-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously
- Thread starter thierry henry
- Start date
to bring me 1 short of 2000
C_C
International Captain
So when i say two Ws or Donald-Pollock or McGrath-Gillespie or Cuddy-Curtley, i am talking in doubles and talking about 4 great fast bowlers in one team eh ?
Look- i am not interested in rhetoric and obfuscation of the points i made directed back at me.
One newbie bowler with less than 20 tests under his belt does not equal to 'excellent' pace attacks like i listed. Neither does one decent fast bowler and one former-great twice as diminished as Pollock is today.
You don't seem to mind giving it out...
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah. Great post Mav. I'm limited to what I've seen so some things I can only generalise. I feel however, that I've broken down more generalisations than I've created. Mavs post was great and I really can't be bothered arguing with someone who cannot glimpse that their own view may be wrong or have some fallacies. But I am enjoying others on their take of why Hayden is a great batsman.If you're going to start bringing actual information, rather than half-baked stats or crass generalisations, Mav, I'd suggest that you're in the wrong thread...
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
And that's a great point. Players DO get better. They learn more, get more experienced and score more runs. It doesn't just come down to pitch and bowling standard.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It was me, and you've got it completely wrong. We were talking about him playing pre-Ponting (as in, bowlers which Sachin faced before Ponting got a chance, or ever got a chance). That test match is in 97, I think that's more than a year since Ponting debuted.
Last edited:
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Gideon Haigh on Hayden:
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,,1555879,00.html
Interesting stuff. Admittedly written during Hayden's nadir of 2005, but Haigh does seem to agree with the consensus view that the big fella struggles against top-notch pace bowling.
The first ball Hayden received in Test cricket, from South Africa's Allan Donald, broke his knuckles. He was then humiliated by West Indies' Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh, though he managed to compile a maiden Test hundred at Adelaide in January 1997 without once finding the middle of the bat. After 13 Tests over nearly seven years, he averaged 24.
Queenslanders used to regard Hayden's omission from the Test side as a dark southern conspiracy. In fact, he simply wasn't good enough against top-class new-ball bowling, of which there was, in the mid-1990s, a bit around.
Hayden's rise coincided with the worldwide decline of quality pace bowling, worn out by the grind of the Test and one-day roundabout. In a few years, Hayden was transformed from fag to bully.
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,,1555879,00.html
Interesting stuff. Admittedly written during Hayden's nadir of 2005, but Haigh does seem to agree with the consensus view that the big fella struggles against top-notch pace bowling.
The first ball Hayden received in Test cricket, from South Africa's Allan Donald, broke his knuckles. He was then humiliated by West Indies' Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh, though he managed to compile a maiden Test hundred at Adelaide in January 1997 without once finding the middle of the bat. After 13 Tests over nearly seven years, he averaged 24.
Queenslanders used to regard Hayden's omission from the Test side as a dark southern conspiracy. In fact, he simply wasn't good enough against top-class new-ball bowling, of which there was, in the mid-1990s, a bit around.
Hayden's rise coincided with the worldwide decline of quality pace bowling, worn out by the grind of the Test and one-day roundabout. In a few years, Hayden was transformed from fag to bully.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Ah, fair enough. Did not realize that.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
That's ok.
In those tests Ambrose was 34 years old and Walsh was 35 years old - I say that in response to Ponting having faced good bowlers at their end.
Against India there, Ambrose averaged 30 at a strike rate of 92 and Walsh, even worse, averaged 62.5 at with a strike rate of 179. At their best, they certainly were not.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Walsh in his last five seasons averaged: 24.16, 19.97, 25.07, 12.82, 27.02.
Ambrose averaged 25.68, 14.81, 18.29, 22.87, 16.78, 18.64 in his last five seasons.
So based on that, how can you say they weren't at their best?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
By comparison, Waqar averaged: 38.18, 35.57, 18.51, 29.50, 35.00 in his last five seasons. So a big difference.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
That's like taking Hayden's average over the past few years to try and say he wasn't crap in the Ashes 05, or a bit prior.
BTW, I can't say that. But for those quality bowlers to be averaging that high and strike rates that are that poor, especially Walsh, it's gotta be more than just getting hammered around. No?
And couldn't your same argument be used for Ponting, when he is said to have taken advantage of these great bowlers at their end.
BTW, I can't say that. But for those quality bowlers to be averaging that high and strike rates that are that poor, especially Walsh, it's gotta be more than just getting hammered around. No?
And couldn't your same argument be used for Ponting, when he is said to have taken advantage of these great bowlers at their end.
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
But they weren't that poor over the year. They were poor for the series, but why couldn't that be because of the batting?
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It would be improbable, that's all. It's not like Tendulkar and Dravid were the only ones bowled to. If it were Tendulkar just outclassing them there were 9 other wickets to take. Walsh took like 4 wickets for the series, I think. That's a far cry from being outclassed. He was bowling quite poorly by those stats.
Actually, Dravid was the superior batsman in that series. He averaged 72 to Tendulkar's 57.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I bet if you remove those two, and maybe one other batsman, the average would be much closer to their career average. So why would that be improbable? They did well against them. Thats what good players do. I'm sure there were other instances where Ambrose and Walsh got on top of Tendy and Dravid, and I wouldn't say: "Well, Tendulkar just had a bad series, it wasn't Ambrose doing well with the ball."
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Ambrose maybe. Walsh I doubt. Those figures are absolutely terrible. They're more than 3x worse than his career figures.
BTW, I'm not saying they didn't do well. In my mind, it doesn't matter who/when/where. When you bat well, you bat well. But names are names, and performances may not always follow those trademarks. To me there is a difference between a Ntini bowling very well and a Walsh bowling poorly. For some, the names are useful for bragging rights.
Last edited:
