Sehwag - Best Batsman In World Cricket Right Now

[wfdu_ben91]

I saw most of the series, including that entire stand, and the SAfricans bowled decently, caught poorly and the pitch played better than it had done when the SAfricans were batting - they then batted badly in the second-innings, as Australia's lower-order did.

If the ball had been doing much through the air or off the wicket and the SAfricans had held their catches, it's exceptionally unlikely Hayden would've got any, because he was not capable of repelling bowling in such conditions.

I watched it aswell and Australia's innings was just as difficult as South Africa's. Not only was it difficult, but it was tricky to score off aswell; suggested by the fact that it took Hayden over 20 delieveries to get off the mark. Ponting's dismissal was off a delievery that stuck in the pitch, but yet only a few overs later, Hayden was dismissed to a shorter ball that skidded on a bit more. Plenty of shots went through the air from my recollections and there were a few plays and misses because the odd ball did abit. Even the commentators acknowledged how valuable Hayden's 94 was because of how tricky it was to bat throughout the whole match. The pitch was by no means easier to bat on for the Australians as it was for the South Africans.

His 94 and 102 in the first two Tests were examples of Hayden repelling bowler-friendly conditions against quality seam bowling - So that throws the arguement that he couldn't succeed in bowler friendly conditions out of the window. His 124 @ the MCG against India in 2007 was another example and his 153, a year earlier against England was yet another example. Even if you watch the highlights of Hayden's 197, the pitch was doing a bit early on but Hayden repelled it. Hoggard was swinging it just like he did in the 05 Ashes but because Hayden was in form; it didn't trouble him so much. The pitch did however flatten out after the first session.

Hayden is God, say it loud, say it proud, Richard.

 

[Richard]

Just in case anyone was forgetting, Hayden was dropped at least 4 times during the course of his 197 in 2002/03.

Anyway we'll leave it at you think there were consistently seaming conditions in the 2005/06 SAfrican series - I consider there were not. There's no way to show either with real conviction, and I'm not going to waste time trying.

 

[Streetwise]

Hayden is a great, the reason he is a great is because he was the best opening batsman of his time and as a batsman thats as good as you can do.

I know you will get small minded people who will nit pick his game and come up with some outlandish hypotheticals like he was the luckiest batsman alive to play for twenty years and average 50 because (this is the funny part) the pitch would flatten out when he walked out ot bat.

 

[Burgey]

Hayden is a great, the reason he is a great is because he was the best opening batsman of his time and as a batsman thats as good as you can do.

I know you will get small minded people who will nit pick his game and come up with some outlandish hypotheticals like he was the luckiest batsman alive to play for twenty years and average 50 because (this is the funny part) the pitch would flatten out when he walked out ot bat.

TBF, I don't think that's what people are saying at all. It's just some people rate him very highly, others don't.

Really don't see what the problem is with that personally. Certainly wouldn't see it as a big enough reason to label those who disagree with you as "small minded".

 

[Richard]

I know you will get small minded people who will nit pick his game and come up with some outlandish hypotheticals like he was the luckiest batsman alive to play for twenty years and average 50 because (this is the funny part) the pitch would flatten out when he walked out ot bat.

Err, no-one (small or big - like me - minded) has ever suggested any of that. All questions over Hayden's calibre concern near-irrefutable factors. Some dispute that these factors would impact on his success, believing that if things were different Hayden would have played differently; some believe he was not capable of playing differently and that under different circumstances, never mind being a top-class batsman, he'd not even have been good enough for a lengthy Test career.

 

[Streetwise]

Err, no-one (small or big - like me - minded) has ever suggested any of that. All questions over Hayden's calibre concern near-irrefutable factors. Some dispute that these factors would impact on his success, believing that if things were different Hayden would have played differently; some believe he was not capable of playing differently and that under different circumstances, never mind being a top-class batsman, he'd not even have been good enough for a lengthy Test career.

whatever, but he was still the best opener of his generation, that is indisputable.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Just in case anyone was forgetting, Hayden was dropped at least 4 times during the course of his 197 in 2002/03.

All of which were after he had passed 100.

 

[social]

whatever, but he was still the best opener of his generation, that is indisputable.

Dont bother - Richard rates Atherton and Nasser Hussain above Hayden so that should be enough to tell you that you're talking to a brick wall

The fact is that Hayden could come out of retirement today and score 1 million not out against the best pace bowlers of today on an absolute green top and he would dismiss it because Hayden played and missed on 997,996

 

[Richard]

All of which were after he had passed 100.

Nope, the first was on about 45 or so.

 

[Richard]

The fact is that Hayden could come out of retirement today and score 1 million not out against the best pace bowlers of today on an absolute green top and he would dismiss it because Hayden played and missed on 997,996

Nonsense - of course.

 

[Richard]

whatever, but he was still the best opener of his generation, that is indisputable.

He was the best Test opener around between 2001/02 and 2007/08 ("generations" are notoriously fickle things so I'll gladly not define anyone as "the best of their generation"), but such an achievement is not neccessarily compartmental with being any good at other times - ie, at a time when Test cricket was as it has been for most of its existence.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, yes, yes; Nasser Hussain > Hayden. We've heard it before.

 

[Richard]

More accurately, Matthew Hayden < most successful Test batsmen from 1946-2001, 1900-1929/30, and plenty in the 1930s as well.

If people keep getting it wrong you'll keep hearing it.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, I am sure you'll troll our brains out so that we don't forget.

 

[Richard]

Nah, will just correct idiotic comments like the one above.

 

[Streetwise]

Nah, will just make idiotic comments like the ones I made above.

Fixed

 

[Pothas]

Oh dear.....

 

[Richard]

Fixed

I'd learn how to break things before trying fixing them if I were you... (the temptation to add "like your spinal chord" is of course tempting, but I'll resist, as even you don't quite deserve that).

 

[Top_Cat]

I'd learn how to break things before trying fixing them if I were you... (the temptation to add "like your spinal chord" is of course tempting, but I'll resist, as even you don't quite deserve that).

 

[Burgey]

Well it's the same old song
Just a different beat since you've been gone...