Mark Waugh

[tooextracool]

And mostly the Australians got the best of the conditions, same way mostly England got the best of conditions in the 2009 Ashes. Because yes, sometimes the cookie does crumble in favour of one side to a considerable extent.

Err not really. Sometimes certain bowlers are just more adept at exploiting certain conditions than others. That Australia didn't get as much out of the conditions in the Ashes in 2009 falls pretty much under the same category as Australian bowlers not getting as much out of the conditions in the 2005 Ashes as the English bowlers did. I cant count the number of times I've seen Sidebottom not swing the ball and then Anderson swing the ball considerably at the other end, sometimes it has to do with rhythm and just having the ball just come out right.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

True that Pollock early days was quicker than just about anyone. McGrath, on the other hand, was definitely reversing the ball from the mid-90's onwards. One famous example at the time was when he dudded Sohail in Brisbane for 99 in '95 with a reverse-swinging yorker.

 

[Uppercut]

Err not really. Sometimes certain bowlers are just more adept at exploiting certain conditions than others. That Australia didn't get as much out of the conditions in the Ashes in 2009 falls pretty much under the same category as Australian bowlers not getting as much out of the conditions in the 2005 Ashes as the English bowlers did. I cant count the number of times I've seen Sidebottom not swing the ball and then Anderson swing the ball considerably at the other end, sometimes it has to do with rhythm and just having the ball just come out right.

Hmm, no, 2009 had a lot to do with chance. At Lord's and at the Oval quick rain showers fell conveniently just as Australia were about to bat for the first time, changing the conditions dramatically. England deserved their win every inch, but they did have a few circumstances conspire in their favour.

 

[Richard]

It won't continue, hence the "even if...".

The "even if" was a recognition of something you've generally preferred not to recognise before, preferring to read what you'd like to have been written rather than what was.

I didn't lose my mind, yet.

As I've said, you've been told to stop making comments like this, so I'd do it if I were you.

And say he got him out in the first try? 1 inning. Get over it.

He got him out 4-5 times in late 2004. Simple as that. The fact that he was denied most of them in the actual book by incompetent Umpiring doesn't change that.

The bowlers were cleaning up, despite the fact that it was harsh weather. Akhtar is a swing-bowler, anyway, so your "pitch" doesn't really matter. Hayden proving his credentials there when most were struggling to get into double figures.

That's because plenty of abysmal batting was on view from plenty of poor batsmen who were never much good, as well as a little from others who were generally better. Shoaib may indeed be a swing bowler and yes the pitch is pretty irrelevant to such, but there's one problem - Shoaib barely bowled, because he like most seamers could not cope with 50deg-C heat. The heat made bowling well incredibly hard, but did not render batting anywhere near such.

 

[Richard]

Err not really. Sometimes certain bowlers are just more adept at exploiting certain conditions than others. That Australia didn't get as much out of the conditions in the Ashes in 2009 falls pretty much under the same category as Australian bowlers not getting as much out of the conditions in the 2005 Ashes as the English bowlers did. I cant count the number of times I've seen Sidebottom not swing the ball and then Anderson swing the ball considerably at the other end, sometimes it has to do with rhythm and just having the ball just come out right.

Sometimes indeed it does - but I don't agree that the 2009 Ashes doesn't fall under such a category, and nor do I agree that the 2005/06 SA leg of the Aus-vs-SA series doesn't. AFAIC, there was a definate advantage enjoyed by one side in terms of how the cookie crumbled in said series. It doesn't happen all that often, but it certainly can.

 

[Furball]

Shoaib barely bowled, because he like most seamers could not cope with 50deg-C heat. The heat made bowling well incredibly hard, but did not render batting anywhere near such.

How on earth you can seriously claim that batting for 7 hours in 50 degree heat isn't incredibly hard is beyond me.

In temperatures that are mid 40s and above, even just going for a stroll down the street is incredibly hard, never mind doing any physical activity for 7 hours.

 

[Ikki]

He got him out 4-5 times in late 2004. Simple as that. The fact that he was denied most of them in the actual book by incompetent Umpiring doesn't change that.

He got him out once in one inning. Whether he could have gotten him out earlier is immaterial...it was only 1 inning.

That's because plenty of abysmal batting was on view from plenty of poor batsmen who were never much good, as well as a little from others who were generally better. Shoaib may indeed be a swing bowler and yes the pitch is pretty irrelevant to such, but there's one problem - Shoaib barely bowled, because he like most seamers could not cope with 50deg-C heat. The heat made bowling well incredibly hard, but did not render batting anywhere near such.

sure...it was a stroll in the park for Hayden...what with the 50 degree heat and being padded up for 7+ hours. Maybe this is another one of those ideas you think others also share.

Shoaib also bowled more than any other fast bowler in that match. He bowled 14 overs in that 1 inning, whereas he averages 16 overs per inning usually.

 

[stephen]

Hayden certainly was a disappointment during the 90s. He was really humiliated by Ambrose. There were several technical flaws in his game at the time. The weakness he faced was not knowing where his off stump was. I don't think that anyone can say that he faced the same problems during the bulk of his career though.

And you see I think that is what made Hayden a Great. He was always able to work out and eliminate the technical flaws in his game as they emerged. If you look at the pre-injury Hayden of 07/08 you will see one of the greatest batsmen to have ever walked the earth. His World Cup heroics largely carried Australia's batting and were the real standout of the tournament (in some ways he was more deserving of the MOTS award than McGrath). In the 05/06 series in South Africa he was the difference between the two sides, making vital runs in key innings when they were needed. Again, Clark was exceptional (and deserving of MOTS), but the partnerships between Hayden and Ponting were what carried Australia to victory.

I fully believe that if an ultimatum had not been given him against South Africa he would have ended up being the key factor in an Australian victory in England. Unfortunately we will never know.

Regardless of whether or not he would have succeeded against top quality swing and seam bowling in favourable conditions (which is what is being argued here), he certainly was the most successful opener of his era and will go down as one of the best openers of all time.

 

[Richard]

How on earth you can seriously claim that batting for 7 hours in 50 degree heat isn't incredibly hard is beyond me.

In temperatures that are mid 40s and above, even just going for a stroll down the street is incredibly hard, never mind doing any physical activity for 7 hours.

Exactly. So bowling seam is damn near impossible. If no-one gets you out, you keep batting, even if it does exhaust and drain you.

BTW of course Hayden would have been out for not-many in that knock had Kaneria taken a simple c&b - not to forget that.

 

[Richard]

He got him out once in one inning. Whether he could have gotten him out earlier is immaterial...it was only 1 inning.

No, he got him out several times - he was just not allowed to have this reflected in the book because of Umpiring. Whether the Umpires allowed it to be recorded in the book is in fact what is immaterial; what actually happened is what matters, and several times Mills pinned Hayden plumb with big inswingers.

sure...it was a stroll in the park for Hayden...what with the 50 degree heat and being padded up for 7+ hours. Maybe this is another one of those ideas you think others also share.

Or maybe, and much more likely, it's you putting words down that you'd like to have been said rather than have been. Where exactly did I say it was a stroll in the park batting for 7 hours in 50 deg-C heat? I merely said that if no-one gets you out, you keep batting.

Shoaib also bowled more than any other fast bowler in that match. He bowled 14 overs in that 1 inning, whereas he averages 16 overs per inning usually.

He barely bowled, and certainly barely bowled at Hayden. He bowled more than any other seamer because Pakistan were in the field for longer than Australia, by far.

 

[Richard]

Regardless of whether or not he would have succeeded against top quality swing and seam bowling in favourable conditions (which is what is being argued here), he certainly was the most successful opener of his era

I'm glad you've recognised that, as it's basically what I've always said. I however very implicitly believe that he never had it in him all career to succeed against quality swing and seam.

 

[Uppercut]

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

 

[Ikki]

No, he got him out several times - he was just not allowed to have this reflected in the book because of Umpiring. Whether the Umpires allowed it to be recorded in the book is in fact what is immaterial; what actually happened is what matters, and several times Mills pinned Hayden plumb with big inswingers.

It was one inning where Hayden only scored 8 runs anyway - a very short innings, as he only faced 17 balls. So whether Mills could have been given the wicket earlier or not is irrelevant. It's only 1 inning. Had it been a long innings and one where Hayden kept getting played on the same tactic, that'd be one thing. But when the batsman is barely set...please. You've gone from making a lousy argument with 12 innings to 1. Just how low do you wanna go?

Or maybe, and much more likely, it's you putting words down that you'd like to have been said rather than have been. Where exactly did I say it was a stroll in the park batting for 7 hours in 50 deg-C heat? I merely said that if no-one gets you out, you keep batting.

Yeh, the problem is under that kind of heat and in those conditions you're less likely to play proper shots, stay in and make runs - which is something everybody else in that test had a problem with.

He barely bowled, and certainly barely bowled at Hayden. He bowled more than any other seamer because Pakistan were in the field for longer than Australia, by far.

I don't have a play-by-play of the match, but I'd imagine since Hayden opened the batting and Shoaib opened the bowling, and that Hayden was at the crease far longer than anyone else... that Hayden probably faced more of his balls.

EDIT: actually, here are the pvps; Hayden faced more of his balls than anyone else - 31/84 balls bowled by Akhtar

And for someone who says seam didn't help, take a look at how the other seamers did that day. Of course, I didn't mean he bowled more than any other pacer just from his team. He bowled more than the pacers in Australia - even with their 1st/2nd innings combined.

 

[Richard]

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

I don't think it's idle at all. As I say, that Hayden was the best opener of the post-2001/02 flat-pitches era is not in doubt and thus not a very interesting point of discussion. Far more interesting is how he'd have gone at other times. I find he'd have gone not very well; others find otherwise.

 

[Richard]

It was one inning where Hayden only scored 8 runs anyway - a very short innings, as he only faced 17 balls. So whether Mills could have been given the wicket earlier or not is irrelevant. It's only 1 inning. Had it been a long innings and one where Hayden kept getting played on the same tactic, that'd be one thing. But when the batsman is barely set...please. You've gone from making a lousy argument with 12 innings to 1. Just how low do you wanna go?

No, yet again you're reading things that you want to read rather than what is there. Listen carefully: Hayden batted against Mills quite a few times in 2004 and 2004/05; Mills trapped him lbw several times; the decision was only given once.

Yeh, the problem is under that kind of heat and in those conditions you're less likely to play proper shots, stay in and make runs - which is something everybody else in that test had a problem with.

If the bowlers can't bowl properly then the fact that you find playing proper shots more difficult matters less, because with less intense bowling you don't have to bat anywhere near so well to stay in.

I don't have a play-by-play of the match, but I'd imagine since Hayden opened the batting and Shoaib opened the bowling, and that Hayden was at the crease far longer than anyone else... that Hayden probably faced more of his balls.

EDIT: actually, here are the pvps; Hayden faced more of his balls than anyone else - 31/84 balls bowled by Akhtar

And for someone who says seam didn't help, take a look at how the other seamers did that day. Of course, I didn't mean he bowled more than any other pacer just from his team. He bowled more than the pacers in Australia - even with their 1st/2nd innings combined.

That's because Pakistan didn't bat very long. And facing 31 balls, most of which were delivered at well below top intensity because Shoaib could not cope with the heat, is nothing. As I say, seamers could simply not bowl in those conditions, they were unacceptable for cricket.

 

[Ikki]

No, yet again you're reading things that you want to read rather than what is there. Listen carefully: Hayden batted against Mills quite a few times in 2004 and 2004/05; Mills trapped him lbw several times; the decision was only given once.

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.

If the bowlers can't bowl properly then the fact that you find playing proper shots more difficult matters less, because with less intense bowling you don't have to bat anywhere near so well to stay in.

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.

That's because Pakistan didn't bat very long. And facing 31 balls, most of which were delivered at well below top intensity because Shoaib could not cope with the heat, is nothing. As I say, seamers could simply not bowl in those conditions, they were unacceptable for cricket.

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.

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.

 

[social]

UUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH - when are you guys going to learn?

 

[Top_Cat]

UUUUUUGGGGGHHHHH - when are you guys going to learn?

The virus has spread to multiple threads too. Time to quarantine Richard and Ikki in their own sub-forum to limit the infection.

 

[Ikki]

You're right. Every time I think there is just that tidbit of hope that he'll "get" it but it's always dragged out into one of these.

 

[Pothas]

Oh the Irony.