Mark Waugh

[Goughy]

It's all idle speculation though. Dealing in hard facts, he's the greatest opener of his era by miles.

Exactly, all batsmen are a product of their era and can only be judged as such.

If we take this route with Hayden then we can apply it to Bradman. As Cardus and others suggest he was not the best player around on sticky wickets. The thing is though he often batted on friendly tracks. He possibly was not the most rounded batsman the game has ever seen but that takes nothing away from him as he was designed perfectly to take advantage of conditions he most frequently encountered.

If born a gerneration or two earlier then we may never have seen Bradman as we know him emerge. To speculate or downplay the achievements of Bradman is pointless though, same as with Hayden

 

[aussie]

Yes, he was, he was very fast and lost pace due to injuries and age. In the specific period, he had a better record than McGrath everywhere and especially so in the sub-continent.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

You are simply wrong on this account. IIRC you didn't watch much of the cricket in the 90s and that's probably the problem here.

Started watching cricket in the 97 Ashes. First time i saw Pollock was when SA tour in 97/98 & he was never faster than McGrath. My understanding of Pollock was that on his debut series vs ENG in 95/96 he was a bit sharp, but that pace didn't last very long due to injury.

Plus their records in the sub-continent, Pollock was only better in IND up to 2001 was because the IND batting line-up Pollock encountered in 2000 wasn't as strong as the one Pigeon bowled to in 2001.

McGrath has kept a pretty steady record throughout his career. It's hard to actually pick out a specific peak. When McGrath was not considered upto the standard of Donald, Wasim and Ambrose in the 90s, he had pretty much the same record that he had in the 00s. Although the main difference is that it was harder to bowl in the 00s.

His 95 tour to WI as always been seen as the start of legacy as fair as i know TBH. It pretty clear before that tour McGrath didn't do anything of note in test cricket.

I'd say he defiantely recached the standards of Donald, Wasim, Ambrose at least by the 97 Ashes after he took the superb 8 wicket haul @ Lord's. Between 97-99 he was better than all 3, although you could argue those cats where passed their ultimate peaks by the late 90s also.

Did you watch any of Pollock before 2001? The idea that he wasn't faster than McGrath belies belief really and the idea that McGrath 'always had the ability to reverse swing the ball' is more far fetched than anything I have ever heard.

I never said either of this..

 

[aussie]

Exactly, all batsmen are a product of their era and can only be judged as such.

If we take this route with Hayden then we can apply it to Bradman. As Cardus and others suggest he was not the best player around on sticky wickets. The thing is though he often batted on friendly tracks. He possibly was not the most rounded batsman the game has ever seen but that takes nothing away from him as he was designed perfectly to take advantage of conditions he most frequently encountered.

If born a gerneration or two earlier then we may never have seen Bradman as we know him emerge. To speculate or downplay the achievements of Bradman is pointless though, same as with Hayden

All true. But the problem about all the criticism becomes a problem when lets say you want pick him in hypotetical AUS ATXI or even consider him as amongst the greatest openers of all-time.

As we saw on cricinfo recently with their recent AUS ATXI, they didn't go for Hayden. They picked Trumper/Morris. So many still have these doubts about Hayden's ability.

 

[social]

Started watching cricket in the 97 Ashes. First time i saw Pollock was when SA tour in 97/98 & he was never faster than McGrath. My understanding of Pollock was that on his debut series vs ENG in 95/96 he was a bit sharp, but that pace didn't last very long due to injury.

Plus their records in the sub-continent, Pollock was only better in IND up to 2001 was because the IND batting line-up Pollock encountered in 2000 wasn't as strong as the one Pigeon bowled to in 2001.






His 95 tour to WI as always been seen as the start of legacy as fair as i know TBH. It pretty clear before that tour McGrath didn't do anything of note in test cricket.

I'd say he defiantely recached the standards of Donald, Wasim, Ambrose at least by the 97 Ashes after he took the superb 8 wicket haul @ Lord's. Between 97-99 he was better than all 3, although you could argue those cats where passed their ultimate peaks by the late 90s also.




I never said either of this..

Agrred as according to the speed-gun (take that evidence with a grain of salt if you like), Pollock was quicker than McGrath before he suffered the first of his ankle injuries

BUT, once McGrath became test class, Pollock was never as physically threatening (I've never seen a fm bowler hit so may people as McGrath) nor as good

No real criticism as McGrath may well have been the best ever

 

[Burgey]

All true. But the problem about all the criticism becomes a problem when lets say you want pick him in hypotetical AUS ATXI or even consider him as amongst the greatest openers of all-time.

As we saw on cricinfo recently with their recent AUS ATXI, they didn't go for Hayden. They picked Trumper/Morris. So many still have these doubts about Hayden's ability.

Or it might mean they don't doubt his ability, they just think the other two were slightly better.

