Mark Waugh

[aussie]

The international pitches at the 'Gabba are not a representation of the pitches that are used during the domestic season.

The conditions in Brisbane have also changed over the last 10 years. There is a lot less rain earlier in the season and the average temperature has increased by 3 degrees. I can understand why you wouldn't have seen seaming pitches in Brisbane. However, that cannot deny the FACT that during the 90s there were a lot of seaming decks in Brisbane, and I, myself watched countless innings when Hayden had to nullify first day decks with plenty of juice in them and quality quicks such as Reiffel and Fleming (who were genuine swing bowlers). More often than not Hayden not only succeeded in these conditions, but he flourished.

Yes, early on in Hayden's career he struggled against top class quicks. But, he was never given true confidence by the selectors or Taylor. It is no coincidence that when he came into the team under Waugh, a man that valued his place in the team he became the world class player he should be remembered as.

Mr.Wright is always right...

 

[Ikki]

Stephen...Richard doesn't know what he is talking about.

You mention the S.African series where Hayden faced Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Kallis and he has an excuse. Sure, Donald was not at his best at that time...but he was far from poor. However, both Kallis and Pollock were at their career bests during that time and them 2 + a raw Ntini and a still decent Donald got pummelled. IIRC Hayden averaged 100+ in that series. Not 40, 50...but 100+. He even has the audacity to downplay the 50 degree monster series played against Pakistan when batsmen had trouble getting to double digits. Sure, it was hot for the bowlers...it was hell for the batsmen.

His whole argument rests on a handful of tests in the 90s. He ignores the fact that Hayden beat up touring bowlers while playing for Queensland or even his innings against the very best like McGrath domestically. He ignores the fact that Hayden could have adjusted had he been given the chance all for the sake of his limited argument.

IMO, Richard's problem with Hayden runs deeper than Cricket, and I am puzzled as to what it could be. Go to this thread where he is trying to argue Hussain was better than Hayden. His posts there are truly cringeworthy.

----

Anyway, I expected to be reading about Waugh in this thread. I think Junior was a very good player but like TC I wonder what would have happened to him had he been dropped several times when he really didn't merit his place.

 

[Richard]

Stephen...Richard doesn't know what he is talking about.

No, you don't know what you're talking about when you mention me, but that's nothing new.

You mention the S.African series where Hayden faced Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Kallis and he has an excuse. Sure, Donald was not at his best at that time...but he was far from poor. However, both Kallis and Pollock were at their career bests during that time and them 2 + a raw Ntini and a still decent Donald got pummelled. IIRC Hayden averaged 100+ in that series. Not 40, 50...but 100+. He even has the audacity to downplay the 50 degree monster series played against Pakistan when batsmen had trouble getting to double digits. Sure, it was hot for the bowlers...it was hell for the batsmen.

I've no desire to go through all this again but suffice to say this entire paragraph is wrong.

His whole argument rests on a handful of tests in the 90s.

You can say this as often as you like and you can try to misrepresent other people's words as often as you like. All it does is show you up as of poor character. I'd suggest you stop doing it.

He ignores the fact that Hayden beat up touring bowlers while playing for Queensland or even his innings against the very best like McGrath domestically. He ignores the fact that Hayden could have adjusted had he been given the chance all for the sake of his limited argument.

I don't ignore those opinions (not facts) but I don't agree with them.

IMO, Richard's problem with Hayden runs deeper than Cricket, and I am puzzled as to what it could be.

The fact that you're puzzled as to what it could be but still think that such a thing exists says it all. You can't counter the cricket-related points so you resort to fabricating other nonsensical ideas.

 

[Richard]

The international pitches at the 'Gabba are not a representation of the pitches that are used during the domestic season.

The conditions in Brisbane have also changed over the last 10 years. There is a lot less rain earlier in the season and the average temperature has increased by 3 degrees. I can understand why you wouldn't have seen seaming pitches in Brisbane. However, that cannot deny the FACT that during the 90s there were a lot of seaming decks in Brisbane, and I, myself watched countless innings when Hayden had to nullify first day decks with plenty of juice in them and quality quicks such as Reiffel and Fleming (who were genuine swing bowlers). More often than not Hayden not only succeeded in these conditions, but he flourished.

If your experiences lead you to this conclusion then fair enough and I've never decried anyone for doing so (there are one or two others like you). I have seen different things and thus come to a different conclusion.

Yes, early on in Hayden's career he struggled against top class quicks. But, he was never given true confidence by the selectors or Taylor. It is no coincidence that when he came into the team under Waugh, a man that valued his place in the team he became the world class player he should be remembered as.

Took a good while after he came into the team under Waugh for him to start scoring prolifically. 24 months in fact. Kinda suggests that Waugh's influence was not significant and that rather something else was.

 

[aussie]

Stephen...Richard doesn't know what he is talking about.

You mention the S.African series where Hayden faced Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Kallis and he has an excuse. Sure, Donald was not at his best at that time...but he was far from poor. However, both Kallis and Pollock were at their career bests during that time and them 2 + a raw Ntini and a still decent Donald got pummelled. IIRC Hayden averaged 100+ in that series. Not 40, 50...but 100+. He even has the audacity to downplay the 50 degree monster series played against Pakistan when batsmen had trouble getting to double digits. Sure, it was hot for the bowlers...it was hell for the batsmen.

His whole argument rests on a handful of tests in the 90s. He ignores the fact that Hayden beat up touring bowlers while playing for Queensland or even his innings against the very best like McGrath domestically. He ignores the fact that Hayden could have adjusted had he been given the chance all for the sake of his limited argument.

IMO, Richard's problem with Hayden runs deeper than Cricket, and I am puzzled as to what it could be. Go to this thread where he is trying to argue Hussain was better than Hayden. His posts there are truly cringeworthy.

----

Anyway, I expected to be reading about Waugh in this thread. I think Junior was a very good player but like TC I wonder what would have happened to him had he been dropped several times when he really didn't merit his place.

Hate going around in circles. But Richard is right about the SA attack of 2001/02 tbf. Donald was definately passed his peak by then - no comparison to the Donald Hayden faced in the 90s. Donald bowling at high pace 90mph last was seen when ENG toured SA in 99/00.

Otherwise of course has is DEAD wrong.

 

[Ikki]

No, you don't know what you're talking about when you mention me, but that's nothing new.

And you're delusional, per usual.

I've no desire to go through all this again but suffice to say this entire paragraph is wrong.

Really? Which part?

Facts:
-Hayden averaged 107 for the series
-Pollock and Kallis were at their primes and had awesome figures even for the year prior
-Donald was clearly not at his best but still far better than most bowlers even now

You can lie to yourself as much as you like.

You can say this as often as you like and you can try to misrepresent other people's words as often as you like. All it does is show you up as of poor character. I'd suggest you stop doing it.

Stop lying, that's what it is. You say he was poor in those handful of tests in the 90s. You say Hayden has not changed in any way shape or form and you say even the likes of Hussain are far far superior to Hayden. At least own your non-sense.

The fact that you're puzzled as to what it could be but still think that such a thing exists says it all. You can't counter the cricket-related points so you resort to fabricating other nonsensical ideas.

What's more disturbing is that you actually believe you have a point.

 

[Ikki]

Hate going around in circles. But Richard is right about the SA attack of 2001/02 tbf. Donald was definately passed his peak by then - no comparison to the Donald Hayden faced in the 90s. Donald bowling at high pace 90mph last was seen when ENG toured SA in 99/00.

Otherwise of course has is DEAD wrong.

Who said Donald was at his peak? The point is Donald was far from poor.

A decent Donald, plus an awesome Pollock and a career-best Kallis is more than a good attack. It is a very good attack. We've done this dance before. Even Goughy went out and came with the S.African team bowling averages for the year before and they were awesome, even Donald's figures were good.

 

[aussie]

Who said Donald was at his peak? The point is Donald was far from poor.

