Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Swervy]

Actually it's not laughable. Hayden has had to face worse bowling attack than Hayden has. Hussain had to face the likes of Walsh and Ambrose close to their prime while Hayden has murdered the likes of Taylor and Bravo. Not stating stats because it could be that Hussain dominated Ambrose but it's pretty true that Hussain would have faced better bowling than Hayden has for most of his career. In any case I'd rate them equally as good batsmen. Someone like Langer may be rated a bit higher though.

It is laughable I am afraid.


From 1 jan 2000 (around when Hayden became a more regular test cricketer) to the end of Nassers career (24/5/2004), this is the comparison:

Hussain:
51 tests , 90 innings
2846 runs, 6 100s, 20 50s, average 34.70

Hayden:
47 tests, 80 inings
4547 runs, 17 100s, 15 50s, average 63.52

So in 10 less innings, Hayden scored in that time 1701 more runs, 11 more hundreds, and averaged not far off double.

The thing is, you dont even need any figures to back it up. Sure hayden has his weaknesses, but still it is plainly obvious who the better batsman is if you watch (ed) them play.

Its actually less laughable to compare Ponting and Ian Bell to be honest.

 

[Richard]

Purely and simply, that is meaningless.

Aside from the fact Hayden didn't become good until a while after he became regular, you can average 40 more in the 2000s than someone who played in the 1990s and you can still quite conceivably be worse.

The simple fact of the matter is that Hussain had skills Hayden never has. And such skills are a prerequistite for success in almost all eras - bar that which Hayden cashed-in on post-2001\02.

 

[Swervy]

Purely and simply, that is meaningless.

Aside from the fact Hayden didn't become good until a while after he became regular, you can average 40 more in the 2000s than someone who played in the 1990s and you can still quite conceivably be worse.

The simple fact of the matter is that Hussain had skills Hayden never has. And such skills are a prerequistite for success in almost all eras - bar that which Hayden cashed-in on post-2001\02.

But Hussains average actually dropped post 1/1/2000. He struggled during a time when Hayden scored as more heavily has most batsmen could ever dream of.

As those 4 years are the times their careers truely crossed path, then thats all we have to go off. What you are doing is just guessing. Hayden obviously wasnt ready to play at test level when he first came into the team in the early/mid 90s, and he was when he came back in the 2000s, by which point Hussain was a seasoned veteran, and still Hayden comes out on top statisically....the point is it isnt just coming out on top, its such a huge amount in all categories that it renders your arguement totally invalid.

 

[Anil]

Actually it's not laughable. Hayden has had to face worse bowling attack than Hayden has. Hussain had to face the likes of Walsh and Ambrose close to their prime while Hayden has murdered the likes of Taylor and Bravo. Not stating stats because it could be that Hussain dominated Ambrose but it's pretty true that Hussain would have faced better bowling than Hayden has for most of his career. In any case I'd rate them equally as good batsmen. Someone like Langer may be rated a bit higher though.

I never said he dominated but he did come out with a good average during that period. Pay closer attention to what's written. Don't just assume because you see a certain word it automatically defines the entire sentence.

thanks for the lecture and advice ...by the way i was responding to that...i am saying he was not good enough to dominate great attacks...hussain was a gritty player who overachieved for what ended up with at the end of his career...

 

[Richard]

But Hussains average actually dropped post 1/1/2000. He struggled during a time when Hayden scored as more heavily has most batsmen could ever dream of.

As those 4 years are the times their careers truely crossed path, then thats all we have to go off. What you are doing is just guessing. Hayden obviously wasnt ready to play at test level when he first came into the team in the early/mid 90s, and he was when he came back in the 2000s, by which point Hussain was a seasoned veteran, and still Hayden comes out on top statisically....the point is it isnt just coming out on top, its such a huge amount in all categories that it renders your arguement totally invalid.

It doesn't. The fact that he comes-out on top in all statistics post-a-certain-date is irrelevant. Hayden only began to succeed consistently from season 2001\02 onwards. What Hussain did from that point on is irrelevant - no-one is claiming Hussain was a better flat-track bully than Hayden. No-one.

The point is that eras like the current one of flat tracks are exceedingly rare, and that to succeed in them is not to demonstrate the batting skills which are typically required in Test-cricket. Hayden had his chance in the 1990s, and he wasn't good enough. Had the calibre of bowling not dropped-off so dramatically in 2001\02 he'd probably have sunk without trace that season or the next.

Hussain, on the other hand, was already a proven player by the time the calibre dropped-off. He was never much good at cashing-in on the flatter pitches, but he was far, far better at scoring when the going got tough. Which is all that really matters when the two are compared.

 

[Swervy]

It doesn't. The fact that he comes-out on top in all statistics post-a-certain-date is irrelevant. Hayden only began to succeed consistently from season 2001\02 onwards. What Hussain did from that point on is irrelevant - no-one is claiming Hussain was a better flat-track bully than Hayden. No-one.

The point is that eras like the current one of flat tracks are exceedingly rare, and that to succeed in them is not to demonstrate the batting skills which are typically required in Test-cricket. Hayden had his chance in the 1990s, and he wasn't good enough. Had the calibre of bowling not dropped-off so dramatically in 2001\02 he'd probably have sunk without trace that season or the next.

Hussain, on the other hand, was already a proven player by the time the calibre dropped-off. He was never much good at cashing-in on the flatter pitches, but he was far, far better at scoring when the going got tough. Which is all that really matters when the two are compared.

well no, the thing that matters is the end result, and although I am reluctant usually to base an arguement of stats, the stats this time are so overwhelming that unfortunatly, yes, Richard, your arguement is a joke.

