your non-sensical argument, yes. You perceive a weakness for him, you think it applies to a whole era of successful V unsuccessful bowling. You can't hack that he can dominate good attacks, hence you fail to recognise it and consider said bowlers out of form or old.

 

[Richard]

Out of interest, out of the X number of games Hayden has played how many have been against good attacks that he has failed against, and what average against those attacks would be acceptable to you (Richard and whoever else) for him to be considered a top player?

OK, I'll try to break it down:

Hayden was a consistent failure against high-class seamers until the end of the English summer of 2001. His only real success had come in India, where there was nothing in the wickets for seam and none of the bowlers were good enough to conjure anything from a non-seam-friendly surface. Excluding this India series, Hayden's average was 26.55 from 30 innings - pretty conclusive IMO.

From the Australian summer of 2001\02 to the Australian winter of 2004, Hayden's Test cricket was described accurately as "one largely unbroken orgy of run-scoring" - he averaged (excluding Ban and Zim) 64.86. Pretty much every single pitch in this time was flat; virtually all balls were Kookaburras; few bowlers abounded who could conjure anything from non-seam-friendly surfaces. He was also missed before scoring much a fair few times - a few examples I remember off the top of my head are by Kallis early in his 122 at The Wanderers; by Danish Kaneria early-ish in his 119 at Sharjah; about 3 times by England during his 197 at The 'Gabba; and by Alex Tudor off the very 1st ball of his 102 at The MCG.

Kyle Mills (of all people) then worked him out in late 2004, by doing nothing more than bowling with a new ball. Why he was able to do this and other bowlers of superior talent were not, I haven't a clue. I do know, however, that he was, and it was not merely due to Hayden playing less well than he had previously, because I can tell you pretty conclusively that virtually no-one ever bowled consistent inswingers at Hayden between 2001\02 and 2004.

After Mills, he faced (and struggled against) Shoaib Akhtar, who did a similar thing (and also bounced him out once). Then of course it was Matthew Hoggard, whose success-rate against Hayden is not indicative of the number of times he's actually got him out (he must have had as many patently out lbws turned-down as he's got scorebook dismissals).

He then scored many more against two more average attacks in 2005\06, including another SAfrican one which could have been so much more than it ended-up being. I can't remember any examples of him being dropped, but given the number SA put down that summer I'm sure he must have been at some point.

He then struggled again - concealed by 2 poor Umpiring decisions - in The Ashes 2006\07, when Hoggard, even with a Kookaburra, caused him similar problems, and Flintoff of times too.

Not every one of his failures have been against good attacks, obviously, nor every one of his dismissals in those times due to being worked-out. It's impossible to put an exact number on "number of games against good attacks; number against poor attacks"; nor is it really possible to say someone must average X to have succeeded. What he must do, though, is not go from unparrallelled (which Hayden pretty much is when you present him with a weak seam-attack) to nonenity (which he is when you present him with a good seam-attack, especially one containing bowlers who can bowl nip-backers).

 

[Ikki]

He wasn't even a consistent figure in the side, he had 12 tests before the turn of the century. It hardly proves anything, even Kallis averaged Hayden-like figures in his first 12 tests.

BTW, you didn't answer his question and your reasoning is well...lacking.

 

[Richard]

I listed innings in another thread where Hayden played for Australia A or Queensland and played touring sides and did very well. All this in the 90s. Plus Australia's domestic teams are just as strong (if not stronger) than most test sides and Hayden averages very healthily there too.

If you honestly believe Australian domestic teams (sans-internationals) are better than most Test sides, there's little point taking anything any further.

And what are the similarities in his dismissals? Very good bowls?

Inswingers. Any fool can get him out if they bowl consistent inswingers at a decent pace. Sadly, not enough have been good enough to do so, as the standard of seam-bowling for a fair while has been very very poor.

Rubbish. The difference is that a bowler can stuff up a few times and at most will concede 6 runs off those balls. Batsmen have only 1 instance for error. Your theory of spontaneous form is tripe.

Batsmen get away with errors countless hundreds of times, as do bowlers. Not every error will result in dismissal.