 

[The Sean]

Or it might mean they don't doubt his ability, they just think the other two were slightly better.

Indeed - it's like saying that there are doubts over Herbert Sutcliffe because Hobbs and Hutton get picked in an all time England XI.

And you'll find plenty of people who are prepared to pick Haydos in an all time Aussie XI anyway, even if the selectors in that exercise didn't.

 

[Burgey]

Indeed - it's like saying that there are doubts over Herbert Sutcliffe because Hobbs and Hutton get picked in an all time England XI.

And you'll find plenty of people who are prepared to pick Haydos in an all time Aussie XI anyway, even if the selectors in that exercise didn't.

Aye - I'd have those three you've mentioned ahead of Boycott in my AT Soap-Dodger XI, but it doesn't mean he couldn't play or there was a question amrk on his ability.

 

[aussie]

Or it might mean they don't doubt his ability, they just think the other two were slightly better.

Indeed - it's like saying that there are doubts over Herbert Sutcliffe because Hobbs and Hutton get picked in an all time England XI.

And you'll find plenty of people who are prepared to pick Haydos in an all time Aussie XI anyway, even if the selectors in that exercise didn't.

All true. But some well reknowned cricket journalist/commentators where involved in that selection like Maxwell, Coward, Haigh.

If they in their deliberations couldn't pick Hayden, just like how many of us here on CW have in numerous debates about him, its clear some doubt his ability exisited tbh.

If you just want to go by plain records, he has the best statistics for any AUS opener in history, for any other countries ATXI - that would be good enough to pick a player.

I personally struggle to see what argument anyone could put up for not including Hayden in an AUS ATXI as at least one of the openers.

 

[Perm]

I personally struggle to see what argument anyone could put up for not including Hayden in an AUS ATXI as at least one of the openers.

Because they think others are better? Arthur Morris? Vic Trumper? Clem Hill?

 

[aussie]

Because they think others are better? Arthur Morris? Vic Trumper? Clem Hill?

What are the reasons for them being better choice than Hayden to open in an AUS ATXI?. Plus Hill wasn't an opener.

 

[stephen]

What are the reasons for them being better choice than Hayden to open in an AUS ATXI?. Plus Hill wasn't an opener.

Romantacism

 

[Furball]

All true. But some well reknowned cricket journalist/commentators where involved in that selection like Maxwell, Coward, Haigh.

If they in their deliberations couldn't pick Hayden, just like how many of us here on CW have in numerous debates about him, its clear some doubt his ability exisited tbh.

If you just want to go by plain records, he has the best statistics for any AUS opener in history, for any other countries ATXI - that would be good enough to pick a player.

I personally struggle to see what argument anyone could put up for not including Hayden in an AUS ATXI as at least one of the openers.

Nah, that Hayden wasn't picked has nothing to do with any perceived lack of ability.

When picking an England all time XI, Boycott doesn't get into my side, doesn't mean I don't think he was a good player.

If I was to pick a West Indies XI, there's a host of ridiculously talented batsmen (and bowlers) throughout the ages that I'd be leaving out. A failure by me to pick, say, Everton Weekes or George Headley say, would have nothing to do with me thinking they were poor players, and everything to do with the fact that in my opinion, there have been better players.

 

[stephen]

Nah, that Hayden wasn't picked has nothing to do with any perceived lack of ability.

When picking an England all time XI, Boycott doesn't get into my side, doesn't mean I don't think he was a good player.

If I was to pick a West Indies XI, there's a host of ridiculously talented batsmen (and bowlers) throughout the ages that I'd be leaving out. A failure by me to pick, say, Everton Weekes or George Headley say, would have nothing to do with me thinking they were poor players, and everything to do with the fact that in my opinion, there have been better players.

AWTA

My all time WI side has none of the 3 Ws in the side:

Greenidge
Haynes
Headley
V Richards (c)
Lara
Sobers
Dujon (wk)
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Ambrose

12th: Lance Gibbs

That's not to say that Roberts, Walsh, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Hall, Bishop etc... were undeserving of being considered among the very top tier of players ever, but that there were players I favoured slightly higher than them.

 

[Ikki]

Yeh but with Boycott he really is out-classed. Of course, it's all subjective but Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe, I think most would agree, are better.

Trumper and Morris? Well that is really iffy. Trumper is hard to judge statistically but I've never gotten a great argument other than aesthetics as to why he is superior. The bowling Morris faced wasn't great, in just as friendly batting environment as Hayden and averaged about 45 as an opener. Plus Hayden faced many more opponents with more variations to conquer.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I personally struggle to see what argument anyone could put up for not including Hayden in an AUS ATXI as at least one of the openers.

What do you mean by "at least one of the openers"? He could hardly be included as both openers.

