aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Thats picking unfortunately my friend. If you followed Hayden's career in depth you would understand why he wasn't dominant in 08 compared to 2001. His ability againts spinners isn't in doubt.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Hayden vs Sehwag (+ other tasty treats)
- Thread starter gwo
- Start date
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Seconded.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Hayden for sure. Anyway,
Doesn't Hayden suffer from the same misfortunes as Sehwag given the theory of Richard?
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
No, Hayden for reasons i already mentioned in the Anwar vs Sehwag thread, go back & read the thread. Wont say anymore since i wont take any baitng on this topic rass, some of yall clearly have no intention of having a cricket discussion, since i aired by views on Sehwag.
FTR the "Theory of Richard" on Hayden is right in many aspects IMO. He just suffers from a bit of ideological gridlock when judging Hayden in last phase of his career.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
What does rass mean. Is that another form of insult you heap when you can't come up with some thing decent like clown?
Randy Orton's ass?
Shri
Mr. Glass
Nothing. Just has to play more matches in the same form. Thats it.
Shri
Mr. Glass
Not baiting you. Just looks funny as hell when you are pissed off.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Yes. Let him score a run a ball two hundred againts quality pace attck in testing conditons without having to correct his technical flaws or something (something like what Roy Fredricks did at perth 1976).
Since if he does that, i would rate him ahead of Hayden or Anwar & as the best opener i have ever seen & i know ALOT of AUS fan (on this site) won't go that far.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Hayden = Anwar IMO, cant spit them based on performances vs quality attacks based on what i've seen of both at their best. Plus like Sehwag i dont believe Hayden would have averaged 50 in the 90s either. Between 40-45 at his best post 2005 Ashes (TB test to be exact).
Sir Alex
Banned
Aussie, can you please list down such innings played by Hayden and Anwar as well?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I would go for Hayden. His game seems less dependent on the pitch, and for some reason, though I could be wrong, I feel that Sehwag when he gets going still gives more chances than Hayden does.
Both batsmen are iffy against quality express pace, but at least Hayden is not a total bunny when the pitch is seaming or swinging like Sehwag tends to be.
Both batsmen are iffy against quality express pace, but at least Hayden is not a total bunny when the pitch is seaming or swinging like Sehwag tends to be.
ret
International Debutant
Can you show us examples to support that including showing us how others batsmen did in those games?
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
why the hell should Sehwag do something that Roy Fredricks did to be considered better than Hayden?
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Because thats how Sehwag bats. As i've maintainted all of big hundreds like the 317 vs SA & 254 vs PAK where like Fredericks innings. Only difference was Fredericks hundreds was againts a world-class attack or a very difficult pitch, Sehwag's was againts a qaulity attack on roads.why the hell should Sehwag do something that Roy Fredricks did to be considered better than Hayden?
So if he can destroy a quality attack on a difficult pitch, instead of looking like a walking wicket when he faces them of a difficult pitch. I will rate him higher than Hayden. Who had to abandon his old technique of between 2001 to 2004 & redefine his game after he was technically exposed (2005 Ashes), in other to score runs (againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions) in the back end of his career. Simple.
Sir Alex
Banned
When has Hayden scored 100s like Fredericks did?
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Never & he didn't need to. Let me try this again.
- Sehwag has technical flaws that have have continously exposed everytime he faced a quality pace attack in testing conditions.
- His 254 & 317 vs PAK & SA are similar to Fredericks innings in the rate of scoring & vs quality pace attack. Only key difference was the Sehwag was batting on a road, Fredericks on a very difficult pitch.
- So if Sehwag can destroy a quality pace attack on bowling friendly deck (instead of looking like a bunny in those conditions) unllike what he did on the roads of Lahore 06 & Chennai 08 without having to make ANY technical adjustments - like what Hayden did after he was exposed after Ashes 05. (Hayden againts a quality pace attack in testing conditons was much more circumspect & never was able to bully them like he what did on flat decks vs poor pace attacks between IND 01 to SRI 04). I & hopefully most people will rate him ahead of Hayden & most openers of the last 10-15 years.
Since THEN you would have Sehwag who woud have really redefined test batsmanship (since the current talk of it is way OTT & premature IMO) if he could score runs in difficult conditons againts a quality pace attack with all his previously expsoed techical woes & imperfect techinque. Vs Hayden a batsmen who had reinvent himself to be a success againts a quality pace attack in testing conditions.
Clearly then Sehwag would have to be the superior batsman. But until/if that day even happens he will be always be FTB IMO.