Hayden or Anwar?

[Richard]

I've said that a million times before and I've also never described any of those players as super-geniuses, nor better at doing what Hayden does than Hayden is.

 

[Sanz]

Since 2001, Hayden has outscored pretty much every batsman in the world and has more 100s than anyone. The only reason his average is lower than others is because he opens the innings and doesn't have as many not outs as others.

 

[Ikki]

And one I really CBA with.

Good, it's not one you would win either.

There are that many to Matthew Hoggard alone.

What? You were going to mention those countless bowlers that have had the stick on Hayden.

Dropped catches and let-offs are fortune beyond that any bowler ever enjoys. Bowlers will probably get away with more bad deliveries than batsmen will get away with erroneous strokes.

A dropped catch happens how many times in an inning? Let me reiterate the point because you seem to be confusing yourself: Batsmen will get out in the event of a poor decision; the most a bowler will concede is 6 runs for a poor decision.

Not really, I wouldn't think things the way I do if I thought it was stupid. There are times when people have questioned me and I've seen the errors of my ways; there are also many when I haven't.

The problem is you have trouble realising how poor your arguments can be. And really, we're all privy to your posts day in and day out, you hardly change your mind or concede a point. Maybe in these 40+k posts you've done it often, but it's hardly a character trait that we see regularly.

Suit yourself.

I will, don't have much choice otherwise.

Bad bowling gets hit around. Good bowling doesn't.

Rubbish. Inversely, then, good batting never gets out, bad batting does. Hence, no batsman or bowler in the history of the sport has been challenged because when they had befallen they were playing poorly. Tendulkar doesn't deserve his accolades because he was facing poor bowling; Bothom was never really that good, it was just when he got wickets the batsmen were poor....and etc.

Of course, what constitutes good bowling changes from batsman to batsman. There are some things, though, that are good bowling to pretty much anyone.

No, good bowling is good bowling. You may bowl excellently to Hayden and not get him out and bowl mediocrely to Iqbal and get him out. Just because you took a wicket doesn't mean you were bowling well and just because you didn't doesn't mean you were bowling poorly.

I'd love it if I had been able to, but it's a bit late now really. In any case, I highly doubt they were so stupid they didn't realise what they needed to do; they simply did not have the ability, nor the assistance from pitch and ball, to do it.

In short, few of these seamers were really Test-class, especially in the conditions they faced Hayden in.

That's it, keep digging yourself in that hole.

 

[Ikki]

Completely agree with Goughy there. If Hayden is such a crap player then why are the super geniuses like Kallis, Dravid, Tendulkar, Lara etc aren't averaging more than him in this era ?

That's what I've been saying this entire time.

 

[Ikki]

I know this wasnt the norm...
But a full-strength New South Wales side in about 2000would have looked something like -

1.Michael Slater
2.Corey Richards
3.Michael Bevan
4.Mark Waugh
5.Steve Waugh
6.Shane Lee
7.Brad Haddin
8.Brett Lee
9.Nathan Bracken
10.Glenn McGrath
11.Stuart MacGill

Reserves - Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Don Nash, Mark Higgs

Certainly capable of wiping the floor with any test side bar Australia at the time.

WA has had Langer, Hussey, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hogg, Veletta, Moody, Reid..

You can go through most state teams and you'll see how strong they were.

 

[pup11]

If Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis and Dravid aren't super geniuses of their era than i don't know who would classify as super geniuses of this era?
Hayden has been a superb player and his growth as a player through his career right from 92 till date is inspiring and unbelievable, both at the same time.

 

[Richard]

Since 2001, Hayden has outscored pretty much every batsman in the world and has more 100s than anyone.

Yes, he has, because he's superb at bashing rubbish bowling, as good at the very least as anyone else going around.

This doesn't make any bearing on his ability to repel class seam-attacks though.

 

[Richard]

What? You were going to mention those countless bowlers that have had the stick on Hayden.

Hoggard being one (having got him about 5 or 6 times), Kyle Mills is another, Shoaib Akhtar has, Donald, de Villiers and Pollock all did back in the day, Andy Caddick certainly has, Meryvn Dillon has, Andrew Flintoff has... need I go on?

A dropped catch happens how many times in an inning? Let me reiterate the point because you seem to be confusing yourself: Batsmen will get out in the event of a poor decision; the most a bowler will concede is 6 runs for a poor decision.

Batsmen will also very often not get out in the event of a poor decision.