He needed to be at his peak, since if he was & Hayden had dominated him - it would have looked better for Hayden. I would say the SA attacks of 05/06 & 07/08 where definately better.

A decent Donald, plus an awesome Pollock and a career-best Kallis is more than a good attack. It is a very good attack. We've done this dance before. Even Goughy went out and came with the S.African team bowling averages for the year before and they were awesome, even Donald's figures were good.

It looks good because he did't play much challenging teams. I saw Donald in two series before SA went to AUS in 01/02 - vs IND 2000 & WI 01 & he clearly wasn't white lightning anymore. Was bowling 80-85 mph or so, thus when he came to AUS Hayden & the entire batting smoked him. Seeing Donald bowl in that Jo'Burg test when he brokedown was also a very disappointing sight.

On Kallis he also was passed his "short" test match bowling peak by the time 01/02 as well. The last time Kallis test match bowling was really superb was WI 01 - specifically this test. Since then Big Jaq has been very much a 5th bowling option capable of the odd burst, dont think he has taken a 5 wicket in about 5 years.

 

[Richard]

And you're delusional, per usual.

And you've been told to stop making posts like that, a long while back. It'd be sensible to heed that instruction

Really? Which part?

Facts:
-Hayden averaged 107 for the series
-Pollock and Kallis were at their primes and had awesome figures even for the year prior
-Donald was clearly not at his best but still far better than most bowlers even now

You can lie to yourself as much as you like.

As I said, I've no desire to go through all this for the umpteenth time. You said one hell of a lot in that paragraph that was totally wrong, end of story.

Stop lying, that's what it is. You say he was poor in those handful of tests in the 90s.

No, I say something different, and you find it easier to argue against "he was poor in the 1990s" so you continually misrepresent what has been said in order to suit your own purposes.

What's more disturbing is that you actually believe you have a point.

Typical reply to this is "oh the irony" and I really CBA thinking-up something more imaginative.

 

[Goughy]

There is no hard-and-fast rule and I've seen hundreds of utterly lifeless decks at The 'Gabba and the many Test grounds in South Africa. Hayden certainly played on many such things.

Hundreds?

 

[Mister Wright]

Took a good while after he came into the team under Waugh for him to start scoring prolifically. 24 months in fact. Kinda suggests that Waugh's influence was not significant and that rather something else was.

24 months? Whatever!

It was 7 tests, if that. During 2 of those tests he was run out by Slater after strong starts.

 

[Julian87]

I've never seen someone kill cricket as much as the obvious,.

 

[Ikki]

He needed to be at his peak, since if he was & Hayden had dominated him - it would have looked better for Hayden. I would say the SA attacks of 05/06 & 07/08 where definately better.

It really wouldn't matter as Pollock at that time was as good as Donald was at his peak. The attack as a whole was a very strong one and if Hayden had these simple and glaring deficiencies you'd think he'd have been exposed by even this one.

It looks good because he did't play much challenging teams. I saw Donald in two series before SA went to AUS in 01/02 - vs IND 2000 & WI 01 & he clearly wasn't white lightning anymore. Was bowling 80-85 mph or so, thus when he came to AUS Hayden & the entire batting smoked him. Seeing Donald bowl in that Jo'Burg test when he brokedown was also a very disappointing sight.

They weren't great but it would be silly to argue that Donald was going to come out of that test series predictably done. Simply put, it wasn't just Donald. The whole attack got a shellacking in those two series. 3-4 of Australia's batsmen hit peak and no bowling attack was going to stop them. It's not simply a matter of 1 bowler not looking as great as he used to be. No bowler would look good in those circumstances. Of course, physically Donald was coming to the end of it, but let's not simplify things to that extent.

On Kallis he also was passed his "short" test match bowling peak by the time 01/02 as well. The last time Kallis test match bowling was really superb was WI 01 - specifically this test. Since then Big Jaq has been very much a 5th bowling option capable of the odd burst, dont think he has taken a 5 wicket in about 5 years.

