The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[jimmy101]

Just the other day I was watching highlights of his 130 in the second innings against Sri Lanka in 2004

I couldn't imagine anything worse to watch on YouTube tbh

 

[stephen]

Yeah. Honestly I think he provably suffered from not being established in the side as much as anything else. He's basically gone on to become what Bevan could have been if he was given a longer run.

Away tests in South Africa against Donald, Pollock and Fannie sandwiching tests against Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh are as tough of a challenge an opener will ever face. For that to be your first seven tests is crazy challenging, no matter how good you are.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah, it's why i rate Atherton so high. His whole career was basically test series after test series against a rampaging Ambrose, Donald, Wasim or McGrath. Whenever he got a break from this through India or NZ he dominated

 

[stephen]

Three other thing with Hayden is that he retired a year too late. If he retired a year earlier his record would have looked much more impressive.

 

[TheJediBrah]

no, but there was still Walsh and Gough/Caddick and other remnants of the 90s lingering in those sides. And they were the guys who kept getting him out

I love Hayden but getting to play 2 five test series within 6 months of each other and not tonning up once is interesting. especially for that era where there so was much talent waiting for a chance. the india series bought him a lot of kudos i guess

I generally just put that down to those being 2 of his first 3 series back in the side. There's no reason to think the bowling had anything to do with it. The very next summer NZ and SA had comfortably better attacks than WI (especially SA) and Hayden annihilated them. Likewise when England toured in the year after.

Like a lot of players he was a lot better at home, but his lack of runs in those 2 series you mentioned almost certainly had more to do with where he was at as a player than the bowling he faced, which wasn't anything special.

 

[morgieb]

It's worth noting Hayden in that West Indies series had a heap of run-outs when getting starts - it's plausible that he could well have kicked on with at least one of them.

 

[Red]

He was out of form for a while leading into the 05 series but then still managed to ton up in the last match while the Ashes (and his spot) were still on the line.

05 Ashes is the exact sort of thing that dont give Hayden any credit for. Huge clutch series, the first time we've played an England team that's displayed any ticker in 2 decades, and he goes missing. Test scores of 12, 34, 0, 31, 34, 36, 7 and 26. Makes a ton in the final test. Meh.

Massive hypocrite too. Crossing himself when he made tons while being the biggest asshole on field in terms of sledging etc. gagf

 

[stephen]

That was his first ton in 15 months. Nice way to turn your form around.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Massive hypocrite too. Crossing himself when he made tons while being the biggest asshole on field in terms of sledging etc. gagf

May well be the case. I don't count that against him as a player, personally.

 

[Tom Flint]

05 Ashes is the exact sort of thing that dont give Hayden any credit for. Huge clutch series, the first time we've played an England team that's displayed any ticker in 2 decades, and he goes missing. Test scores of 12, 34, 0, 31, 34, 36, 7 and 26. Makes a ton in the final test. Meh.

Massive hypocrite too. Crossing himself when he made tons while being the biggest asshole on field in terms of sledging etc. gagf

Average 35 isn't great but it's hardly terrible

 

[Red]

Average 35 isn't great but it's hardly terrible

It's not his overall average I am critical of. He didn't stand up early in the series. He'd gone from being this (faux) bullying character to having the England quicks all over him and he had nothing to answer with.

Make no mistake, the West Indies attacks would have feasted on him. He'd have been lucky to average 20 against them.

 

[trundler]

This is why I rate Smith higher than his contemporaries. Sehwag and Hayden were lucky to average close to 50 because of roads and docile attacks. Smith at least wasn't a walking wicket when it swung.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is why I rate Smith higher than his contemporaries. Sehwag and Hayden were lucky to average close to 50 because of roads and docile attacks. Smith at least wasn't a walking wicket when it swung.

But then Smith averaged under 40 in both Australia and India where Sehwag and Hayden were "lucky to play on roads", so not really that simple is it

 

[trundler]

I'll take the better player of swing over the better player of spin when it comes to openers

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'll just take the better player

for me all 3 are pretty even

 

[stephen]

I think the thing which separates Smith from the other two is his leadership abilities. Hayden I feel was a slightly better batsman overall, Sehwag was most capable of huge scores and Smith was marginally better against swing.

 

[stephen]

So here's an interesting little piece of trivia.

Sehwag faced McGrath in 5 tests - 4 times at home and once in the world XI match. Mcgrath got him 4 times. He averaged 42 in those tests with 1 century and 2 half centuries.

Smith faced McGrath in 6 tests - 2 times at home, 4 away. Mcgrath got him 5 times. He averaged 23 in those tests with only one half century.

Hayden faced Ambrose in two tests and got out to him 3 times, averaging 13 with a high score of 47. His reputation as being ordinary against high quality pace is largely based on this record.

Smith's record against McGrath over a larger sample size isn't much better.

Hayden vs Donald is a very different story - her played 7 tests against him, was dismissed once and averaged 47 in those tests with 3 hundreds.

In his three tests against Waqar, Waqar got him once and he averaged 61.5 with one hundred and one fifty.

 

[stephen]

Anyway my point is that sometimes reputation is different from reality. Yes, Smith did excellently in England, but he was ordinary against the best bowler of his era. Yes, Hayden has a reputation as being poor versus high quality pace but his records against Donald and Waqar are top notch. Yes, Sehwag has a reputation as a flat track bully but he did remarkably well against the best quick of his era.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So here's an interesting little piece of trivia.

Sehwag faced McGrath in 5 tests - 4 times at home and once in the world XI match. Mcgrath got him 4 times. He averaged 42 in those tests with 1 century and 2 half centuries.

Smith faced McGrath in 6 tests - 2 times at home, 4 away. Mcgrath got him 5 times. He averaged 23 in those tests with only one half century.

Hayden faced Ambrose in two tests and got out to him 3 times, averaging 13 with a high score of 47. His reputation as being ordinary against high quality pace is largely based on this record.

Smith's record against McGrath over a larger sample size isn't much better.

Hayden vs Donald is a very different story - her played 7 tests against him, was dismissed once and averaged 47 in those tests with 3 hundreds.

In his three tests against Waqar, Waqar got him once and he averaged 61.5 with one hundred and one fifty.

You are really good at this

also shows how disliking a player's personality can affect your rating of their ability. I'd wager there are a lot of people that underrate Hayden as a batsman subconsciously because they think he's a ****

 

[stephen]

In the 6 tests Hayden faced Walsh sans Ambrose he averaged 40 with 1 century and 2 half centuries. He got out to Walsh 3 times and was run out twice in these matches.

So what we have with Hayden is a reputation built on two tests against Ambrose as a rookie and 4 ashes tests at the end of a run of form that had seen him not score a century in 15 months. We have to ignore his record against Donald and Walsh and that last pesky ashes test where he broke his form drought and tonned up.