The problem is you have trouble realising how poor your arguments can be. And really, we're all privy to your posts day in and day out, you hardly change your mind or concede a point. Maybe in these 40+k posts you've done it often, but it's hardly a character trait that we see regularly.

No, it's not, and I don't see why it should be really. It's not for anyone else; there's no point saying something if you don't believe it's right.

Rubbish. Inversely, then, good batting never gets out, bad batting does. Hence, no batsman or bowler in the history of the sport has been challenged because when they had befallen they were playing poorly. Tendulkar doesn't deserve his accolades because he was facing poor bowling

No, I've already said why that's not the case; the bowler can oust the batsman because the bowler controls the game. It doesn't work the other way around.

No, good bowling is good bowling. You may bowl excellently to Hayden and not get him out and bowl mediocrely to Iqbal and get him out. Just because you took a wicket doesn't mean you were bowling well and just because you didn't doesn't mean you were bowling poorly.

Indeed it doesn't - automatically. But it can do. People have rarely bowled excellently at Hayden of late, though, otherwise they'd have got him out; it's not because it's Hayden, though, they've bowled equally crap at most other times too.

That's it, keep digging yourself in that hole.

People have tried that one on me all my life. I've never said anything different, though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

WA has had Langer, Hussey, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hogg, Veletta, Moody, Reid..

You can go through most state teams and you'll see how strong they were.

Yes, but in terms of actually using performances in Pura Cup cricket, that's very different because they were rarely at full strength because of international duties.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, but in terms of actually using performances in Pura Cup cricket, that's very different because they were rarely at full strength because of international duties.

Actually, in the early 90s you'll see a line-up with a lot of them there.

 

[Ikki]

Hoggard being one (having got him about 5 or 6 times), Kyle Mills is another, Shoaib Akhtar has, Donald, de Villiers and Pollock all did back in the day, Andy Caddick certainly has, Meryvn Dillon has, Andrew Flintoff has... need I go on?

Yes, because you just named bowlers who Hayden ALSO clobbered. Your argument is really pathetic Richard. I swear I could talk to a wall and it'd understand a thing or two, in comparison to you. By your silly generalisation Lara had a problem with accurate-seamers because McGrath would wail on him.

Batsmen will also very often not get out in the event of a poor decision.

You sure you don't do drugs or smoke and drink as you type? Batsmen, when they hit a poor shot are not only more likely to be punished, but their punishment is worse. A batsman can get out, and often does, with one badly timed shot. No matter what a bowler bowls, he will at the most concede 6 runs and he will always be there to redeem himself. Do you understand, yet?

No, it's not, and I don't see why it should be really.

Because you usually get a bunch of people, not necessarily flamers, trying to pound some common sense into you.

It's not for anyone else; there's no point saying something if you don't believe it's right.

But there is no point in saying anything if you never think you're wrong. Why are you on a discussion board otherwise?

No, I've already said why that's not the case; the bowler can oust the batsman because the bowler controls the game. It doesn't work the other way around.

Yes it does. A batsman can on his own accord play poorly and give away his wicket. Which is by no merit of the bowler. Conversely, said batsman can score a double-tonne and no matter how good the bowler did or didn't bowl, ousting that batsman doesn't make it a good spell, because said batsman has already done his damage.

Indeed it doesn't - automatically. But it can do. People have rarely bowled excellently at Hayden of late, though, otherwise they'd have got him out; it's not because it's Hayden, though, they've bowled equally crap at most other times too.

Biased rubbish. It seems only for Hayden said bowlers bowl poorly and for Ponting, Lara and co. those bowlers bowl well eh? Keep digging.

People have tried that one on me all my life. I've never said anything different, though.

That's why you're always in a hole. Keep digging. Nothing new to say. If you would have realised something it would have happened by now.

 

[R_D]

I know this wasnt the norm...
But a full-strength New South Wales side in about 2000would have looked something like -

1.Michael Slater
2.Corey Richards
3.Michael Bevan
4.Mark Waugh
5.Steve Waugh
6.Shane Lee
7.Brad Haddin
8.Brett Lee
9.Nathan Bracken
10.Glenn McGrath
11.Stuart MacGill

Reserves - Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Don Nash, Mark Higgs

Certainly capable of wiping the floor with any test side bar Australia at the time.

Yes very good team indeed but how many times did they play together..... once or twice a season maybe ?

As for the state teams beating test touring sides.... Often touring sides rest some of their key players in these matches and they are nothing but warmup to test players and don';t think the intensity level is that high for them where's the state sides will be giving it all to try and impress the selectors.

