Hayden's 380

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Actually Tony Grieg said he would make WI 'grovel'.

What's the relevance of this to T_C's comment?

 

[Kenny]

Firstly, someone said earlier that Hayden has played 69 tests - he has actually played 45.
I watched most of his innings, and my opinion is that it is up there with the top 5 or so in history.
Out of the innings I have SEEN, I rate Lara's 277 as slighty better.......I think the attack that day included McDermott, Merv Hughes, and a peaking Warne. I didn't see Gooch's 333, or Jayasuria's 300 odd on what was reputedly a pice of asphalt, or obviously Sober's innings. I did watch Taylor's 334 not out, and that was also a fine innings.
Although I guess it could be argued that only Heath Streak is a test class bowler in the Zimbabwean attack, I think it could be equally argued that we haven't seen too many batsman over the years dominate so comprehensively.
I mean, the last 270 coming off 227 balls? Incredible. 11 sixes? Wow.

A lot of other countries in the last couple of years have played Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and made plenty of runs, I don't see why Hayden's innings should be seen in a negative light because of this - you still have to make the runs!
After all, it is only Australia's 2nd test against Zimbabwe ever. And we have only played two against Bangladesh.

A remarkable achievement, and also remarkable that another Gilchrist century at better than a run a ball was largely overlooked!

 

[Top_Cat]

A remarkable achievement, and also remarkable that another Gilchrist century at better than a run a ball was largely overlooked!

As I've said here before, it'll be hilarious to hear people who look back at the scorecard and say "Damn, Gilchrist got a ton as well??" The shame of it all is that it was one of Gilchrist's better tons! It's not the first time this would have happened, though; Steve Waugh got 102 in Sydney last year; who will remember Gilchrist's ton on the same day? Not many, I'll bet. Again, it was a great knock too.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Firstly, someone said earlier that Hayden has played 69 tests - he has actually played 45.

My mistake. I had been comparing Ponting (69 Tests) and Sarwan recently before I made that post, and the number 69 was in my head.

However, the fact that he's played 45 Tests suits my point better.

 

[Craig]

What's the relevance of this to T_C's comment?

I was correcting him. I though that it was plainly obvious.

 

[Bazza]

the number 69 was in my head.

I bet it was!

On the other hand does Gilchrist's insane 100 not further prove the weakness of the attack? I mean Australia got 735-6d in barely a day and a half. Lara got 375 out of 593-5d after coming in at 11-1, but England also scored 593 and then WI 43-0, so maybe that was a great pitch as much as anything.

Having said this, I am of the belief that whilst it was against a weak attack, it is still the best score in test cricket history, and that is phenomonal. 380 even in FC cricket is rarely heard of.

By the way, that England attack at the time:

Caddick - 8 tests, 23 wickets at 44.91,
Fraser - 16 tests, 71 wickets at 25.76,
Lewis - 25 tests, 66 wickets at 39.71,
Tufnell - 17 tests, 54 wickets at 39.20,
Hick - 23 tests, 16 wickets at 49.75.

So this attack was better than Zimbabwe's I'd say, but Caddick and Tufnell were yet to turn into the bowlers they became, and allrounder Lewis and part-timer Hick were never that good anyway. Only Fraser had really performed so far. Anyway, all I seem to be doing here is discrediting Lara, which I don't want to do!

The point was that in order to score a big 300 you really need to be playing against a weak attack on a good pitch, and still have a bit of luck along the way.

At the end of the day, this is why PwC rate a 100/150/200 against a strong attack in difficult conditions better than a 300 against a weak attack in great conditions, and rightly so.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

At the end of the day, this is why PwC rate a 100/150/200 against a strong attack in difficult conditions better than a 300 against a weak attack in great conditions, and rightly so.

Well said.

 

[The Argonaut]

Another point that was made by Michael Slater last night on The Fat (TV show) was that it's very hard to concentrate against weak opposition for a long period. It's easy to get complacent. I think it's a good point and shows the amazing mental powers that Hayden has.

 

[Kenny]

At the end of the day, this is why PwC rate a 100/150/200 against a strong attack in difficult conditions better than a 300 against a weak attack in great conditions, and rightly so. [/B]

Absolutely. And I hope it stays that way.

 

[Top_Cat]

Another point that was made by Michael Slater last night on The Fat (TV show) was that it's very hard to concentrate against weak opposition for a long period. It's easy to get complacent. I think it's a good point and shows the amazing mental powers that Hayden has.

Well, it's a point well made but I think concentrating against tough opposition is just a little tougher.

 

[age_master]

Well, it's a point well made but I think concentrating against tough opposition is just a little tougher.

yeah, but your not about to get complacent against the better attacks

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

yeah, but your not about to get complacent against the better attacks

Due to a higher level of concentration against those better attacks. See. It all evens out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I was correcting him. I though that it was plainly obvious.

Correcting what? When did TC say otherwise?

 

[Craig]

Like Mr Mxyplkt, i shouldnt even be having this discussion with you, this had never had anything to do with you or was directed at you. Go back and read the earlier posts.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

1/ It's Mr Mxyzptlk (M-X-Y-Z-P-T-L-K)
2/ This is a public forum. If you want to have a private conversation, take it to MSN or email.
3/ TC never said that Greig didn't say it as far as I read.

 

[Slats4ever]

Matt the Bat

Everyone's having a fair old knock at Matt Hayden and downplaying his innings saying it was against weak attacks, what can u expect, people are always going to attack someone whose just done something amazing!

His innings was great. He hadn't had an innings for a very long time as well, he wasn't match fit, he only gave out 1 real chance, he was playing on a big ground (Lara's was a pokey little WI one),
Phil tuffnell wasn't in the field!

There u have it as much as you want to take the honour away from him the big man's got the runs on the board, and he should be celebrated like nyone who has broken the 100m record, broken the test score record or hit the most homers in a season.

 

[luckyeddie]

Not me, mate.

Lara's 375 was against a rubbish attack.

Sobers's 365* was against a rubbish attack.

380 is a magnificent achievement, even against a schoolboy attack. It's an exercise in concentration.