is hayden a slogger with lots of luck or just a very good batsmen

[Richard]

There is absolutely no way you can say Hayden is lucky! Lucky to get a 2nd chance maybe but that's where the luck ends. He worked so bloody hard on his game before the tour to India in 2001 and funnily enough that's where his fantastic form really got going.

Yet this relies entirely on the presumption that Hayden has deserved all he's got.
Just because you work hard doesn't mean you deserve luck.
It's far too much of a coincidence to say he worked hard just before the runs started. He's always been a good player of spin, and he happened to go somewhere that neutered the seamers, and he benefited. When returning to conditions which helped seamers, he failed again, in England. Then the form really started, on flat wickets against popgun bowling and quite often crass fielding.

 

[Richard]

Hayden

vs RSA - 51
vs Pak - 61
vs Eng - 49
vs Ban - 30.5
vs Zim - 250 (2 matches)
vs NZ - 48
vs WI - 42
vs Ind - 90

mardly a weak team bully, an average of just 30 against Bangladesh and less than 50 against England...

And that set of stats means absolutely nothing as it's all based on assumptions and generalisations.

 

[Richard]

Got anything to back this up or is it just another assumption you're making to fit your ideals?

I don't base anything on my ideals - I base my ideals and ideas on stats, observations and yes, sometimes, assumptions.
I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat that before you taken any notice.
Sometimes assumptions are made incorrectly and I have been obliged to investigate some of my assumptions recently.
I have found I was correct that Hayden has had an abnormal amount of luck.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Richard, it seems as if you bend them...

 

[Richard]

He had a few technical flaws, quite a flat track and weak team bully. Has allways had a superb record in FC Cricket but those flaws and his mentality didn't help. He worked hard and fixed some of them. I still think if you wind him up and then bowl short of a length at him he will try and hit you to kingdom come and get out, he did that in the ODIs in England. At the moment concentration seems to be his major flaw because he does get distracted a lot. At the moment his main weaknesses would be against aggressive short bowling aimed at his head (it's worked most times I've seen him) or yorking him because the yorker is such a deadly ball to a tall batsman, I should know, and it's got Will Jefferson a lot lately and he's 7ft!!!

Hayden has always had a huge weakness against the inswinger and the well-directed short-ball. He's never come close to fixing either.
The only attack who've managed to exploit them has been England's. Sadly, in both series he's averaged far more than he should have done thanks to the determination to drop at least 20 catches per series. England swung him out in England and bounced him out in Australia. Shame no-one else can do the same, and a shame they can't catch as well as they should do, either.
As for William Jefferson, from what I've heard he's got far more weaknesses than just the Yorker.
Is he really a county standard player? I don't think he is.

 

[Richard]

But that's an unfair comparison because he's *not* on that side. You have to take him for where he plays and what he plays. That he is on the Aussie side, I guess, is luck, but that he scores lots of runs isn't.

Does anyone know why he was such a mediocre batsman in his youth? Or just couldn't cut it at the test level early on? What happened to him?

Believe me, he's simply had an easier time with attacks and fielders than he used to.
He's always been a brilliant player of spin but no use against seam and swing. He's not had to face any, really, since the start of the 2001\02 season and the series against New Zealand. To make matters even better for him, he's had lots of dropped catches and Umpiring decisions in his favour.
Also, not many people have noticed his weakness against the Bouncer.

 

[Richard]

All you people speaking about Hayden's lack of style; know that style is probably the least important thing to a batsman. Runs are, and Hayden delivers.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with his style. He's just a different kind of batsman. He won't score like Dravid, he won't score like Lara, he won't score like Waugh. He plays Hayden-style. Brute force is a style in and of itself.

If *you* think it looks ugly, then too bad. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. *I*, on the other hand, love to watch Hayden bat (except against India) :saint:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, yes, but it's too bad for you, I'm afraid, because most of us don't find Hayden attractive. If you want to, that's of course up to you. 8D

 

[Richard]

Richard, it seems as if you bend them...

Them?:rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

As far as luck is concerned, I don't think Hayden is very ahead of Ponting. He has proved his talent by scoring runs in all weathers(India,Sharjah, SA,..). His performance agnst India(in India, where Mr.Ponting scored 0,0,1,1..) was chanceless.

Hayden might have scored chancelessly in India, but he certainly hasn't in any subsequent series. He's had more luck in some than others, but always it's been there.

