Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[Ikki]

The point, which might not have been clearly elucidated, is that there were two other cricketers that rose up the ranks of the 'quality' Australian system that were clearly found out at the international level. Therefore, Hayden's success at the state level doesnt guarantee that he would have been successful has he played more back then.

So what are you arguing, style or level? Hayden matched McGrath more than well in state cricket. If it were a style issue it wouldn't matter. Anyway, Hayden shouldn't be in the same conversation as Bevan and Elliott. He should be in the conversation of the Pontings and the Husseys - those who got their chance and took it. Whether FC success translates into Test success really wasn't the scope of the argument. Certain people were name dropping certain types of bowlers and making forecasts about Hayden's failure. Well, Hayden played some of those bowlers against other state sides and other touring sides.

I didnt though. I clearly stated that he would fail, if he batted with the same STYLE as he did for most of this decade. Whether you agree with that or not is just a matter of opinion. I never said he would fail, he could well have changed his game and scored runs. You have to remember that the argument was made to counter someone who said that Atherton would fail in this era because of the manner with which he scored his runs.

And that makes it more probable? Because you are basing it on style? I find that even less formulaic. People say that McGrath would have been thwarted had he met a Gavaskar-like leaver and player of the ball. Yet, as was proved, he does very well against these types of batsmen.

This is also mere speculation, and a generalisation that can't be proved. At worst Hayden is unproven against them/him. To make the proclaimation that he'd "fail miserably" I think you ought to have a bit more info/sample on the matter...as opposed to pretty much none. You didn't say he'd fail in all cases, but with a certain style, and I am not sure how that prediction is any more well-founded. Because someone made the prediction that Atherton would not succeed now does not mean it validates the opinion that Hayden would fail then based on style as a counter IMO. But to each their own, I guess.

 

[tooextracool]

So what are you arguing, style or level? Hayden matched McGrath more than well in state cricket. If it were a style issue it wouldn't matter. Anyway, Hayden shouldn't be in the same conversation as Bevan and Elliott. He should be in the conversation of the Pontings and the Husseys - those who got their chance and took it. Whether FC success translates into Test success really wasn't the scope of the argument. Certain people were name dropping certain types of bowlers and making forecasts about Hayden's failure. Well, Hayden played some of those bowlers against other state sides and other touring sides..

Which as we all know doesnt mean anything. State Cricket is state cricket, lets just leave it at that. The conditions at state level have nothing to do with the conditions faced in international level no matter how high the quality of it is/was. Plenty of cricketers have disproved the theory that state cricket isnt the be all and end all of cricket.

And that makes it more probable? Because you are basing it on style? I find that even less formulaic. People say that McGrath would have been thwarted had he met a Gavaskar-like leaver and player of the ball. Yet, as was proved, he does very well against these types of batsmen.

This is also mere speculation, and a generalisation that can't be proved. At worst Hayden is unproven against them/him. To make the proclaimation that he'd "fail miserably" I think you ought to have a bit more info/sample on the matter...as opposed to pretty much none. You didn't say he'd fail in all cases, but with a certain style, and I am not sure how that prediction is any more well-founded. Because someone made the prediction that Atherton would not succeed now does not mean it validates the opinion that Hayden would fail then based on style as a counter IMO. But to each their own, I guess.

Err yes and that was exactly my point. Saying that Atherton would not succeed in this era is the same as saying that Hayden would not have succeeded in the 90s. They're both equally flimsy arguments because it would depend on how they would adapt to the era, which we do not know.

As far as Hayden is concerned, its not about his batting style per say. Ive said it in the past and I'll say it again, Hayden's technique is and always has been dodgy against quality pace and in particular the inswinger. The fact that someone as mediocre as Matthew Hoggard made him look like a club cricketer in England with the ball swinging is more than testiment to that. I am not going to go into details of this again, but the fact that he plants his front foot down far far in front of middle and off would have got him into trouble against any quality bowler from the 90s in the conditions that were often seen during that time. You can talk about those billion 100s he scored in state cricket, he was picked and made to play test cricket in the 90s while he was going through a purple patch at the domestic level and had just come off a double hundred against a Walsh-less and Ambrose-less touring West Indies XI and still made to look like a joke during the test series.

