Hayden's 181*, how good was it really?

[pasag]

Yeah, this one.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, this one.

Have to agree.

 

[Buddhmaster]

I was watching highlights of his innings, and decided that I have seen many a better innings by people who got 40/50 odd. Where would you rate it as such?

No you haven't.

 

[Dasa]

I'd rate a match-winning 40 or 50 better than Hayden's 181, simply because it's winning that counts. It's all about the context of the match, and in last night's context, Hayden's wasn't the best innings played.

Disagree with that. Hayden was batting in the first innings and did pretty much everything he could to take his team to a winning total. That Australia didn't win in the end doesn't have any effect on how good his innings was imo.
I don't agree that an innings has to be 'matchwinning' to be rated highly either. There are numerous cases of batsmen playing brilliantly only to be let down by the rest of the team.

 

[pasag]

I don't agree that an innings has to be 'matchwinning' to be rated highly either. There are numerous cases of batsmen playing brilliantly only to be let down by the rest of the team.

Yeah totally agree with this. Reminds me of the 1989 Grand Final where Ablett kicked 9 goals in a losing cause. Noone in their right mind would say he shouldn't have got it.

 

[Kweek]

Actually, now you come to mention it, check here.

Dispute conclusively proved in favour of PhoenixFire. May as well go close the thread...

shouldve done !

 

[honestbharani]

I cannot believe this thread.


I am no big fan of Hayden and I think he could have done better on that track than what he did, but that doesn't mean this wasn't a really really good innings. Perhaps it falls just short of brilliant or awesome knocks (knocks like Bevan's 78 fall in that category, for me) but still it is an awesome achievement. In fact, ppl should give a little more credit to Hayden for this because of the way he started. He was scratchy but still hung around to get 181 himself off 160 balls and helped his team get 350+. It is not his fault that his bowling couldn't defend even THAT target. It is a great knock, the best by Hayden. How great it was depends on individuals. For me, I rate it as a very very good knock, a notch or two below the great ODI innings.

 

[Stumped]

not worth a broken toe

 

[Smudge]

That's right !! Harmison's ZERO in 1 ball was a great knock, it helped England save the Follow On and eventually win the Test match.

Very Conclusive Indeed. Let me know if you needed more straws to clutch at.

Need some help getting out of that sarchasm?

 

[Slow Love™]

Wow, tough crowd.

You're not wrong. (I also thought Fiery's reaming gag wasn't too shabby either...).

Hayden scored a century a couple of weeks ago that I thought was one of the scratchiest I'd seen. I'd been pretty much against his going to the World Cup up to that stage, tbh, and I was surprised that the selectors were so tolerant of Hayden's obvious need to try and play himself into form from pretty ordinary beginnings in the first part of the Aussie Tri-Series.

Since then though, he's been quite convincing, IMO, and I thought yesterday's innings was a magnificent century, and he'd (IMO) thoroughly justified his selection and the selection committee's faith in him. A good indicator of his form was that he was a more selective (with the exception of the one that got him on the foot ) when he took his trademark two/three steps down the pitch - I think when he's struggling he tends to do this indiscriminately and get himself into frequent trouble and mis-hits. Anyhow, he was striking the ball beautifully, and if he plays anything like that in the Caribbean (presuming he's OK to play), he'll be very hard to stop.

Also agree with Dasa's comments re: match-winning knocks.

 

[Richard]

An innings of 150 is a rarity in ODI cricket, how anyone can dismiss it's credibility because it "didn't look good is just a joke." A lot of people critisised his record test score because it was against Zimbabwe, you can't do that on this occasion, because it is against a 'proper' team, so we have to find some other reason don't we? Ridiculous!

Well that Zimbabwe game shouldn't have been a Test, simple as. No-one criticised the score, just the status of the game.

Well, that was certainly all I did anyway.

When I first read the thread I thought PF was just joking! It wasn't the best 181* you'll ever see, but it wasn't exactly a terrible innings, either.

 

[Richard]

Hayden is so underated here.

No, he's not. He's overrated in most places. Just because he's a good player of spin and has done well against India doesn't mean he's one of the best openers the game's ever seen.

 

[Richard]

Well, I think Lara's 153 was better than his 400*.

Out of interest, would you have done so had Healy taken the catch with him on 146 and West Indies lost the game?

 

[Richard]

And 78* is definately between 40-50 odd, isn't it ?

Anyways you would probably rank Harmison's 10 runs above Hayden's 181.

What was I just saying?

 

[Richard]

Have to agree.

 

[Richard]

I'd rate a match-winning 40 or 50 better than Hayden's 181, simply because it's winning that counts. It's all about the context of the match, and in last night's context, Hayden's wasn't the best innings played.

Disagree with that. Hayden was batting in the first innings and did pretty much everything he could to take his team to a winning total. That Australia didn't win in the end doesn't have any effect on how good his innings was imo.
I don't agree that an innings has to be 'matchwinning' to be rated highly either. There are numerous cases of batsmen playing brilliantly only to be let down by the rest of the team.

Was going to post words to that effect...

 

[Richard]

Need some help getting out of that sarchasm?

 

[Richard]

Hayden scored a century a couple of weeks ago that I thought was one of the scratchiest I'd seen.

You'd be hard-pressed to see a worse innings.

 

[pasag]

?

 

[Richard]

I was ing at dontcloseyoureyes having the word "agree" without the prefix "dis" on it.