Look, there is no way for me to prove that they weren't implemented, nor is there any way for you to prove they were. I'm happy to come to the conclusion I've come to, and I daresay you're happy to do likewise. I'll leave it there.
Their clearly is a way to prove it once you watched HIM BAT vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08. Hayden's biggest technical faults of being - vulnerable to full swining deliveries - and full outside off-stump bowling, where not exposed enough between IND 01 to NZ 05 because of amount of flat decks are average bowling attacks he faced.
If no improvements where made to his technique after the first 4 Ashes test he couldn't have saved his career with that Oval hundred nor scored runs vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08. The first signs of helpul conditions for the bowlers (which they where many in these 3 series) he would have failed.
As for Hayden's failures in 2008/09 they had very little to do with exploitation of career-long faults and more to do with new faults that crept in that season - which may or may not have been to do with the media pressure.
No new faults that i saw. Hayden vs NZ & SA 08/09 just uncharacteristically went into his shell after the crazy media pressure was pushign him to be axed, after AUS lost in India. Hayden never looked technically exposed or as you claim - nor had new faults had crept in.
I actually agree that SA's attack of 2005/06 was probably better than their one of 2008/09.But the 2005/06 one was not stacked with (in fact did not contain at all) bowlers who could bowl big inswingers to the LHB,
Yes that true. But the argument againts Hayden in the past was principally trageted towards that simple technical fault that he had - but he was major FTB & that any time conditions helped the seamers he was potentially a walking wicket.
[/B] nor were any of the decks really very seam-friendly when Hayden batted on them (some of them had the odd session where they were, most of which occurred when SA were batting).[/B]
Thats is half right - half wrong.
During the home series in AUS first this argument has some merit.
In the 1st test in 2005 for the first 2 days in both AUS & SA respective 1st innings, the pitch was very much bowler friendly. Hayden didn't score big here. But at the same time, he wasn't in trouble at the crease.
In the second test, SA where all over AUS on the first day in very helpul. Hayden & Ponting's partnership was even more brilliant because of how they had to battle. The MCG test overall was even tussle between bat & ball - and Hayden was the best batsman.
Only in Sydney is where your argument really is on point because when the ptich was flat during that 4th innings chase Hayden scored big & SA's attack had not Ntini & Nel was injured.
Moving over to the tests in SA, the pitches where very good cricket pitches. Movement & consistent bounce for the bowler & good batsmen got runs. This is proven by the fact that no score of 400 was scored in those 3 tests.
But overall he was tested technically in this series. It may not have been the usual tactic to get him out LBW that ENG did in 05. But it was a very good attack that made him work hard for his runs, he couldn't bully them - which showed a different side to Hayden that was not seen much between IND 01 to NZ 05.
.
, he's never won a world cup 