AFAIC, he might have played more tests, and gotten better over time. However, there is little doubt in my mind that he was found wanting at the time in terms of technique for the few tests he did play, and theres little doubt in my mind that had he continued to play in the 90s as he did during the peak of his powers from 2000-2005/06 he would have struggled to score a run back then.

 

[Ikki]

Which as we all know doesnt mean anything. State Cricket is state cricket, lets just leave it at that. The conditions at state level have nothing to do with the conditions faced in international level no matter how high the quality of it is/was. Plenty of cricketers have disproved the theory that state cricket isnt the be all and end all of cricket.

Again, are you talking about levels or style? You're saying Matthew Hayden could not play off the front foot to someone like Ambrose for whatever technical flaw you think you see in him. I am saying that didn't stop him scoring runs at state level. Unless you think McGrath changed the way he bowled at state level.

Err yes and that was exactly my point. Saying that Atherton would not succeed in this era is the same as saying that Hayden would not have succeeded in the 90s. They're both equally flimsy arguments because it would depend on how they would adapt to the era, which we do not know.

Great, we agree.

As far as Hayden is concerned, its not about his batting style per say. Ive said it in the past and I'll say it again, Hayden's technique is and always has been dodgy against quality pace and in particular the inswinger. The fact that someone as mediocre as Matthew Hoggard made him look like a club cricketer in England with the ball swinging is more than testiment to that. I am not going to go into details of this again, but the fact that he plants his front foot down far far in front of middle and off would have got him into trouble against any quality bowler from the 90s in the conditions that were often seen during that time. You can talk about those billion 100s he scored in state cricket, he was picked and made to play test cricket in the 90s while he was going through a purple patch at the domestic level and had just come off a double hundred against a Walsh-less and Ambrose-less touring West Indies XI and still made to look like a joke during the test series.

Sorry, but that's untenable IMO. Hoggard, Jones and Flintoff made all our batsmen falter greatly throughout that series. That series was one of high quality seam and swing. Something, frankly, no batsman is reknown to dominate. Hayden falls at quality swing...but who doesn't? Hayden failed against Hoggard...but he wasnt the only one.

You keep going to state cricket digressing into the argument where an argument arises that success at state level won't/may not mean success at Test level. That is not the discussion. I am talking about technique. His technique did not hurt him against the best Australian bowlers (like McGrath) and many touring sides of the time. It doesn't matter if Ambrose or McGrath faced Hayden in something other than test cricket when you are arguing that his technique will be his downfall. People who do well at state level falter at Test level for psychological reasons, for imperfections that are found out at the higher test level, injuries, etc. But if Hayden was good enough to belt around McGrath with his technique at state level, I am more than certain he would have given Curtley a good run at test level given enough time and confidence. But to say he wouldn't have scored a run, is just too off base.

AFAIC, he might have played more tests, and gotten better over time. However, there is little doubt in my mind that he was found wanting at the time in terms of technique for the few tests he did play, and theres little doubt in my mind that had he continued to play in the 90s as he did during the peak of his powers from 2000-2005/06 he would have struggled to score a run back then.

So you ARE judging him based on 7 tests. I think that's silly, if not plain misguided. Your stance is like Richard's, which to my mind is ridiculous. So I won't rehash that argument. Anyone who thinks Hayden in the 90s was the same Hayden in the 2000s doesn't know what he is talking about, in my mind.

 

[honestbharani]

Firstly, let me get things straight about my post. It was not to indicate that Hayden WOULD HAVE definetly failed had he played more in the 90s. My point was merely to counter the argument made by a poster stating that Atherton would have failed in this era because of his 'defensive approach' not being suited to this kind of era. To counter that point I mentioned that Hayden and Sehwag's offensive approach would not have yielded them many runs in the 90s against those bowling attacks as well. And then I went on to suggest that players like Langer and Vaughan changed their game across eras to produce the style of game that was more prominent as the times changed. Which means that others like Atherton or Hayden would have probably done the same.

