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

[Richard]

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.

When I say "always" I mean since 1999, you should know that by now.:saint:
Hayden has been fantastic against spin since he signed for Northants, there's no question about that. But it may have started before that and improved in the spell. QLD is not regarded as producing an especially large number of spinning wickets (an assumption, yes, but is it one you would dispute?)

 

[Richard]

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?

No, it's not an assumption - you don't need to have seen to know. Otherwise there would be no point teaching history in schools.
Everyone knows that plenty of wickets in the 1930s and 40s were vicious compared to those of the 1970s onwards, let alone those of the last couple of years.
That's not to say at all that you didn't get totally unresponsive wickets then, you did (The Oval 1938 eg, though of course he couldn't take advantage of that) but you got far less of them than you do now.
Surely no-one is disputing that? That is why I think Bradman's average would be higher had he played nowadays than it was in his day.

 

[Richard]

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

Making the assumptions that if he's got good figures he's bowled well, yes, they must.
But they have, anyway. The traditional pitch in South Africa used to offer lots to the seamers, just like it did in England and New Zealand.
In the last few years, that's all changed.

 

[Richard]

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.

IMO there's not a massive difference between any of the attacks going round ATM. Certainly not a significant difference.
Compared to yesterdecade, they're all abysmal, and there's nothing in the wickets to make-up for that.

 

[Richard]

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

Yes, just watch this space.
It would have taken too long to post all the relevant facts until soon, but once our Broadband is installed it will be simple.

 

[Richard]

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

There is no question of me calling Smith the 2nd-best of all-time at the moment. I said if he does a little better than he has been doing presently for the rest of his career he will be, and I judge he has the talent to do so.
And I don't think, yet, that he has an extrovert weakness, though the dismissals this series are piling-up in one area. All caught behind square on the off.

 

[marc71178]

Making the assumptions that if he's got good figures he's bowled well, yes, they must.

You said effective - how is that career record not effective?

 

[Eclipse]

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.

I think you are being stupid even posting this.

I would not care if we were the worst It does not make England good and I feel I have the right to make a comment like that.

Any way there is no way any Australian play for mine would have droped cathes as easy as the one's Vaughan or Hoggard droped off Hayden.

 

[Cloete]

well as someone who plays for Matty Hayden's club I can tell you he didn't get there by luck. The amount of hard work he's put in is absolutely unbelievable. EVERY DAY without fail he would go to the nets and get about 1000 throwdowns from whoever was there. after that he'd just stay in the net all day and just be bowled to, i mean he'd have kids of 10 bowling to him. but he'd make sure he played the kids with erspect becasue he focused on his technique. He was forever practising and workin at his game. the tiniest flaw in his technique he though he had he'd work at it constantly.

He's like a modern day Bradman, and I feel saddened by whoever calls him a slogger or undeserved. becasue it's taken him unbelievable amounts of dedication, hard work and time to get where he is today. And i think he should be respected and is deserved of all praise he is given.

 

[raju]

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

They mean nothing because it doesn't take into account 3rd chance averages.

 

[raju]

Making the assumptions that if he's got good figures he's bowled well, yes, they must.

So you can make assumptions when it suits you and others can't or else their post is bollocks. (see my post above).

 

[raju]

It would have taken too long to post all the relevant facts until soon, but once our Broadband is installed it will be simple.

Or too long for you to make them up.

 

[raju]

And I don't think

I agree.

 

[Rik]

Raju, cut down on the ego please. All you are doing is trying to inflame a situation. Give Richard and this forum a well deserved break from mindless posting please!

As the saying goes: "Think about what you are about to say. Is it true? Is just? Is it nice? Is it going make the conversation better? If not, then don't say it!"

 

[Eclipse]

Still funny though lol

 

[raju]

Everyone knows that plenty of wickets in the 1930s and 40s were vicious compared to those of the 1970s onwards, let alone those of the last couple of years.

I agree again. Those wickets in the early 1940s were real minefields.

 

[Rik]

Still funny though lol

Funny? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Same old...same old...

 

[raju]

Ok. Fair point well argued. No offence intended to anyone.
Just enjoying India blitzing the Aussies at the moment so am in jolly spirits.

 

[Anil]

Matt Hayden isn't just a slogger. Of course, he has been helped by a general lowering of standards in bowling.....lots of bowling greats retiring or sunsetting and not too many in the current lot looking like they will make it to the ranks of the great....

I consider him a very good batsman...an excellent player of spin.....and generally a dominator of any sort of bowling when he is in form....the fact that he has faced a lot of mediocre to ok bowlers on flat tracks and scored runs off them doesn't make him just a flat track bully....doesn't confirm that he just cannot face a good attack on a helpful wicket....in fact I am pretty sure he is more than capable of doing so....

 

[Craig]

He's like a modern day Bradman, and I feel saddened by whoever calls him a slogger or undeserved. becasue it's taken him unbelievable amounts of dedication, hard work and time to get where he is today. And i think he should be respected and is deserved of all praise he is given.

Biggest insult to Bradman.