Fringe Aussie fringe Players who would excel in other teams..

[Zinzan]

how is he the most successful batsman if hes never scored on seaming wickets?
with regard to seam and swing, swing without seam doesnt trouble too many batsman, it is seam alone or seam with swing that causes problems.

Name the openers at test level that have been more successful than hayden "allround" in the last decade??

 

[tooextracool]

and all this time ive been saying that had hayden played like he has been so far in the 80s, he wouldnt have averaged over 30.

 

[Zinzan]

and all this time ive been saying that had hayden played like he has been so far in the 80s, he wouldnt have averaged over 30.

I asked you to name a more successful test opener in the last decade, not bring up an irrelevant point of how he would have played in another decade.

I take it since you've had over a day to reply to my original question and haven't that you can't name one.

As I thought.....

 

[tooextracool]

I asked you to name a more successful test opener in the last decade, not bring up an irrelevant point of how he would have played in another decade. .

its not irrelevant, it emphasises how forunate hes been to have played in such an era and in such conditions.

I take it since you've had over a day to reply to my original question and haven't that you can't name one.

As I thought.....

depends on what you call 'successful'. if you call someone whos perenially failed on seamer friendly wickets the most successful opener in the last decade then you are obviously deluded.

 

[Zinzan]

its not irrelevant, it emphasises how forunate hes been to have played in such an era and in such conditions..

So the era that he actually plays in is irrelevant aye?? Yeah that makes perfect sense to your argument





[/QUOTE]

depends on what you call 'successful'. if you call someone whos perenially failed on seamer friendly wickets the most successful opener in the last decade then you are obviously deluded.[/QUOTE]

Only problem with the above statement is its ...only in your opinion...And I certainly maintain he is the most successful opener in the last decade....He's played enough games for his record to show a true enough indication of his ability, and has generally played in the same conditions as other batsmen in his era.
The fact you can't name a more successful test opener in the last decade tells me that you it can't really be a weakness of any significance.

 

[tooextracool]

So the era that he actually plays in is irrelevant aye?? Yeah that makes perfect sense to your argument

no its not irrelevant. but as far as im concerned, a player who is great should be capable of scoring in any generation, not just one.

Only problem with the above statement is its ...only in your opinion...And I certainly maintain he is the most successful opener in the last decade....He's played enough games for his record to show a true enough indication of his ability, and has generally played in the same conditions as other batsmen in his era.

no he hasnt, hes generally got away with playing on seamer friendly wickets because the ones that they prepare at home are so horribly flat. most other players havent been as fortunate.

The fact you can't name a more successful test opener in the last decade tells me that you it can't really be a weakness of any significance.

id rate gary kirsten and even his opening partner justin langer as a better player than him.

 

[social]

and all this time ive been saying that had hayden played like he has been so far in the 80s, he wouldnt have averaged over 30.

And if Sydney Barnes had bowled medium paced cutters on today's wickets, he'd be cannon fodder.

And if the greats of yesteryear walked out to bat today with the protective equipment they used in their day (even on today's wickets), they'd spend a lot of time in hospital.

In other words, blah, blah, blah.

 

[Zinzan]

And if Sydney Barnes had bowled medium paced cutters on today's wickets, he'd be cannon fodder.

And if the greats of yesteryear walked out to bat today with the protective equipment they used in their day (even on today's wickets), they'd spend a lot of time in hospital.

In other words, blah, blah, blah.

The only era that is relevant is the era that the player concerned actually plays in. The guy didn't play in the 80s, so its completely and utterly irrevant.

 

[social]

The only era that is relevant is the era that the player concerned actually plays in. The guy didn't play in the 80s, so its completely and utterly irrevant.

And completely and utterly impossible to state with any conviction.

 

[mavric41]

no its not irrelevant. but as far as im concerned, a player who is great should be capable of scoring in any generation, not just one.



no he hasnt, hes generally got away with playing on seamer friendly wickets because the ones that they prepare at home are so horribly flat. most other players havent been as fortunate.



id rate gary kirsten and even his opening partner justin langer as a better player than him.

So tooextracool - how big is your Hayden voodoo doll? You never seem to run out of pins to stick in.