I am well aware that Hayden can change his game when the time calls for it and has played some mighty fine innings of late against quality seam. However, it is too difficult to speculate whether he would have been successful or not in that era, just like it is too difficult to speculate whether Atherton would be successful in this era as there is no way you can know for sure. Therefore doing so is futile. What we do know is that Hayden is one of the best openers of his era and thats the way it is. However, I dont buy for one second that planting his front foot down against the likes of Ambrose and Donald as Hayden has often done in this era would have brought him many runs against bowlers of that caliber in those conditions. Whether he would have changed his game to do so is not something I know, but if he played like he did in this era (which I believe he did the few times he played) he would have failed miserably.

tbh, I don't argue with any of that and I understand you weren't implying what I thought u did by reading the rest of your posts in the thread.



I replied to that post of yours before I read your subsequent posts.. sorry abt that.

 

[Matt79]

At Original poster, Mike Whitney was a dire cricketer and has had a successful career, just not as a cricketer...

 

[Richard]

Exactly. You're picking and choosing again. Post 2000 neither were much above mid 50s - and these are two all-time greats. Could care less that for a few years they were superlative. I care about the decade as a whole.

By trying to use the decade as a whole, you're the one who's picking and choosing to suit yourself. It's patently obvious that the date where things changed was September 2001, not January 2000.

No, I am calling you deluded because your opinion is so far off base it seems to be the only real reason. I can't respect someone that deludes himself into thinking non-sense and then trying to post 1000 times to try and make sense of it.

CW would be better without me? Haha, right back atcha.

Given I've been on the staff for nearly 2 years now, it's safe to say precious few agree with that. However, I know of maaaaany different posters who'd prefer the place without you. Calling someone deluded is against forum rules, whether you like it or not.

You said it, I called you on it not far back quoting you. You say a lot of foolish things. Like I remember one time you said it was stupid to suggest Warne was better than Murali.

See, unlike a lot of posters here who've gotten so used to your ****amamy theories that they just filter out the non-sense, I actually remember...and I judge you for what you've posted.

Nice try on the thinking other people do what you'd like them to do. Equally nice try in reading stuff into posts that isn't there to suit your judgements of people. It is stupid to say Warne is better than Murali (ditto the other way around) and it is

Sure, Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain are better than Matthew Hayden or even a Mohammad Yousuf. Hmm. Couldn't have anything to do with nationalism...maybe ignorance about the sport or the players?

Nope, just simple ability to judge a player. I'd also consider, for example, Gary Kirsten, Daryll Cullinan, Mark Taylor and Mark Waugh better than both the above. It'd be nice for you to have the bias card to throw at me I realise, but I'm afraid you don't.

 

[Richard]

How about this? Richard has done this time and time again. I don't know, are there rules for being banned because you post relentlessly inane crap?

As I say - nice try in reading stuff into a post that isn't there. None of what I said in that post is wrong or has changed.

 

[Richard]

So I assume we can expect a detailed list of the adjusted averages of every player that was injured at some stage to accurately compare their abilities. Merv Hughes played much of the back end of his career injured, so what do we do with players that managed to perform one way or the other whilst having an injury?

Only Merv Hughes' last 2 Tests are discount-worthy - the injury he suffered was at the end of the 1993 Ashes tour, and he shouldn't ever have played after that.

I could give you loads of players for whom games mean nothing as they were played when in no fit state to do so. However, another time perhaps. And certainly not every player ever. But if you're ever comparing two, you must always first find-out if there were any games played when injured.

 

[Richard]

I just remembered another Richard whopper: Ian Bishop is better than Warne and Murali.

Again, nothing wrong there nor anything that's changed.

