Hayden was completely out of nick before the 2005 Ashes series, so I guess that excuses him for being mediocre during the majority of that series, right? There if a difference in difficulty when facing a quality attack when you are unproven compared to when you are established.
No, Hayden wasn't out-of-nick in 2004/05 and 2005. He was simply worked-out by Kyle Mills, Shoaib Akhtar and Matthew Hoggard.
So you are trying to undermine the conditions of someone who actually played in that match?
The conditions of someone who played in the match? I don't need to undermine Stephen Waugh - he was very poor in 2001/02. Simple as.
Been noted before now how an isolated
in response to something that isn't a joke is generally an indicator of a poor-quality poster.
Many batsman that have faced him would beg to differ. Much like many bowlers would beg to differ on your views of Matthew Hayden.
Many poor-quality bowlers, yeah. Ntini isn't hopeless, but he's only ever offered glimpses of being Test-class.
Scored 2 hundreds against Hoggard between the times that you mentioned. One at the Oval and in Melbourne, when Australia were on the ropes at 5/80. Not only that, but he also carried Symonds during that innings aswell. Under 1000 runs were scored in the match, in overcast bowler-friendly conditions.
And you know what? Yes, as I already mentioned, Hoggard dismissed him lbw twice before he'd made 13. Hayden only once scored runs against a Hoggard-containing attack, that being The Oval 2005.
Hayden eventually got the laugh last on him.
Not really, all the England bowlers still had the wood on Hayden in 2006/07.
That's wrong. Pollock didn't start to deteriorate until 2003. Pollock averaged 20 during the time he bowled to Hayden and maintained that same average up until the start of 2004.
Pollock ceased to be capable of taking wickets on flat pitches in 2001/02. That should've been fairly obvious to anyone who watched his career. Evidently, you didn't.
Really, he was no different in those periods to 2002 when Hayden got the better of him. Hayden just made him look worse then what he actually was.
Caddick was considerably different between July 1999 and May 2001 to any other time in his career. He bowled inestimably better in that period to any time before or after. Again, you clearly weren't watching him closely enough - if at all. I somewhat doubt you even tried to watch close to all of England's Tests with Caddick playing.
Poor excuse. Vaas is class and Hayden murdered him, just admit it.
Vaas is class, but only tends to demonstrate that about 50% of the time he steps onto the park. He happens to be just about my favourite bowler ever, but he's capable of, and does about half the time, bowling execrably badly. The other half the time, he tends to bowl about as well as anyone ever will.
He dismissed Hayden once, in 7 Tests.
Hayden played 4 Tests against Donald in that period, scoring 84 runs in 8 innings'. Donald dismissed him just the first of these 8, true, but he was conclusively conquered by South Africa's attack.
Are you kidding? Did you not see Sharma bowl in Australia? Hayden was all him over.
All him over? I did indeed see Sharma bowl in Australia, and he clearly shouldn't have been playing.
Funny how you fail to mention Hayden's efforts at Shoaib during 2002, when Shoaib was at his absolute peak. I think that facing someone with their tail up and swinging the ball at 155kph would be more difficult then anything else. Or Hayden's success against the ICC World XI, when he got man of the match, facing the best bowlers in the world at that particular time?
The World XI match was a joke game, I couldn't care less about it. If you missed it, Shoaib bowled well just once against Australia in 2002/03, in which Hayden made 4 and 34. In the other 2 games, he could not cope with the 50degC heat (not surprisingly, it was ridicuous they were playing in it) and barely bowled.