 

[Ikki]

Yes very good team indeed but how many times did they play together..... once or twice a season maybe ?

As for the state teams beating test touring sides.... Often touring sides rest some of their key players in these matches and they are nothing but warmup to test players and don';t think the intensity level is that high for them where's the state sides will be giving it all to try and impress the selectors.

You're right, touring sides do often rest their players. But as you just said, the state sides don't always have their full squad. That makes it up. And I don't think guys like Wasim Akram or Donald, even in those matches, let batsmen score centuries against them.

 

[JBH001]

My final thoughts on the Hayden subject, as quite frankly the world would end before Richard changed his mind or let the subject lie.

- Hayden had a poor record and was dropped at the start of his career. That is a fact. However, the reasons are as simple as there was deemed a better option available for Australia at the time. Given Australias depth during this period it is more a statement of Aus depth that Haydens lack of ability.

- No credit is given to how hard he worked to improve himself as a cricketer during his time in the wilderness. Even if he was already a good player, the above mentioned depth meant he had to work very hard to get back and knew opportunities would be limited in the future if he failed again.

- No interest is being shown in looking at how a player evolves. Gooch scored his 1st ever hundred in his 22nd game, didnt take his average to 40 until his 79th Test (at the beginning of the 90s) and during the 1990s (when supposedly it was at its hardest) he averaged 51.55.

- Test cricket is hard, always has been hard and still is hard. Gooch found it easier to score runs in the 90s than the 70s and 80s because he was a better player then. Hayden does so now as he is a better player than at the start of his career and has a defined team role to relax into.

- Track, bats, aggressive attitudes etc may have pushed the game slightly in favour of the batsmen (though far less than the move to covered wickets and other changes have) but that doesnt mean scoring runs at Test level is easy.

- To discount a player averageing 53 in Test cricket is pure folly. Are there any other players that average over 50 that are bad players or is it just Hayden? If all the factors that apply to Hayden and are not relevant to anyone else averaging over 50 then it moves into the realms of personal criticism than logical.

Great post, Goughy. Completely agree with the substance of it. IMO Hayden gets a little too much stick for comfort (maybe because he is not a 'good looking' batsman and seems to overpower the bowlers with size and strength) and his own work and abilities often go unnoticed or discounted. Hayden is one of the great modern batsmen, and is one of the top echelon of Australian opening batsmen - though I would not rank him in the top 3 (5?).

However, with regards to my own personal opinion on the OP - viz., which of Anwar and Hayden is better suited to facing a quality pace attack, I would select Anwar most-times. This is not to take anything away from Hayden (who is not a flat track bully) and is well capable of taking on good attacks, only that I think Anwar was better.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because you just named bowlers who Hayden ALSO clobbered. Your argument is really pathetic Richard. I swear I could talk to a wall and it'd understand a thing or two, in comparison to you. By your silly generalisation Lara had a problem with accurate-seamers because McGrath would wail on him.

If so, one must question why you continue to bother to respond to my posts.

Hayden did not clobber any of the above bowlers (at least, not in the states they'd had him for breakfast in).

But yes, Lara has had trouble with accurate seamers, as have most batsmen. That's because the bowler can control the game if he's good enough, as McGrath often was.

You sure you don't do drugs or smoke and drink as you type? Batsmen, when they hit a poor shot are not only more likely to be punished, but their punishment is worse. A batsman can get out, and often does, with one badly timed shot. No matter what a bowler bowls, he will at the most concede 6 runs and he will always be there to redeem himself. Do you understand, yet?

A batsman gets out due to perhaps 1 in 20 badly timed strokes, if not far more.

Because you usually get a bunch of people, not necessarily flamers, trying to pound some common sense into you.

Or out.

But there is no point in saying anything if you never think you're wrong. Why are you on a discussion board otherwise?

I don't never think I'm wrong however.

Yes it does. A batsman can on his own accord play poorly and give away his wicket. Which is by no merit of the bowler. Conversely, said batsman can score a double-tonne and no matter how good the bowler did or didn't bowl, ousting that batsman doesn't make it a good spell, because said batsman has already done his damage.

When did I say otherwise to any of this?

Biased rubbish. It seems only for Hayden said bowlers bowl poorly and for Ponting, Lara and co. those bowlers bowl well eh?