 

[marc71178]

What are the reasons for them being better choice than Hayden to open in an AUS ATXI?

Because it's not just about stats.

 

[Richard]

Really, how many times did they play again? We're talking tests right? If we're talking other than tests need I remind you what Hayden averaged against Shoaib in ODIs?

Also, Hayden averages 55 against Kyle Mills in ODIs. Better luck next time.

What anyone averages is irrelevant; in 2004/05, in Tests and ODIs, Mills exposed Hayden's weakness against the inswinger by getting him out multiple times despite only being given the decision once. That's all there is to it.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that bowlers had much more success than the batsmen, even under those conditions, regardless of swing, seam or spin.

I'm not oblivious; I just couldn't care less. Bowling seam is infinitely more taxing than batting, and the hotter it gets, the greater the discrepancy is.

So why were they easily bowled out when it was such a bad track for seamers? The seamers cleaned up...in all innings. However bad those conditions were, it was just as bad if not worse for the batsmen.

Not really - most batsmen just played poorly. It happens, in hot and cold conditions.

Can we stop this and get to the root of the issue. Did someone that looks like Hayden do something to you? I'm seriously curious.

No you're not, you just don't like the fact that I realise Hayden's shortcomings so you want something else to make disparaging remarks about as you have such a fondness for doing.

 

[Ikki]

What anyone averages is irrelevant; in 2004/05, in Tests and ODIs, Mills exposed Hayden's weakness against the inswinger by getting him out multiple times despite only being given the decision once. That's all there is to it.

Yes, this weakness is so glaring that against Mills Hayden only averaged 55.

I'm not oblivious; I just couldn't care less. Bowling seam is infinitely more taxing than batting, and the hotter it gets, the greater the discrepancy is.

Well, if you don't care about facts and disregard common sense then there's nothing to persuade you.

Not really - most batsmen just played poorly. It happens, in hot and cold conditions.

REALLY? Most teams get bowled out twice for less than 60 in back to back innings? How many times in the last 50 years has that happened?

No you're not, you just don't like the fact that I realise Hayden's shortcomings so you want something else to make disparaging remarks about as you have such a fondness for doing.

Believe me, I really am. I don't think any person would logically deduce all these facts and events the way you have to demean Hayden at every turn. It must be something other than Cricket.

 

[Richard]

Yes, this weakness is so glaring that against Mills Hayden only averaged 55.

Completely irrelevant. What I said has nothing to do with either what went down in the scorebook nor anything other than the 2004/05 season. So don't try to use irrelevant facts to disprove something you (and anyone else) can't disprove.

Well, if you don't care about facts and disregard common sense then there's nothing to persuade you.

And if you only care about things that can be expressed numerically and disregard common-sense (ie, that running in and trying to propel a ball at ~80mph is infinitely more physically taxing than standing there with a piece of willow trying to hit it, and that the hotter it gets the greater this discrepancy gets) then there's nothing to persuade you.

REALLY? Most teams get bowled out twice for less than 60 in back to back innings? How many times in the last 50 years has that happened?

Not very often. Not many sides are as bad as that Pakistan one, nor does a side that poor manage to bad that badly. You seem to think there was some connection with how bad Pakistan were and the heat - there wasn't. It's not like they were falling over in exhaustion, it was just a poor side doing worse than normal. It could very easily have happened anywhere at any temperature.

Believe me, I really am. I don't think any person would logically deduce all these facts and events the way you have to demean Hayden at every turn. It must be something other than Cricket.

No, it mustn't, and you neither are nor know anything much about me, so therefore I'm far more qualified to comment on the matter than you are or will ever come close to being.

 

[aussie]

Nah, that Hayden wasn't picked has nothing to do with any perceived lack of ability.

I cant read the minds of those selectors on the cricinfo panel. But it would be naive to doubt that same arguments about Hayden's ability againts top quality pace which has been debated into the ground here on CW, wasn't a factor in them not picking Hayden. Since statistically he is the best opener for AUS ever.

When picking an England all time XI, Boycott doesn't get into my side, doesn't mean I don't think he was a good player.

Big difference is that Boycott is recognised as great opener who scored his runs againts great attacks. Hayden has a cloud.

So him not being picked for an ENG ATXI has more to do with the fact that others Hutton/Hobbs (the regular choice for most people) are better. Although i personally have always had my doubts about Hobbs - but thats different argument altogether.

If I was to pick a West Indies XI, there's a host of ridiculously talented batsmen (and bowlers) throughout the ages that I'd be leaving out. A failure by me to pick, say, Everton Weekes or George Headley say, would have nothing to do with me thinking they were poor players, and everything to do with the fact that in my opinion, there have been better players.

As aformentioned by poster stephen & ikki, i dont think their is a strong argument for not including Hayden in AUS ATXI other than romanticism & aesthetics.