Well, I've proved you wrong plenty, it's just that you must have some filter which stops you conceding a point. And just saying 'rubbish' is a whole lot more proving you've done.

It's not, I've always produced some evidence to show why I think what I think. The trouble is, different people see that evidence and form different (wrong IMO) conclusions.

LOL, sure. You concede points? When? What? Huh?

Look for it. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

That's exactly the point. You never see yourself as wrong, so you never change it. Everything in his career has proved you wrong, but everything that YOU think matters backs up your non-sensical argument, yes. You perceive a weakness for him, you think it applies to a whole era of successful V unsuccessful bowling. You can't hack that he can dominate good attacks, hence you fail to recognise it and consider said bowlers out of form or old.

Virtually no-one has ever been able to dominate good attacks, no, so I don't accept that someone so wholly average against one simple trait (inswingers) can do so.

 

[Richard]

He wasn't even a consistent figure in the side, he had 12 tests before the turn of the century.

Why might that have been now? Possibly because his performance didn't merit consistent selection?

Even when he did become a consistent member of the side in 2000\01 and 2001, he still struggled against seamers, and not even quite such good ones as he'd struggled against previously.

It hardly proves anything, even Kallis averaged Hayden-like figures in his first 12 tests.

Yes, he did, because he didn't play very well at the start of his Test career either. In the few years after that, though, he rectified this and became a decent batsman, if not as good as the attacks of recent times have made him look.

 

[Athlai]

A pretty good analysis of Haydens weakness's, but couldn't you do the same for every batsman?

 

[Ikki]

If you honestly believe Australian domestic teams (sans-internationals) are better than most Test sides, there's little point taking anything any further.

Are? As in present? That's debatable. But WERE? In the 90s when guys like Hayden, Gilchrist, Hussey and Ponting, to name very very few, were playing. So yes, they often were.

Inswingers. Any fool can get him out if they bowl consistent inswingers at a decent pace. Sadly, not enough have been good enough to do so, as the standard of seam-bowling for a fair while has been very very poor.

Swing bowling is one of the toughest types to defend against. Most batsmen, and they have, will get out when a bowler is hammering in inswingers all day. Hayden has gotten out how many times to swing?

Batsmen get away with errors countless hundreds of times, as do bowlers. Not every error will result in dismissal.

Let's stop dumbing ourselves down and get to the point: who has a smaller margin for error? Easy, batsmen. They're not going to get as many let-offs.

It's not, I've always produced some evidence to show why I think what I think. The trouble is, different people see that evidence and form different (wrong IMO) conclusions.

You ever think that the sheer amount of people who usually argue against you might have a point? Wait, of course you don't.

Look for it. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Maybe you're right. I've been on the site 2 years, haven't seen it yet. Maybe I need to be here longer.

Virtually no-one has ever been able to dominate good attacks, no, so I don't accept that someone so wholly average against one simple trait (inswingers) can do so.

So by that statement, and the ridiculous assertions before: any attack that has been hit around can no longer be considered good. So, are there any bad bowlers then? By that criteria everyone who is considered 'good' is either out of form or injured or old. It seems they can never be outclassed. Funny that.

 

[Ikki]

A pretty good analysis of Haydens weakness's, but couldn't you do the same for every batsman?

Four or five instances in a career that has racked up almost 90 tests? Weakness? What a paradox.

 

[Athlai]

Four or five instances in a career that has racked up almost 90 tests? Weakness? What a paradox.

Bit higher than that TBH, looking at who's had the greatest success against him you'll see a lot of wily swingers.

 

[Ikki]

Bit higher than that TBH, looking at who's had the greatest success against him you'll see a lot of wily swingers.

Like Wasim Akram? This Wasim Akram?

 

[Richard]

Are? As in present? That's debatable. But WERE? In the 90s when guys like Hayden, Gilchrist, Hussey and Ponting, to name very very few, were playing. So yes, they often were.

And these players were playing state cricket because? They weren't good enough to get into the Test and ODI sides.

Swing bowling is one of the toughest types to defend against. Most batsmen, and they have, will get out when a bowler is hammering in inswingers all day. Hayden has gotten out how many times to swing?