 

[Zinzan]

So tooextracool - how big is your Hayden voodoo doll? You never seem to run out of pins to stick in.

I think its nearly as big as his Brett Lee and Tendulkar voodoo dolls....

But not as big as his Flintoff Blow-up doll he has in his room

 

[tooextracool]

And if Sydney Barnes had bowled medium paced cutters on today's wickets, he'd be cannon fodder.

thats extremely arguable, its something no one can say for certain though.

And if the greats of yesteryear walked out to bat today with the protective equipment they used in their day (even on today's wickets), they'd spend a lot of time in hospital.

In other words, blah, blah, blah.

if the greats of yesteryear played today, why the hell would they bat without protective equipment? thats the most ridiculous statement ive heard,if they were successful without protection wouldnt that suggest that they would be just as successful in the current era?

 

[tooextracool]

I think its nearly as big as his Brett Lee and Tendulkar voodoo dolls....

But not as big as his Flintoff Blow-up doll he has in his room

not as big as the fallacy that you hide behind that australian players can never be criticised simply because they play for australia.

 

[social]

thats extremely arguable, its something no one can say for certain though.



if the greats of yesteryear played today, why the hell would they bat without protective equipment? thats the most ridiculous statement ive heard,if they were successful without protection wouldnt that suggest that they would be just as successful in the current era?

No, it would suggest that the fast bowling of yesteryear was nothing like the standard of today.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it would suggest that the fast bowling of yesteryear was nothing like the standard of today.

oh you really are the clown of the forum arent you? do you seriously believe that todays fast bowlers are better than the likes of holding,roberts,marshall,garner,croft,hadlee,lillee,thomson,willis botham, imran etc?
take your pills first then, we'll continue this argument.

 

[social]

oh you really are the clown of the forum arent you? do you seriously believe that todays fast bowlers are better than the likes of holding,roberts,marshall,garner,croft,hadlee,lillee,thomson,willis botham, imran etc?
take your pills first then, we'll continue this argument.

Given that I referred to Sidney Barnes as a bowler of yesteryear, dont you think that it was possible that I was referring to pre-war players when it came to batting and protective equipment as well?

I'll spell it out for you then.

How long would any player from any era last against Glen McGrath on an uncovered wicket with:

a. pads that offered less protection than today's keeping pads;

b. no thigh pad;

c. a thin plastic cup;

d. almost non-existent gloves; and

e. no helmet.

 

[tooextracool]

and this means that if they played in this era, they would continue to play without protection how?

 

[social]

Pre-war batsmen did not suffer a multitude of serious injuries despite:

a. playing with less protection;

b. against more frequently taken new balls; and

c. on wickets that, in general, were not as well prepared as they are today.

Given the above, it is safe to assume that bowlers of that era were not as threatening as those of the last 30 years and, as such, it is not fair to compare batsmen from the 2 times.

Likewise, whilst I agree that there were a number of great fast bowlers in the 80s, they also had the advantages of:

a. more frequently taken new balls;

b. hand made balls which generally had a more pronounced seam than today's machine-made variety;

c. more bowler friendly pitches (in Aus, Eng, and SA) at least;

d. the unlimited bouncer rule; and

e. more rest between matches.

Given the above, one cannot unequivocally state that Marshall is greater than, say, McGrath or Pollock and likewise one cannot state that Hayden would certainly fail against that era's bowling despite being amongst the most successful of this decade.

 

[Zinzan]

not as big as the fallacy that you hide behind that australian players can never be criticised simply because they play for australia.

I will remind you that I'm a NZ'er. Therefore why would I adopt that philosophy? There are plenty of Australian cricketers that I have criticised when they haven't played well over the years. Just like recently I stated I believed It made sense to Drop Lehmann. Not that I think he's "useless", just that I think there a better options for aust at the moment.

It just happens that I don't agree with your constant slagging of Hayden (one of the great modern day test openers) and Lee (who seems to be in the best bowling form of his career).

Given your fickle and inconclusive arguments against them - especially Hayden, (thats hardly anyone agrees with) , its not suprising that someone would suggest you had voodoo dolls....

 

[Zinzan]

Lee looked awesome again in the 20/20