Hayden the best bat since this century?

[Prince EWS]

If you lose after a batsman scores 150, then clearly pacing of innings is not your biggest problem as a team.

It could well be if everyone scored at a run a ball and took the draw out of the equation every match.

There's a general perception that quicker runs = more wins. While it is a technically true, a better way of putting it would be "quicker runs = less draws". For every draw scoring quickly can turn into a win for you, there's an equal chance it can turn one into a loss. It just gives both teams more to effect the win. If you don't have a hugely talented team, more results could well be a bad thing.

 

[Prince EWS]

But one with 150 (150) even moreso.

They could also contribute to a loss though, in a match where 150 (320) could save the game.

 

[Goughy]

Hayden is good in all forms of the game but to say he is the best is a little bit of heroworship..theres a coupla blokes with the names of Greenidge and Haynes might disagree with you

Even if they had batted this century, Haynes is a lucky man. A good player forever linked with an exceptional one that through this relationship raises his stock.

 

[JBMAC]

For the uneducated here on this forum a CENTURY although 100 years starts half way through the century

eg...19th Century started in July 1850 and concluded in June 1950 etc etc etc

If in doubt check it out in your Funk 'n' Wagnells

 

[Prince EWS]

For the uneducated here on this forum a CENTURY although 100 years starts half way through the century

eg...19th Century started in July 1850 and concluded in June 1950 etc etc etc

If in doubt check it out in your Funk 'n' Wagnells

So which century was it in 34AD? The 0th?

 

[Matt79]

Even if true, and I admit I've never heard that before, and even as described by you is illogical - "a century starts halfway through a century" , common usage and the context of the OP is quite clear, I'd have thought.

 

[JBMAC]

So which century was it in 34AD? The 0th?

If your poor education and ability to comprehend basic life skills such as the "turn of the Century" preclude such inane statements then I would respectfully suggest you check with your Primary School Teacher tomorrow.

 

[silentstriker]

Are you sure? I've never heard of that and it would be quite illogical.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

It could well be if everyone scored at a run a ball and took the draw out of the equation every match.

Not at Antigua.

But seriously, I don't think that's realistic.

There's a general perception that quicker runs = more wins. While it is a technically true, a better way of putting it would be "quicker runs = less draws". For every draw scoring quickly can turn into a win for you, there's an equal chance it can turn one into a loss. It just gives both teams more to effect the win. If you don't have a hugely talented team, more results could well be a bad thing.

It just looks like a negative spin on positive play, which I frankly think does nobody any good. Any effort to obtain a result should be commended. Obviously, common sense dictates that you should protect your wicket when there's nothing to play for. But in terms of blaming somebody for a loss, I, for one, seriously doubt that Fleet Street would take aim at the guy who'd scored 170 off 195 on Day 2.

Case in point: Ricky Ponting, Adelaide 2003-04. Did Australia lose because his 242 was made at an SR of 70? No, they lost because of Rahul Dravid and Ajit Agarkar. If he'd made the 242 off 500 balls, chances are that Australia would have drawn and Ponting would be castigated for scoring too slowly and shutting the door on a possible win. If he'd made it off 400 balls, chances are that India, with Dravid's form, would have adapted their fourth innings and won anyway. It seems ludicrous that fast and expansive batting is the first station of blame for a defeat.

 

[Matt79]

^ What he said.

 

[Prince EWS]

If your poor education and ability to comprehend basic life skills such as the "turn of the Century" preclude such inane statements then I would respectfully suggest you check with your Primary School Teacher tomorrow.

No, my urge to point out the obvious flaw to your statement precluded my comments. A simple answer to my question would be nice. You've forced my hand though...

The 21st Century is the present century of the Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It began on January 1, 2001 and is due to end December 31, 2100.

EXAMPLE: The year 1900 is still 19th century. The year 1901 is 20th century. The year 2000 is 20th century. The year 2001 is 21st century.

If what you said is true in any way, it does not seem to be generally accepted by any source I can find on the internet. I went to several different dictionary/encyclopedia sites as well. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt but such a patronising post has led me to do otherwise.

So perhaps I need to contact your primary school teacher to ask what she was smoking when she taught you what you have stated.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not at Antigua.

But seriously, I don't think that's realistic.


