Hayden vs Hussain

[Swervy]

Err, it actually does. Read Hussain's book - he had a fear of failure that made him very susceptible to failing to cash-in against lesser attacks, because runs were expected from him.

When he played against better attacks and others were failing around him, it lessened his own fear, meaning he was capable of playing at his not-inconsiderable best.

And that best is a level Hayden can only dream of. Many of the bowlers Hussain scored runs against ate him for breakfast, and would have hounded him out of Test cricket had he not got a last-minute reprieve just as the quality of the bowling deteriorated.

utter BS

 

[Pratters]

Hayden v Hussain

Hussain had a FC average of 42! Some people have discounted Hayden's batting post 2001 (an even Ponting's) but fact remains they improved vastly in various areas of their game. Hayden in India against spin, the sweeping technique for instance. Ponting too improved in various aspects of his game but I wont delve into it as this post is not about Ponting.

 

[Richard]

Richard, do you have to repeat the same thing about a dozen times?. Swervy has his own views on the debate and he already knows your feelings regarding "Hayden is better at battering rubbish bowlers". This debate is just going round in circles TBH.

He doesn't seem to have managed to take it in yet, TBH. And as long as he keeps stating irrelevant stuff, I'll have to keep stating the reasons for its irrelevance.

 

[Richard]

utter BS

Haha, class rebuke.

You'd accuse Hussain of bull****ing, then, just because it is something beyond your understanding?

 

[Pup Clarke]

utter BS

The first paragraph of what Richard say's is very much true.

 

[Swervy]

Richardson's average was vastly superior to Hussain's for most of his career, and fairly close to Hayden's. Yet both Richadson and Hayden were flat-track bullies.

just dont really understand why this fairly recently over used term, 'flat track bully' always has to be seen as a bad thing anyway.

To me, good batsman+ flat wicket= runs

average batsman+ flat wicket= less runs

 

[Richard]

Hayden v Hussain

Hussain had a FC average of 42! Some people have discounted Hayden's batting post 2001 (an even Ponting's) but fact remains they improved vastly in various areas of their game. Hayden in India against spin, the sweeping technique for instance. Ponting too improved in various aspects of his game but I wont delve into it as this post is not about Ponting.

Hayden was quite clearly a better domestic-level batsman than Hussain (though his average for Essex is rather more than 42).

Nor have I ever said Hayden was a poor player of spin, he was excellent from the very first time I watched him, before the India tour, and I was half-expecting him to succeed there, given that quality seam was likely to be nullified (and doubly so with Srinath injured).

But being an opening batsman is supposed to be about playing seam, not spin.

 

[Pup Clarke]

just dont really understand why this fairly recently over used term, 'flat track bully' always has to be seen as a bad thing anyway.

It's because it doesn't really typify a good batsmen as this is apparantely their own strength.

 

[Richard]

just dont really understand why this fairly recently over used term, 'flat track bully' always has to be seen as a bad thing anyway.

To me, good batsman+ flat wicket= runs

average batsman+ flat wicket= less runs

Being a flat-track bully has less to do with your performance on flat tracks, and much more to do with those on less flat ones. A good batsman should indeed score runs on flat tracks, and it is a negative against his credentials if he fails to.

But someone who averages well on spicier decks and not especially well on flatter ones is a better batsman than someone who cashes-in massively on flatter ones and fails abjectly on spicier ones.

 

[Fiery]

Richard, you're talking a load of utter crap mate...and quite frankly making a fool of yourself continuing with this argument. Please stop, I respect you and find it quite embarassing to see you doing this

 

[Swervy]

The first paragraph of what Richard say's is very much true.

whether Hussain said that or not is not relevent. Every batsman has a reason for failure. I am sure Richard wouldnt really take on board a similar comment from hayden to explain away reasons for his failures in the past. I know why I am personally not batting well this year, and tend to be inconsistant with the bat..I suffer from nerves for the first few balls, then get too ****ly about being able to hit the ball out of the park...does that mean in actual fact I am a great batsman...(answer is NO by the way)

I am sure it might have been a problem for Hussain, but he wasnt really that much of an outstanding batsman the other times when the pressure wasnt on (test match cricket equals pressure as far as I can see..but anyway)

 

[Pup Clarke]

Richard, you're talking a load of utter crap mate...and quite frankly making a fool of yourself continuing with this argument. Please stop, I respect you and find it quite embarassing to see you doing this

I'm not agreeing with Richard in this arguement but it is his opinion and we must respect that.

 

[Richard]

Richard, you're talking a load of utter crap mate...and quite frankly making a fool of yourself continuing with this argument. Please stop, I respect you and find it quite embarassing to see you doing this

I found it quite embarrasing to see you making the comments you made towards my friend Martin (thierry henry) a while ago. I still respect you, though.

I'm not talking crap as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't be talking it if I thought it was crap.

 

[Swervy]

Haha, class rebuke.

You'd accuse Hussain of bull****ing, then, just because it is something beyond your understanding?

I mean you are BSing, not Hussain, Hussain actually knows a thing or two, one of the reasons why he would laugh at this debate

 

[Richard]

whether Hussain said that or not is not relevent. Every batsman has a reason for failure. I am sure Richard wouldnt really take on board a similar comment from hayden to explain away reasons for his failures in the past. I know why I am personally not batting well this year, and tend to be inconsistant with the bat..I suffer from nerves for the first few balls, then get too ****ly about being able to hit the ball out of the park...does that mean in actual fact I am a great batsman...(answer is NO by the way)

I am sure it might have been a problem for Hussain, but he wasnt really that much of an outstanding batsman the other times when the pressure wasnt on (test match cricket equals pressure as far as I can see..but anyway)

Haha, yeah, right.

Hussain played many outstanding innings in the face of adversity, and to suggest he didn't is an insult to him.

 

[Swervy]

I'm not talking crap as far as I'm concerned, I would be talking it if I thought it was crap.

you said it...most sense you have said in a long time

 

[Richard]

I mean you are BSing, not Hussain, Hussain actually knows a thing or two, one of the reasons why he would laugh at this debate

So why are you saying what he wrote in his book is bull**** then?

 

[Richard]

you said it...most sense you have said in a long time

Typos change what is said, not what is meant.

 

[Swervy]

Haha, yeah, right.

Hussain played many outstanding innings in the face of adversity, and to suggest he didn't is an insult to him.

Plenty of players have played outstanding innings...that doesnt make them outstanding players.

And really Richard, you yourself have set Hussain to be insulted. No-one in their right mind would compare the two players, and by doing so you have made me be quite negative about Hussain.

But compared to your other average type test batsmen, Hussain is as good as the lot of them

 

[Swervy]

So why are you saying what he wrote in his book is bull**** then?

I was more referring to you saing that Hussains best was a level that hayden could only dream about.

Its so funny, but in a really odd way , I think you really have a cricket screw loose