Too many to count.

Let's stop dumbing ourselves down and get to the point: who has a smaller margin for error? Easy, batsmen. They're not going to get as many let-offs.

Batsmen will get away on average with far more errors than bowlers. Has no bowler ever told you it's a batsman's game.

You ever thing that the sheer amount of people who usually argue against you might have a point? Wait, of course you don't.

No, I don't. Just because I'm in a small minority, I'm rarely if ever in a single-entity.

Maybe you're right. I've been on the site 2 years, haven't seen it yet. Maybe I need to be here longer.

You read every thread do you?

So by that statement, and the ridiculous assertions before: any attack that has been hit around can no longer be considered good. So, are there any bad bowlers then? By that criteria everyone who is considered 'good' is either out of form or injured or old. It seems they can never be outclassed. Funny that.

To be frank - no, they can't. Any bowler who's ever been hit around has been not good enough at that time. Whether it was a one-off because they were out-of-form or because they just aren't skilled enough is a case-by-case thing. The bowler has the ball in his hand; he can be too good for the batsman. The opposite cannot apply. A batsman cannot be too good for a bowler.

However, some batsmen are more fallible than most to certain traits of bowling, and can be dismissed by fairly straightforward things. Hayden is one such batsman. Some batsmen, though, need something a bit more complex to defeat them. Bowlers have to be worse to allow Hayden to score than they do to allow (for example) Michael Slater to.

 

[Ikki]

And these players were playing state cricket because? They weren't good enough to get into the Test and ODI sides.

So now we go to "they weren't good enough" to shifting an argument as to why they weren't picked?

That is an argument in itself, but it's widely acknowledge how hard it is to break into the Test side, and how little of a chance you get once you're there. It hardly reflects the quality between the Test side and the domestic side as you often see in Australia A' V Australia exhibition matches. And you also see their quality against touring sides.

Too many to count.

Just give us a 5-6 then.

Batsmen will get away on average with far more errors than bowlers. Has no bowler ever told you it's a batsman's game.

You must be off your flipping horse. You want to argue THIS too? Batsmen get how many dropped catches or close shaves in a game? The bowlers will have more wides and no-balls, let alone poorly bowled balls.

No, I don't. Just because I'm in a small minority, I'm rarely if ever in a single-entity.

Yes, 'crazy' isn't a single-entity either, it's a group. It just doesn't answer the question. Ask yourself again: if there is almost always so many people against your very opinion, it must say something about the very things you judge cricket on. At the very least you should question it.

You read every thread do you?

No, but let's see...out of all the threads I HAVE read in the two years with you debating something I've seen you concede 0 point(s). It doesn't fill me with much confidence if I go searching for ones where you do.

To be frank - no, they can't. Any bowler who's ever been hit around has been not good enough at that time. Whether it was a one-off because they were out-of-form or because they just aren't skilled enough is a case-by-case thing. The bowler has the ball in his hand; he can be too good for the batsman. The opposite cannot apply. A batsman cannot be too good for a bowler.

That is rubbish Richard. Good bowlers get hit because they face better batsmen. That's one very likely and easy reason to grasp.

However, some batsmen are more fallible than most to certain traits of bowling, and can be dismissed by fairly straightforward things. Hayden is one such batsman. Some batsmen, though, need something a bit more complex to defeat them. Bowlers have to be worse to allow Hayden to score than they do to allow (for example) Michael Slater to.

The fact is that every batsman, even Bradman, is fallible so by that account everyone is crap? The fact that Hayden, even if he has the fallibility you prescribe has hindered him very little so it makes him a great test batsman. If you think such a weakness is so easy to exploit maybe you should share your rich insight with TEST CLASS BOWLERS who seem to have trouble with it, maybe YOU would like to teach them something .

 

[haroon510]

That's true actually, only once did he score a century against a good fast bowling attack. There were a couple against Glenn McGrath and Craig McDermott, but no third seamer of note.

http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63790.html

Excellent attack.

what about this bowling line up... i don't think it was as good as u have mention above but fairly good considering that mcgrath and warne was there..

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63854.html