It just looks like a negative spin on positive play, which I frankly think does nobody any good. Any effort to obtain a result should be commended. Obviously, common sense dictates that you should protect your wicket when there's nothing to play for. But in terms of blaming somebody for a loss, I, for one, seriously doubt that Fleet Street would take aim at the guy who'd scored 170 off 195 on Day 2.

Case in point: Ricky Ponting, Adelaide 2003-04. Did Australia lose because his 242 was made at an SR of 70? No, they lost because of Rahul Dravid and Ajit Agarkar. If he'd made the 242 off 500 balls, chances are that Australia would have drawn and Ponting would be castigated for scoring too slowly and shutting the door on a possible win. If he'd made it off 400 balls, chances are that India, with Dravid's form, would have adapted their fourth innings and won anyway. It seems ludicrous that fast and expansive batting is the first station of blame for a defeat.

I'm not saying Ponting should be chastised or that he should bat differently - simply that someone who does bat differently as his natural game shouldn't be thought of as a lesser batsman because of such - for in such a game, he'd actually be of more use than Mr. I-like-to-strike-at-70.

It would seem ludicrous to me to blame Ponting for the defeat, but it'd seem equally ludicrous to me to blame a first innings batting effort of 150 (300) or similar for failing to secure the win.

 

[Matt79]

I'm not saying Ponting should be chastised or that he should bat differently - simply that someone who does bat differently as his natural game shouldn't be thought of as a lesser batsman because of such - for in such a game, he'd actually be of more use than Mr. I-like-to-strike-at-70.

It would seem ludicrous to me to blame Ponting for the defeat, but it'd seem equally ludicrous to me to blame a first innings batting effort of 150 (300) or similar for failing to secure the win.

But their natural game would be, in probably 9 out of 10 scenarios, inferior from a team perspective. Doesn't mean they're not good - and the number of guys who can score quickly and big at the highest level is pretty small, so failing to number amongst them doesn't mean you're poor. It's a balancing act, and someone who can do both sides of the equation well is obviously better than someone who excels at only one side.

 

[Prince EWS]

But their natural game would be, in probably 9 out of 10 scenarios, inferior from a team perspective.

Only as much as Ponting's natural game ended up inferior to what the team truly needed against India in the above match. Scoring quickly is not superior to scoring slowly. As the referenced match showed, Ponting played a great innings in his natural way and, as it turned out, Australia would have been much better much better off with Kallis for example. That doesn't mean Ponting isn't good - just that different scoring rates will result in different situations on both sides of the coin. Scoring quickly will result in more wins, but more losses. Scoring slowly will result in less wins, but less losses. I don't see one situation as being superior to the other.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Scoring quickly is not superior to scoring slowly.

The bowlers, who usually need that extra time, would beg to differ.

I don't see one situation as being superior to the other.

Surely more results = a superior situation for the game of cricket?

 

[Prince EWS]

The bowlers, who usually need that extra time, would beg to differ.

Half the time, those bowlers being from the opposition...

Surely more results = a superior situation for the game of cricket?

Well, that's debatable for a start. It'd please the masses I suppose. Regardless though, being a good batsman isn't about being good for the game. It's about scoring runs.

 

[abcdef]

Only as much as Ponting's natural game ended up inferior to what the team truly needed against India in the above match. Scoring quickly is not superior to scoring slowly. As the referenced match showed, Ponting played a great innings in his natural way and, as it turned out, Australia would have been much better much better off with Kallis for example. That doesn't mean Ponting isn't good - just that different scoring rates will result in different situations on both sides of the coin. Scoring quickly will result in more wins, but more losses. Scoring slowly will result in less wins, but less losses. I don't see one situation as being superior to the other.

I think we can agree that scoring qucikly is always better than scoring slowly. This is one of the reasons why Australia win so many matches and very few draws. In fact, tesct criket in general gets more results because players tend to play faster these days.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, do you remember a rather big party on 31 December 1999?

I remember it. It was a year early...

 

[Prince EWS]

I think we can agree that scoring qucikly is always better than scoring slowly.

Obviously we can't.

This is one of the reasons why Australia win so many matches and very few draws.

Nah, that has a lot to do with two guys named McGrath and Warne.

In fact, tesct criket in general gets more results because players tend to play faster these days.

More results = more wins. But more results = more losses as well. Double edged sword. It's not actually beneficial for the team overall to win more but also lose more...

 

[NUFAN]

Prince obviously your being realistic and thinking about the average teams while other dude is thinking positive about a good side..