Hayden vs Hussain

[Fiery]

I wonder if he has seen how ludicrous it all is?

He is actually very quick to tell us all about the things he has got right and everyone else has got wrong in the past (although who was 'right' and who was 'wrong' in the harmison situation is still up for debate really, we probably wont know the answers until he retires) but he does avoid mentioning things like when he said Mohamed Yousuf was a crap test player and could only score vs teams like B'desh etc.

I would suspect he will avoid this thread for quite some while, until some time when Hayden has a bad run of form and Dick will dig this thread up again, and say 'I told you so'

...probably. In his defence, Richard has so many theories that some of them are bound to be right. This however, is not one of them

 

[marc71178]

Is it the same Nasser Hussain we are talking about who couldn't get a place in Tamilnadu XI ?

Seeing as he was at most 8 when he moved to England, I think that's a fair excuse for not getting in.

 

[Richard]

Kudos on not going down the shopfront route this time, even if it took a quiet word from the boss fella to make you see the error of your ways.

Haha. I don't see that it was an error in my ways, TBH, just that I received a call from The Boss, and it's generally a good idea to take such things on board.

 

[Richard]

Whereas Hussain was always no more than a quite average Test batsman in all dimensions except grit and attitude. Fortunately for him he was a good captain, because otherwise I doubt he'd have retained his spot even in that England team.

That's a simplistic way of looking at things IMO. Hussain was an excellent Test batsman who succeeded for two very lengthy periods of time with an awful one in between them. The reasons for that are not important - the fact that he achieved what he did - which is more than Hayden has ever done - is all that matters.

 

[Richard]

I thought Richard was of the opinion that the new era started in the early '90s.

He's got a few now I think. 2001 is a new new era that he's been talking about. I'm sure he'll be able to explain it better

I will.

The change of era that occurred in the 1990s occurred in ODIs, a different game to Tests.

In Tests, there was a massive sea-change in 2001.

 

[Richard]

the common misconception however is that pitches pre-2001 or when ever were all green tops, and the bowlers were pinpoint accurate. The truth is a long way from that

No-one has ever claimed that. The simple fact of the matter is that a flat pitch and a wayward attack was, by the standards of the post-2001 era, rare.

 

[Richard]

Spot the Englishman.

Haha, yeah, only an Englishman would be bothered to make such a claim, TBH.

YES THIS POST WAS MADE IN JEST!!!!

I'd know it was even without, TBH. Unlike me, your sarcasm\jest is usually obvious.

 

[Richard]

players do get better though

Some do, Hayden emphatically did not in 2001\02, however, he just got things that played to his strengths where they had previously exploited his weaknesses.

 

[open365]

Why don't you go try and prove how much better Usman Afzall is compared to Don Bradman Rich? You'd have just as much chance of proving that Hussain is even on the same planet as Micheal Hayden.

 

[Richard]

When you guys talk about sheer natural talent Haydos is miles ahead of Hussain, Haydos is an intimidating batsman to bowl to and when he is in his zone not many bowlers in world cricket can control him and over the years he has improved his technique too.


Haydos believes in dominating bowling attacks and Hussain was a batsman who used to work on a bowler's patience to score his runs, i think Hussain was mentally more tougher than Matty.

Hayden is only intimidating for bad bowlers - good ones would be licking their lips (and were, when they were around) at the chance to bowl at him. If you try and dominate good bowlers, the chances are you'll pay for it, and the Hussain way is generally more effective.

 

[Richard]

Why don't you go try and prove how much better Usman Afzall is compared to Don Bradman Rich? You'd have just as much chance of proving that Hussain is even on the same planet as Micheal Hayden.

I wouldn't - I don't, of course, believe I can convince most people that Hussain>Hayden, but you know me - I don't leave stuff unresponded.

 

[Richard]

I wonder if he has seen how ludicrous it all is?

You should know better than to think that.

He is actually very quick to tell us all about the things he has got right and everyone else has got wrong in the past (although who was 'right' and who was 'wrong' in the harmison situation is still up for debate really, we probably wont know the answers until he retires) but he does avoid mentioning things like when he said Mohamed Yousuf was a crap test player and could only score vs teams like B'desh etc.

I still very much believe both the aforementioned, though you've incorrectly stated my stance on the Yousuf case.

 

[Richard]

Is it the same Nasser Hussain we are talking about who couldn't get a place in Tamilnadu XI ?

No, he never aimed for a place in said side.

 

[Richard]

The dawn of the new era changes to suit whatever theory he's presenting as fact on the forum at the time...

No, some people just like to use their own failure to "get it" to their own advantage.

 

[open365]

I think your argument falls down when you said Hussain was better than Hayden in any way shape or form, apart from that it's fine.

 

[Richard]

Coming next: Muralitharan v Vic Marks

Something pitting a fingerspinner against a wristspinner is hardly comparable to something pitting a batsman against a batsman.

 

[Richard]

I think your argument falls down when you said Hussain was better than Hayden in any way shape or form, apart from that it's fine.

I never said that. Hayden is quite clearly infinately better at bashing rubbish bowling on flat pitches, and that's why he's had the phenominal success he has.

Hussain, however, would come out on top IMO in almost any era of Test cricket bar the current one.

 

[open365]

I never said that. Hayden is quite clearly infinately better at bashing rubbish bowling on flat pitches, and that's why he's had the phenominal success he has.

Hussain, however, would come out on top IMO in almost any era of Test cricket bar the current one.

Be that as it may, Hayden still scores an average 15 more runs per innings than Hussain, 15 runs, that's huge, Hayden is more consistently helping his side win matches than Hussain who's "block the ****ing **** out of it" attitude seems to have been mistaken by you for actual ability.

Can i have some evidence that Hussain was acctualy any good please?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Be that as it may, Hayden still scores an average 15 more runs per innings than Hussain, 15 runs, that's huge, Hayden is more consistently helping his side win matches than Hussain who's "block the ****ing **** out of it" attitude seems to have been mistaken by you for actual ability.

Can i have some evidence that Hussain was acctualy any good please?

He scored a 200 against Australia.

 

[open365]

Hayden scored 203 V India

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2000-01/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T3_18-22MAR2001.html