He averaged 50-odd by playing mostly against seam attacks that lacked quality. On the rare occasions throughout his career where he came-up against said attacks he came-up short, every time.
Although there were indeed some quality attacks around in Australian domestic cricket, the idea that they all abounded with quality is quite false. I've gone through this'un before, ages ago.
My guess would be this match, but Matt of '79 would be better-placed to tell you for sure.
Hayden was dropped 5 times in that innings - anyone using that to attempt to prove a thing about his calibre doesn't really know what they're talking about. Patterson Thompson also played that match, and he for those who don't know might well be the worst bowler to play Test cricket in modern times.
I can't say I'm familar at all with that innings in question so I'll gladly not comment on it.
No, you can say that until 2001/02 he'd failed dismally every single time he came-up against anything but Indian wickets which offered nothing whatsoever to seam. Even against no-more-than-OK-ish West Indian attacks of 2000/01 and England ones of 2001 he came-up patently short.
I've said many times that most to all batsmen from 2001/02 onwards who've excelled I don't believe would have done so to anywhere near the extent they have, but I do believe they'd have been at worst Test-class and at best still very good. Hayden however would in my book not have been Test-class.
No, Donald's completely losing it was the reason Hayden's figures against South Africa were so good in 2001/02. The bowler controls the game, Hayden would not have had a prayer against a fully-fledged Donald, but was quite capable of blazing away against the skeleton who turned-up in 2001/02.
Not commenting on the context of this post, just looking at Curtly Ambrose. 10 no balls in his 18 overs in the first innings and 20 in his nine over spell (!!!) in the second.
Did you ever consider that the reason Donald was so bad in that series was because Hayden's play got to him?
Ian Chappell who is not a fan of Hayden said that the 47 runs he made in that innings were worth a century anywhere else in the world. The pitch was an absolute minefield that day and Ambrose was venomous.
I've seen pitches described as minefields. That deck was a little tougher. Psychologically more than anything because when the ball didn't hit the massive cracks, it played relatively true. It's just that Taylor, Mark Waugh and Blewett got unplayables so it looked a bit worse than it was. Patient play won the day as Lara's knock showed.
No I didn't, because I know beyond all question that that is not the case. Donald had been a merely good bowler for the last year or two before that series and, like some do, had simply been reduced from good to poor within the space of a little while by the time that 2001/02 season rolled around. Never again did he look all that good, under any circumstances. Donald's bowling that series had nothing whatsoever to do with Hayden and absolutely everything to do with Donald.
It's extremely important at all levels, and thus I never ignore it. Quite how "statistics" and "psychology" are mutual-exclusives either I don't know, they're two wholly unrelated terms.
We did so how exactly? Every time Hayden came-up against a Shoaib Akhtar who could actually bowl (ie not in the 50deg-C heat of Sharjah where no seamer could get through more than a few overs at a time) Shoaib had the wood on him. Pollock had the wood on Hayden whenever he came-up against him on a seaming deck (yes Hayden got the better of Pollock on flatties because Pollock didn't offer much threat on such pitches). And as I've already said that Hayden, or anyone, did well against the Donald of 2001/02 is completely irrelevant - it's no different to doing well against Ajit Agarkar or Mohammad Sami.
I've never said he didn't have the talent to handle fast bowling, I've said he didn't have the talent to handle fast swing and seam bowling. If the ball didn't move, Hayden was dynamite against bowlers 130-150kph; if it did, he wasn't much crack at all. That was proven immediately after the India 2000/01 tour (all that tour proved was how good he was against spin when there was no seam around), and it was even proven again in 2004/05, 2005 and 2006/07.
So you are saying that the very best bowlers that have ever existed in the history of the game, in ideal conditions are going to do well against Hayden. You could say the same about any batsman.
I think that over simplifies it a bit. His successes only occurred when those bowlers had been suffering from Green Parrot Disease and weren't at their best, and a flattening out of wickets occurred - probably delayed action resulting from the Biblical Flood.
Yeah, I meant in between the shots there was patient play, basically waiting for the loose ones and hammering them, keeping out everything else..
Dont bother, you'll never get any sense rom Richard on this issue
I know, and hence I'm not saying such a thing. I'm saying that any particularly good swing and seam bowler (regardless of whether fast, fast-medium or medium-fast) when not completely nullified by ball or pitch (whichever applicable) would pretty much always have the wood over Hayden, and in fact did.
His "form slump" of 2004/05 was mostly due to the fact that Kyle Mills and Shoaib Akhtar (mostly - there were others on occasions) exploited the flaw in his game that had always been there. His moderate performances in India early in the season had less to do with that though the last two of the four Tests were played on (uncharacteristically) very bowler-friendly decks.
Great - I haven't and haven't seen any evidence to suggest he did.
Couldn't care less - completely irrelevant.
None have been better of those who've played since 2001/02, but plenty of them would in my books have been more successful had they and Hayden played prior to 2001. You have to get out of your head the idea that a player who is more successful than another under one set of circumstances will always be more successful under any set of circumstances.