To be honest I am not entirely convinced that there is such a massive difference in the scores that are produced these days when compared to before your 'start of a new era' date....I will look into it though, I have a little bit of time to kill

 

[Richard]

There's a massive difference, you'd have to be either very reluctant to accept it or very inperceptive to miss such a thing.

Stats being overwhelming means, for the third time, nothing. Context is everything for stats, and whether you accept that context or not it will remain there.

 

[Swervy]

There's a massive difference, you'd have to be either very reluctant to accept it or very inperceptive to miss such a thing.

Stats being overwhelming means, for the third time, nothing. Context is everything for stats, and whether you accept that context or not it will remain there.

the context is there, two players playing at the same time, against basically the same opposition. Hayden can only perform in the surroundings he is in,and that he does.

Hussain didnt perform anywhere near as well..simple as

 

[roseboy64]

thanks for the lecture and advice ...by the way i was responding to that...i am saying he was not good enough to dominate great attacks...hussain was a gritty player who overachieved for what ended up with at the end of his career...

Fair enough.

 

[Swervy]

There's a massive difference, you'd have to be either very reluctant to accept it or very inperceptive to miss such a thing.

I guess it depends on what you call a massive difference!!!!
These figures are total runs scored divided by wickets taken by bowlers (so run outs not included)
1997: 34.0
1998: 31.2
1999: 32.9
2000: 30.9
2001: 35.2
2002: 33.5
2003: 37.5
2004: 36.7
2005: 34.4
2006: 36.0
2007: 30.1

So in the last 10 years , this year is the worst for batsmen!!!!

1997 through to 2000
32.2

2001 to now
35.4

So roughly, since the end of 2000, the amount the bat has got one over the ball has increased by 10%. Is that a massive amount? Not so sure myself.

So going by that, you average 60 now, that is roughly the equivalent of averaging 54 back in 1997.

Kind of puts Hussains low average into a bit of perceptive compared to Haydens large average these days, ie. Hussain still doesnt come close.

 

[Richard]

the context is there, two players playing at the same time, against basically the same opposition. Hayden can only perform in the surroundings he is in,and that he does.

Hussain didnt perform anywhere near as well..simple as

Except there was a good 11 years where Hayden didn't perform as well as Hussain.

As I've said several times now - Hayden was the better flat-track bully, by a considerable distance, but in most eras that doesn't come into the equation a great deal, being able to counter quality bowling is usually far more important.

And hence I'd judge on who did that better, and it was Hussain.

 

[Richard]

1997 through to 2000
32.2

2001 to now
35.4

So roughly, since the end of 2000, the amount the bat has got one over the ball has increased by 10%. Is that a massive amount? Not so sure myself.

It's huge. It's indicative - even though such a statistical indicator is not remotely neccessary, you can see it quite easily with pure observation - that the ease of runscoring escalated dramatically in 2001.

Do the same for 1990 to 1993 and 1993 to 1996.

 

[Swervy]

It's huge. It's indicative - even though such a statistical indicator is not remotely neccessary, you can see it quite easily with pure observation - that the ease of runscoring escalated dramatically in 2001.

Do the same for 1990 to 1993 and 1993 to 1996.

its about 10%..obviously run rates have increased,but the regularity of taking wickets is probably about the same as it has been for the past 40 years. I dont know whether there is any absolute proof that pitches have got flatter or whther bowling has got worse, or batsmen have got better to be honest.

You say there has been a massive change which can be seen easily by pure observation. I put it to you that the jump hasnt been as large as you perceive. Your perception may be skewed, the figures tell the real story, that there has been a rise of 10% in average scores , with ups and downs in that time frame. Its not conclusive IMO that batting has got easier.

I will try and do those time periods you asked for soon

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd say 10% is conclusive enough to say there has been some change, especially when you're comparing such large time periods. However, even scaled to such an increase, Hussain's batting averages aren't that close so I'd say Hayden has the distinct upper hand.

 

[Fiery]

its about 10%..obviously run rates have increased

Runs rates have increased because of guys like Hayden in the Aussie team

 

[Swervy]

I'd say 10% is conclusive enough to say there has been some change, especially when you're comparing such large time periods.

A change in what though? Did bowlers all of a sudden become crap around the world in 2001? Did pitches all of a sudden become roads in 2001? Did batsmen all of a sudden get better? Did running between wickets contribute to the increase? etc

The problem with saying its conclusive however is that the outlying years overlap each other ie 1997 is higher than 2002 and 2007 and almost level with 2005, 1999 isnt too far from 2002s figure

1997: 34.0
1998: 31.2
1999: 32.9
2000: 30.9
2001: 35.2
2002: 33.5
2003: 37.5
2004: 36.7
2005: 34.4
2006: 36.0
2007: 30.1

However, even scaled to such an increase, Hussain's batting averages aren't that close so I'd say Hayden has the distinct upper hand.

yep

 

[honestbharani]

Domination in the Test arena is a bit overrated. It's certainly a help to the team to have people who can score quick and put pressure on bowlers, but it is definitely not a requirement. Kallis and Dravid are not liabilities and they are both excellent players to watch and have on your team.

no, they are not, but as pure batsmen.... I would take a guy who averages 52 and scores them at 70-75 than a guy who averages 57 or 58 and scores at 40. The reasoning is that GENERALLY (and I agree there are exceptions), these average differences would probably be because of the aggressive players sometimes giving it away on a good track while the more defensive guy simply grinds on even in those conditions. But having watched the Dravids and Kallises and the Laras and Tendulkars, I think it is pretty obvious why I would rather have a Tendy or a Lara in my side than a Dravid or a Kallis on a really challenging wicket against very tough bowling, provided all these guys are in top form.

 

[roseboy64]

Thought this was about Sobers and allrounders. Not how dire Hussain and/or Hayden is/are. Another thread created though.

 

[Dasa]

Perhaps this thread could use this guy:

 

[pasag]