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

[Eclipse]

Biggest insult to Bradman.

Who care's anyone with any sense can understand what Cloete is saying. I am sure he is not trying to compair Hayden to Bradman.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

You've hit the nail on the head here Cloete. I was just thinking today, even though he hits the ball in the air and with alot of power - they are proper cricket shots.

I did my level 1 coaching year before last and they highlighted the fact that Hayden keeps his head still, feet moving getting his body in position and hits through the ball. They highlighted his 6 off Ahktar in his highest ever ODI innings as the best example of this. He absolutely belted the ball back over Ahktar's head, and Hayden stayed in position until he heard the ball hit the grandstand. It was picture perfect - head was perfectly still right over his front toe!

 

[Cloete]

Who care's anyone with any sense can understand what Cloete is saying. I am sure he is not trying to compair Hayden to Bradman.

yeah i was just comparing the work ethic and the amount of practice.

e.g like Bradman with the stump, golf ball and galvanised iron. he worked at it alot like hayden worked in the nets and throwdowns on his technique.

and afterall he has never given up hope. during his younger days people said he was just a slogger, at 14/15 and the like. none of the junior selectors ever saw him as anything. and it's been sheer hard work and dedication to get himself into his current position.

 

[marc71178]

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

To be fair, the 3rd chance one was good!

 

[Richard]

Still funny though lol

Funny for it's idiocy.
Combined with Robin Jackman's fantastic comment "offering Ntini a single if he wants it - but he's missed the ball so he won't get one".

 

[Richard]

raju is the champion of rank ludicrous comments

I agree.

See, incorrect selection can make something appear totally wrong?

 

[Richard]

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

No such thing.

 

[Richard]

Or too long for you to make them up.

Not possible.

 

[Richard]

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

If I make incorrect assumptions I assume they will be pointed-out.
It's rather more worthwhile to point them out the way Craig, Rik, Corey and Liam tend to than some.:P

 

[Eclipse]

No such thing.

If there is souch a thing as a "first chance avrage" then there must also be a second and third chance avrage as well.

 

[Richard]

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.

Right, enough of this.
Millions and millions of people work this hard everywhere you look. Just because you have worked hard doesn't make you deserved of what Hayden has against his name. Plenty of cricketers slave away non-stop and try as hard as they can.
Hayden has had lots of luck and lots of popgun attacks to face on flat wickets. That is why he has scored as heavily as he has. That is what he has had that others haven't. Not hard work.

 

[Eclipse]

If I make incorrect assumptions I assume they will be pointed-out.

Mate we point them out all the bloody time beleve me. You just dont listen.

I like some of the point's you make some thing's you say really make me think others are just totaly insane.

 

[Richard]

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....

And I'm pretty sure he's not.

 

[Richard]

To be fair, the 3rd chance one was good!

No, it was just the latest in a long line of totally substandard attempted debunktions of the value of first-chance scores.
They're getting worse with every one.

 

[Eclipse]

Right, enough of this.
Millions and millions of people work this hard everywhere you look. Just because you have worked hard doesn't make you deserved of what Hayden has against his name. Plenty of cricketers slave away non-stop and try as hard as they can.
Hayden has had lots of luck and lots of popgun attacks to face on flat wickets. That is why he has scored as heavily as he has. That is what he has had that others haven't. Not hard work.

Hayden did not have much luck in 2003 yet still avraged over 70. Popgun attacks well yes but still.

The point is Hayden would not even be a test batsman if he had simpily lied down and stoped putting in the hard yard's.

 

[Richard]

If there is souch a thing as a "first chance avrage" then there must also be a second and third chance avrage as well.

No, because you can't use such an unreliable thing to make-up a statistic.
And I don't just mean it has no value, it does not exist.

 

[Richard]

Hayden did not have much luck in 2003 yet still avraged over 70. Popgun attacks well yes but still.

The point is Hayden would not even be a test batsman if he had simpily lied down and stoped putting in the hard yard's.

I reckon he would be.
Because things would still have panned-out like they did. He would still probably have scored stacks in India and bought himself some time. Then the Tests from 2001\02 would have come along too.
As for Hayden's luck in 2003, as far as I'm aware he scored a 380 where he should have been lbw 1st ball, a 136 and 53* where he should have been lbw in the 40s and 30s respectively, and two chanceless 100s in West Indies plus a 99.
Popgun attacks have still got to be punished, but the fact should still be remembered.

 

[Eclipse]

No, because you can't use such an unreliable thing to make-up a statistic.

ahh yes you can. Sure it will be highly unreliable and wont tell you much at all about a batsman's ability but if a first chance avrage exist's then so would the concept of a third chance avrage.

 

[Richard]

Mate we point them out all the bloody time beleve me. You just dont listen.

Give me some examples where you've pointed-out my misfounded assumptions and I've still maintained them.
If so I'll take them back here and now.

 

[Tom Halsey]

As for Hayden's luck in 2003, as far as I'm aware he scored a 380 where he should have been lbw 1st ball, a 136 and 53* where he should have been lbw in the 40s and 30s respectively, and two chanceless 100s in West Indies plus a 99.

Mate, you rarely get a big innings without giving a chance. I have lost count of the amount of batsmen you have called lucky. Anyone else you care to call lucky?