 

[Richard]

There is absolute horse crap to suggest Atherton would have averaged 50+ had he been playing today. He would have at the maximum averaged (like Ganguly) in the early 40s. WTF, An increase of 13 points in 8 years??? (Hate to use the smiley but inevitable)

It's more a case of an increase of 7 or 8. Atherton wouldn't neccessarily have averaged 50, merely close to. As opposed to 41.

 

[Richard]

Because it is a professional sport at the highest level. Lame.

Not sure why that means anything as to that question.

 

[Richard]

41 is strictly mediocre.

Not really. It might be at the current time. Obviously it was never outstanding, but it was decent enough.

Laughable because Atherton would have failed to make the first XI of the teams in which Sachin and Richards played.

So? That doesn't change the fact that their careers took a similar pattern. Nothing else is remotely relevant. The point is that any player, however good or otherwise, can be and often is afflicted by what caused Atherton's career average to falsely represent what he did for most of his career.

By that argument, a certain Matt Hayden was not test class before India 2001, and if you discount all those performances, he'd be miles ahead of Athers.

Hayden certainly wasn't Test-class before 2001/02 (England showed-up his inadequacies easily in 2001) but I really don't think I want to go through all this AGAIN. Suffice to say AFAIC nothing whatsoever changed about Hayden in September 2001, merely pitches and bowling.

He had one or two series where he rose above average. For the other series he was utterly mediocre.

He wasn't. I could go through every series in question, but I really CBA. There were some moderate, some excellent and the odd poor one.

Ok. He was test class for a mediocre team like England.

I prefer the term "moderate". Mediocre may officially be "in the middle" or along those lines, but it's usually said with some amount of negative connotation.

A little late Athers was. He was a professional and should have known better. Fail.

He should've done. None of that changes the fact that injured-Atherton was vastly different from fit-Atherton.

AWTA. Exactly why I said Athers personified England of the 90s. Just mediocre that they had to play such a (overused I know) mediocre batsman for 100+ tests, when in actuality shouldnt have played more than 50 tests at max.

I think what you'd term mediocre I'd term "pretty decent". That'll do for me.

 

[Richard]

I find it unbelievable how someone like Atherton is given so much leeway, yet Hayden's handful of tests in the 90s stains the rest of his career for a certain few members here

That's the thing though - that's completely untrue. What's always been said by those who claim Hayden's chances of success 2001/02-2006/07 would've been moderate had the bowling and pitches been more akin to earlier has as much to do with the games in that time as the handful between 1993/94 and 2001.

 

[Ikki]

By trying to use the decade as a whole, you're the one who's picking and choosing to suit yourself. It's patently obvious that the date where things changed was September 2001, not January 2000.

Yes, because who put that Sept 2001 bracket? You? Precisely, to suit your argument. Stopping and starting again Richard. This is the red flag for those that don't know Richard, when he starts losing himself.

Given I've been on the staff for nearly 2 years now, it's safe to say precious few agree with that. However, I know of maaaaany different posters who'd prefer the place without you. Calling someone deluded is against forum rules, whether you like it or not.

People, didn't I mention in the other thread that Richard has these delusions of being part of the majority? Exhibit A.

Nice try on the thinking other people do what you'd like them to do. Equally nice try in reading stuff into posts that isn't there to suit your judgements of people. It is stupid to say Warne is better than Murali (ditto the other way around) and it is

Sure, because THAT is what you meant when you said it in that thread. Richard, I've known you for being unintelligent, but not really dishonest.

Nope, just simple ability to judge a player. I'd also consider, for example, Gary Kirsten, Daryll Cullinan, Mark Taylor and Mark Waugh better than both the above. It'd be nice for you to have the bias card to throw at me I realise, but I'm afraid you don't.

I'm sure the Nazi's also have no problem with other Aryan races...doesn't stop them from being racist or ultra-nationals.

I'm even willing to concede that it might not be nationalistic bias. It's easier to believe that you just don't know any better.

As I say - nice try in reading stuff into a post that isn't there. None of what I said in that post is wrong or has changed.

So you DIDN'T say Ambrose was better than Lillee and imply that it's not even close?