Nope, I cannot believe you don't remember the times I've said runs from the likes of Ponting and Kallis in the last 6 years don't rate especially highly on my scale, and I won't consider them better than those who averaged in the mid-40s in the previous 3 decades because of these runs.

Runs of the last 6 years are not worth a hell of a lot in my grand scale of things, and I think to deny this is idealistic nonsense.

That's why you're always in a hole. Keep digging. Nothing new to say. If you would have realised something it would have happened by now.

Exactly, which suggests I'm not going to realise something that's right is wrong.

 

[Ikki]

If so, one must question why you continue to bother to respond to my posts.

I had some faith in you, lost all of it to be honest.

Hayden did not clobber any of the above bowlers (at least, not in the states they'd had him for breakfast in).

Yeh he did.

But yes, Lara has had trouble with accurate seamers, as have most batsmen. That's because the bowler can control the game if he's good enough, as McGrath often was.

So Lara would have been mince-meat for Lillee and co too. Great, at least we're consistent.

What a silly silly argument.

A batsman gets out due to perhaps 1 in 20 badly timed strokes, if not far more.

Or out.

No, there's not much to get out.

I don't never think I'm wrong however.

Sure.

When did I say otherwise to any of this?

Through the whole thread. Look at the last few posts specifically.

Nope, I cannot believe you don't remember the times I've said runs from the likes of Ponting and Kallis in the last 6 years don't rate especially highly on my scale, and I won't consider them better than those who averaged in the mid-40s in the previous 3 decades because of these runs.

Both Ponting and Kallis averaged in the mid-40s in the 90s. In fact, Ponting averaged 50 when they gave him a steady position. And furthermore, you fail to acknowledge that a batsman can actually get better, as a batsman, and it has little to do with his conditions. The fact that you think you can discern whether Hayden has not made an improvement, and that it's merely the conditions, speaks volumes about how you overrate your opinion. You aren't a professional, you aren't a Test standard anything, how can you even start judging in such small and baseless generalisations?

Runs of the last 6 years are not worth a hell of a lot in my grand scale of things, and I think to deny this is idealistic nonsense.

Then by the same accord Lara and Tendulkar are not even half the batsmen we thought of previously. The fact that they scored 50+ in the 90s is more than overshadowed by their lack of success in an 'easier' era.

I subscribe to Goughy's sentiments here: test cricket is hard and has always been hard.

Exactly, which suggests I'm not going to realise something that's right is wrong.

 

[Perm]

I know this wasnt the norm...
But a full-strength New South Wales side in about 2000would have looked something like -

1.Michael Slater
2.Corey Richards
3.Michael Bevan
4.Mark Waugh
5.Steve Waugh
6.Shane Lee
7.Brad Haddin
8.Brett Lee
9.Nathan Bracken
10.Glenn McGrath
11.Stuart MacGill

Reserves - Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Don Nash, Mark Higgs

Certainly capable of wiping the floor with any test side bar Australia at the time.

How often did that group of players get to play together though? Given that 5 of them were regulars in international cricket, plus others like MacGill and Shane Lee also having stints at the top level, I wouldn't think it would be all too often. That's the point, on full strength New South Wales would probably have beaten most Test teams, but it would have been very rarely that they all got to play together due to international commitments. They were potentially good enough to beat Test sides, but because the group of players didn't play together enough, they weren't.

 

[Perm]

WA has had Langer, Hussey, Gilchrist, Martyn, Hogg, Veletta, Moody, Reid..

You can go through most state teams and you'll see how strong they were.

Did these players all play together often enough as a to be described as Test quality? No. There's no doubting that if Western Australia were a Test side that they would have been competitive, because all of their stars would have been together. But due to international commitments, they weren't, so it was rare to see such a Test quality team actually being fielded in Pura Cup cricket.

 

[Matt79]

There was quite a period when the WA team would have been together - Gilly, Martyn, Langer and of course Hussey all had to wait a long time for their opportunity.

 

[Mister Wright]

There was quite a period when the WA team would have been together - Gilly, Martyn, Langer and of course Hussey all had to wait a long time for their opportunity.

Pura Cup final against Queensland 1998-99 had Hussey, Katich, Martyn, Moody, Gilchrist, Julian and Ryan Campbell. They won pretty easily against a quality QLD side including Hayden, Maher, Love, Law, Symonds, Kaspa & Bichel.

Sheffield Shield, 1998/99, Final
Queensland v Western Australia
Brisbane Cricket Ground, Woolloongabba, Brisbane
19,20,21,22 March 1999 (5-day match)