That's really not correct. 3/4 next Test series after playing Australia he still did well and notably against Sri Lanka and an England side on the up.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

'sup Mark Waugh thread, how's Allan Donald?

 

[Manee]

He's not looking too good, unfortunately.

 

[aussie]

It really wouldn't matter as Pollock at that time was as good as Donald was at his peak. The attack as a whole was a very strong one and if Hayden had these simple and glaring deficiencies you'd think he'd have been exposed by even this one.

Pollock alone was at his peak still. Donald was wayyy past his best yo, thats fact.

Plus Hayden's technical faults of swinging deliveries into his pads that where exposed by Mills & AKhtat in 04 then later in Ashes 05. No SA bowler in 2001/02 had the skills to exploit those weakness - plus generally pitches over those 6 tests where very flat.

They weren't great but it would be silly to argue that Donald was going to come out of that test series predictably done. Simply put, it wasn't just Donald. The whole attack got a shellacking in those two series. 3-4 of Australia's batsmen hit peak and no bowling attack was going to stop them. It's not simply a matter of 1 bowler not looking as great as he used to be. No bowler would look good in those circumstances. Of course, physically Donald was coming to the end of it, but let's not simplify things to that extent..

A few players was indeed peaking in that series, specifically Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Ponting to a level. But the SA attack also was exposed as not great although they had a few years of very good series win before 2001/02.

Pollock was the only great bowler. But on those flat decks he proved to be a bit ineffective & has i said above he wasn't capable of testing Hayden's technically.

Donald was way passed his peak, it wasn't just a physical drop in form. Thats very clear, you can't deny that.

Ntini was crap, hadn't reached his peak yet.

Kallis was ok still, but passed his short bowling peak.

Klusener also was gone long before that series, he was bowling from short run since WI 2001.

Hayden unfortunately wasn't tested technically. As i said before the SA attacks in 05/06 & 08/09 where better than 01/02 by far.

That's really not correct. 3/4 next Test series after playing Australia he still did well and notably against Sri Lanka and an England side on the up.

Well i'll admit i did see him take a 6 wicket haul vs ENG in 2003 - his last 5 for in test. But personally i've said above i certainly dont think he was at his peak in those 6 test in 2001/02.

Kallis at his peak as bowler between 98-2001 (that specific series in WI) as a test bowler was capable of bowling 90 mph with the new ball & stuff. Kallis didn't have that pace vs AUS & he also didn't have the skills to test Hayden technically.

 

[stephen]

Hayden unfortunately wasn't tested technically. As i said before the SA attacks in 05/06 & 08/09 where better than 01/02 by far.

Interesting because Hayden did very well in 05/06, particularly on the South African green tops. I suppose though that some will say that him being dismissed by Ntini 6 times in 3 tests means that he's obviously crap against good bowling. Though I would say that only Ntini was good enough to get him out.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry Aussie, we just won't agree. I'll just keep at it that because my reply would essentially be posting the same thing over again for you to still say so and so wasn't at their peak when I am showing you a year's worth before and after that said bowlers were on form.

 

[Matt79]

'sup Mark Waugh thread, how's Allan Donald?

It had a good run before CW's version of Godwin's Law came into effect.

 

[tooextracool]

Reckon he's a bit underrated round these parts. Probably played on a year too long in the end, with hindsight, and I think that's affected how he's seen. Was a massively important player in tests and ODIs for a long time, after waiting more than 100 FC matches to get a Test. Probably the best batsman to watch I've seen, and an extraordinary fielder, possibly the best slips fielder ever.

Steve as a brother undoubtedly affects how he's viewed, as did the nature of his flaws - eg looking soft when he gets out, rarely going on for big tons. But all batsmen have flaws, and those happen to be two that people judge harshly, as opposed to some others.

He's also looked upon with less favorably in hindsight because his replacement and the man he kept out for years from the side (Darren Lehmann) was actually a better player than him. Even though he was well past his prime by the time he got a decent crack in the side.