Can't believe anyone can seriously even speak of the two in the same breath, TBH.

Ambrose did everything a seam-bowler could want to do. Lillee, whether he'd have been able to or not, didn't.

Ambrose's career trumps Lillee's easily.

Again, nothing wrong there nor anything that's changed.

Nothing wrong with saying Ian Bishop is better than 2 of the greatest bowlers of all-time?

Bishop had enough of a career, for mine, to be better than Warne or Murali have ever been, TBH.

And had he not had the injury problems, it's very conceivable he'd be up there with Marshall and Ambrose as the best West Indian seamer ever.

 

[tooextracool]

Again, are you talking about levels or style? You're saying Matthew Hayden could not play off the front foot to someone like Ambrose for whatever technical flaw you think you see in him. I am saying that didn't stop him scoring runs at state level. Unless you think McGrath changed the way he bowled at state level.

Well my point is that Bevan scored massive amounts of runs at the state level too without anyone realising his weakness against the short ball. Granted he may have fixed this problem eventually, but he still went a very long time in domestic cricket without his supposed weaknesses being figured out.

Sorry, but that's untenable IMO. Hoggard, Jones and Flintoff made all our batsmen falter greatly throughout that series. That series was one of high quality seam and swing. Something, frankly, no batsman is reknown to dominate. Hayden falls at quality swing...but who doesn't? Hayden failed against Hoggard...but he wasnt the only one.

Who else failed against Hoggard? Sorry, but even by Hoggard's standards Hoggard had a poor series in 2005 and theres no point playing that up. Lets not forget that this wasnt Hayden's first poor series in England, and his poor performances against swing were documented and even predicted by some (including yours truly) well before the Ashes series. In fact there were some Australians who were calling for his axing during the series.

So you ARE judging him based on 7 tests. I think that's silly, if not plain misguided. Your stance is like Richard's, which to my mind is ridiculous. So I won't rehash that argument. Anyone who thinks Hayden in the 90s was the same Hayden in the 2000s doesn't know what he is talking about, in my mind.

No I am judging him based on the way he batted from 2000/01-2005/06. It should be remembered that he failed on two separate tours to England, 4 years apart. Both times his technique was exposed. Had his technique not been exposed on these tours, Im not sure too many people would have questioned his technique. His 7 tests from the 90s only add fuel to the fire IMO.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well my point is that Bevan scored massive amounts of runs at the state level too without anyone realising his weakness against the short ball. Granted he may have fixed this problem eventually, but he still went a very long time in domestic cricket without his supposed weaknesses being figured out.

It was, though. Bevvo used to play the short stuff, no matter how quick he bowling, perfectly well at state level. Word at the time was that there were quite a few bowlers who subscribed to the 'Bevan can't play short stuff' theory until they tried it on him, bruised egos the usual result.

Popular theory is that his pressure on himself to succeed at Test level got him in the end as his play against short stuff was more he result of indecision than a genuine technical weakness.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because who put that Sept 2001 bracket? You? Precisely, to suit your argument. Stopping and starting again Richard. This is the red flag for those that don't know Richard, when he starts losing himself.

September 2001 is the date I've always used in every case ever about batsmen having it much easier as of a certain time than they have for most of the rest of Test history. There's a reason it suits my argument - because the argument was based on the observation.

People, didn't I mention in the other thread that Richard has these delusions of being part of the majority? Exhibit A.

It's doubly amusing to hear someone try to talk about me having delusions about this-and-that when they don't even have a clue what the majority is.

Sure, because THAT is what you meant when you said it in that thread. Richard, I've known you for being unintelligent, but not really dishonest.

Given that I know better than you about my intentions, I'm therefore not only not dishonest but rather more intelligent than you on the matter.

I'm sure the Nazi's also have no problem with other Aryan races...doesn't stop them from being racist or ultra-nationals.

I'm even willing to concede that it might not be nationalistic bias. It's easier to believe that you just don't know any better.

Excellent, a tiny amount of concession, even if it is another clueless one.