 

[Richard]

Yes, I was joking. I was just making the point that Hayden has scored against strong attacks (India in India, South Africa at home and in South Africa) like Bradman did against England but people like to think that Bradman scored ALL his runs against strong attacks when it is not the case.

Still, 89 is pretty good, just under his First-Class average as you would expect. And if Bodyline had been a normal series it would probably be slightly higher.
The South African attacks that Hayden scored against, meanwhile, were most certainly NOT strong. Donald played 3 Tests when never fit, and Pollock, Kallis, Klusener and all the rest are effective only on seaming tracks and not at all when there isn't any seam. None of the tracks in the 6 games offered anything to the bowlers, except the slightly uneven second-innings Adelaide one.

 

[Richard]

What!? A first class average of over 50 having played 230 first class matches. This is a ridiculous post and brought about by non-Australian supporters who are jealous that their countries don't have adequate talent or development programs that breed test-class players.

Throughout Hayden's career he had been a nicker and got early in his innings especially on green pitches. But you know what he did - he worked hard at it and now hardly ever nicks the ball. Before the tour of India he got Kevin Mitchell to do him up an Indian like pitch at A.B. field and he practiced and practiced and practiced and it paid off as he averaged over 100 on that tour of India.

JUST BECAUSE HE MAKES BATTING LOOK EASY AND CAN DO WHAT MANY OTHER BATSMAN CANNOT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A SLOGGER.

People like to throw in Hayden's face that he has had a lot of big innings against weak attacks, but people never mention that Bradman also scored prolificly against South Africa, India & the West Indies who were very weak when they entered the test arena.

Get off it, Hayden is a great batsman, and average of 58.54 stands for itself.

Quite why you have to bring Bradman into it I don't know, because everyone plays against weak attacks, Hayden has simply played almost exclusively against them since 2001\02. More significantly, he has had plenty of let-offs.
If you ask me he can't do what other batsmen can't, because to have the right to slog you have to stay at the crease through your own skill, not through fielding ineptitude.
The main difference between Hayden and Bradman is that Bradman has a massive average when conditions were difficult; Hayden has a very poor average when they're difficult, and an even lower first-chance one.

 

[Richard]

Go see one of his big innings live and then if you tell me it isn't attractive I will believe you. I agree he is not orthodox, but his record speaks for itself.

As Rik says record isn't relevant to style.
I have seen plenty of his batting. One big innings is too much. Just because you've got a worse view live than you have on TV surely can't make that much difference?

 

[marc71178]

And that set of stats means absolutely nothing as it's all based on assumptions and generalisations.

Oh come off it, anyone knows who the best and worst sides in International Cricket are, and if his 2 lowest averages are against 2 of the 3 worst attacks, that doesn't make him a weak team bully.

 

[marc71178]

I have found I was correct that Hayden has had an abnormal amount of luck.

Yet when asked to back this "fact" up, you're unable to provide any evidence...

 

[marc71178]

As for William Jefferson, from what I've heard he's got far more weaknesses than just the Yorker.
Is he really a county standard player? I don't think he is.

Yet you rate someone with one of the biggest weaknesses in World Cricket as the 2nd best of all time. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

Pollock, Kallis, Klusener and all the rest are effective only on seaming tracks and not at all when there isn't any seam.

Considering Pollock's career record, SA must have played on a heck of a lot of seaming tracks in the last 10 years...

 

[marc71178]

The main difference between Hayden and Bradman is that Bradman has a massive average when conditions were difficult;

Since you're not in your late 50s or older, how do you know Bradman had difficult conditions, or is this another assumption to suit?

 

[Eclipse]

Come off it Richard you are making more assumption's than anyone.

For one Hayden has not alway's been a brillinat player of spin infact I have heard Warne, Bod Simpson, Rod Marsh and Ian Healy comment that he used to be very unsure about playing spin bowling.

And watching him back in 1995-1996 I remember him being consistantly troubled by spinners who flighted the ball and pitched it on the stumps.

Back then in the inning I saw he did not sweep and rarely used his feet. I remember Gavin Robertson getting him out on a few occasion's.

 

[Hero_Don]

Well, Hayden has been one of the best batsmen for the past 2 years, and he also hold the world recordd for most runs in an innings. He is an exellent slogger of the ball, and you non-aussies have no right to take that away from him by saying stupid things like he is just a lucky player. Whoever started this topic, honestly get a god damn life

 

[Craig]

Eclipse, you said England are such a poor fielding team in catching, yet Australia have dropped their catches in this series.

A touch of arrogrance IMO.