So you DIDN'T say Ambrose was better than Lillee and imply that it's not even close?

Ambrose has done things Lillee never did - as well as doing everything that Lillee did. Simple as. That, to my mind, makes him better.

Nothing wrong with saying Ian Bishop is better than 2 of the greatest bowlers of all-time?

No, because most people who know a thing about Ian Bishop know he was a magnificent bowler as well.

 

[Ikki]

Well my point is that Bevan scored massive amounts of runs at the state level too without anyone realising his weakness against the short ball. Granted he may have fixed this problem eventually, but he still went a very long time in domestic cricket without his supposed weaknesses being figured out.

That kind of has nothing to do with Hayden, though. As he has been smashing everyone with his technique regardless. The implication that he would not make a run (none or very few) if he met Test class bowlers is too hard to swallow, it just isn't right. He met Test class bowlers and of the Ambrose calibre and didn't have a problem. And like TC I don't buy the short-ball stuff either.

Who else failed against Hoggard? Sorry, but even by Hoggard's standards Hoggard had a poor series in 2005 and theres no point playing that up. Lets not forget that this wasnt Hayden's first poor series in England, and his poor performances against swing were documented and even predicted by some (including yours truly) well before the Ashes series. In fact there were some Australians who were calling for his axing during the series.

Er, what? He averaged 29.56 at an SR of 45.8 and was part of a very good attack in that series. Who did he trouble? How about the whole top order?

No I am judging him based on the way he batted from 2000/01-2005/06. It should be remembered that he failed on two separate tours to England, 4 years apart. Both times his technique was exposed. Had his technique not been exposed on these tours, Im not sure too many people would have questioned his technique. His 7 tests from the 90s only add fuel to the fire IMO.

He doesn't have a good record against England, even when England were hardly worthy to challenge. The conditions and quality of 05 have not been replicated by other tours at all. Hayden was one of the best (if not the best) when India toured here and their bowlers were swinging the ball both in Tests and ODIs.

To say Hayden has a weakness amongst high quality swing bowling is hiding the truth that pretty much every batsman has a weakness to high quality swing bowling.

 

[Uppercut]

September 2001 is the date I've always used in every case ever about batsmen having it much easier as of a certain time than they have for most of the rest of Test history. There's a reason it suits my argument - because the argument was based on the observation.

It's doubly amusing to hear someone try to talk about me having delusions about this-and-that when they don't even have a clue what the majority is.

Given that I know better than you about my intentions, I'm therefore not only not dishonest but rather more intelligent than you on the matter.

Excellent, a tiny amount of concession, even if it is another clueless one.

Ambrose has done things Lillee never did - as well as doing everything that Lillee did. Simple as. That, to my mind, makes him better.

No, because most people who know a thing about Ian Bishop know he was a magnificent bowler as well.

Genuine question here, you think Hayden's big weakness is against the swinging ball, more specifically the inswinger, right? Why does him playing in an era of flat pitches matter with regard to that?

 

[Richard]

It's the ball that moves into him. Can be seam or swing. Obviously he also struggles against the one that moves away from him, but not I'd not say any more than most batsmen. The area where I consider and always have him to be weak far above the norm is the ball that moves back in.

I feel that more lively pitches and bowlers capable of exploiting them would have seen this weakness exploited in a way it only very rarely has been from September 2001 onwards, and almost always was before then. Therefore I feel that had pitches not gotten almost uniformly flat and the standard of bowling declined (to whatever extent you feel these two have happened) then Hayden would not have been a successful Test batsman at any point.

However, the reality of the matter is that they did happen, and as a result Hayden between 2001/02 and 2006/07 did exceptionally well without very often (in my view) being challenged. On the relatively rare occasion he was, it was obvious to me that he had not gotten better - the flaws that had always been there were still there.

In 2007/08, on the other hand, I think Hayden played better than he ever had before. Nonetheless, I still don't feel that this was such a collossal improvement as to suggest that had he been required to make it beforehand he'd have been able to.