matthew hayden or brian lara?

[Son Of Coco]

Because no other players have played enough matches on enough good pitches against enough poor bowling-attacks.

So Hayden plays against different opposition than everyone else on different wickets? Strange...

In relation to the thread I think Lara would be ranked higher for sure, but I think if he had the mental approach Hayden's had (up until recently anyway) he would have been even better. On pure talent though - Lara all the way.

 

[Mister Wright]

Because no other players have played enough matches on enough good pitches against enough poor bowling-attacks.

Incorrect.

 

[mavric41]

Because no other players have played enough matches on enough good pitches against enough poor bowling-attacks.

So the conditions change even for his own team mates? What a load of uninformed, biased cr*p. Admit it, you are WRONG!!

 

[Richard]

No, I'm not.
The only other batsman who has faced comparable situations is Langer, and that only in 2002 and 2003.
No-one else has faced the same circumstances.

 

[Richard]

So Hayden plays against different opposition than everyone else on different wickets? Strange...

For a start he doesn't have to face McGrath and Gillespie.
And yes, pitches in Australia have tended to be flatter still than anywhere else in the last 3 years.

 

[marc71178]

No-one else has faced the same circumstances.

How do you work this out?

How do these pitches change so dramatically?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Really? You seriously believe that?
Sorry, that's biggest pile of sh*t I've heard for a long, long time.
That England side wasn't fantastic, no, but there has never been any point in history where England were so poor as to be substandard at Test-level - ie not worthy of playing Test-cricket.
Zimbabwe since WC2003 clearly have been. They had no right to be playing in Australia and if they weren't stupid records like this wouldn't have been created.
Fortunately it didn't last long.

But then you could also ask why no-one else has scored 380 against them while they've been so poor.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hahaha, yeah. Right!
Hayden will be eaten for breakfast in 2005 if you ask me, because surely by then we will have realised that seamer-friendly conditions are neccessary, Caddick has recenty announced that he's still hoping to be there then; Hoggard and Anderson will surely have developed into good bowlers by that time; and who knows how many other good seamers may have appeared? Kabir Ali for instance.

Gee, so Caddick's hoping to be there for this years ashes? So he can perform some second innings heroics I presume once all has been said and done and the team's already in dire straits!? I think England would be far better off picking the guys that are performing now rather than looking at bringing back someone whose impact against Australia hasn't exactly been astounding in Ashes series gone by. He's dead wood left over from times gone by when England struggled against Australia, not someone I'd personally be looking at to join a team attempting to win the Ashes. Have I mentioned I think he has a heart the size of a pea?

 

[Son Of Coco]

In essence England have been competetive\dominant in recent Ashes:
The whole SCG Test of last year's tour, and the last couple of days at The MCG, and the second day at Brisbane.
The last day at Headingley, the third day at The Oval, the second half of the second day at Trent Bridge, and the very short two spells at the top and bottom of the Edgbaston first-innings.
The third (or official fourth) day at The MCG and occasional other occasions in the 1998\99 tour.

And if they continue to be competitive/dominant (!?) for a day here and there in each test then they'll lose the Ashes again this time around. You need to compete every day of the test, winning one day out of 5 will see you lose everytime.

 

[Son Of Coco]

For a start he doesn't have to face McGrath and Gillespie.
And yes, pitches in Australia have tended to be flatter still than anywhere else in the last 3 years.

Really, flatter than the subcontinent even? I find that very doubtful.

 

[C_C]

again the myth that the pitches in the subcontinent are flatter rears its ugly head.....just because it is spin conductive does NOT mean it is any flatter than a pace-conductive environment.

But to answer this question, Lara is better than Hayden, no questions asked.
The only man who i would rate better/equal to lara in the last 15 years is Tendulkar and the only other two who augurs comparisons are Dravid and Ponting.

Lara has faced MUCH better attacks and has performed MUCH longer than Hayden.

 

[Son Of Coco]

again the myth that the pitches in the subcontinent are flatter rears its ugly head.....just because it is spin conductive does NOT mean it is any flatter than a pace-conductive environment.

But to answer this question, Lara is better than Hayden, no questions asked.
The only man who i would rate better/equal to lara in the last 15 years is Tendulkar and the only other two who augurs comparisons are Dravid and Ponting.

Lara has faced MUCH better attacks and has performed MUCH longer than Hayden.

Well, they've traditionally been much harder work for the quicks than a spinner (or for the quicks than bowling in places such as England and Australia) - so draw your own conclusions.

 

[honestbharani]

Actually, some tracks in India are worser for batting than the ones in Australia. Atleast in Australia, the bounce and pace are generally even, allowing strokemakers to prosper. Perhaps why Laxman enjoys it so much over there. IN India, some tracks are so low and slow that the only way to make runs here is to graft......

 

[C_C]

Well, they've traditionally been much harder work for the quicks than a spinner (or for the quicks than bowling in places such as England and Australia) - so draw your own conclusions.

Yes.
But not assisting quicks dont make the track batsman friendy.
Else Mumbai (AUS-IND last test) would've been a batting paradise.

I find this pro-pace bias kinda baffling.
If the average bouncy/seaming ground of australia or england isnt considered a batting paradise because it has something in it for the pacers, why would the average spinning track in india be considered a batting paradise because it has something in it for the spinners ?
If IND was a batting beauty most of the time, then most visiting batsmen would have a higher average in IND than outside IND...which isnt true...there are many who do and many who dont- just like any other locale.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, I'm not.
The only other batsman who has faced comparable situations is Langer, and that only in 2002 and 2003.
No-one else has faced the same circumstances.

Langer, Hayden, Ponting & Gilchrist have all had the same conditions and same attacks.

 

[Richard]

But Gilchrist has come in in totally different circumstances.
And sometimes Ponting has.
And Langer missed 4 Tests in 2001, and he batted three before The Oval.
No-one has had circumstances comparable to Hayden in the last 4 years.

 

[Richard]

How do you work this out?

How do these pitches change so dramatically?

They don't - so someone coming in at seven has the chance to score as many runs as someone opening? Or someone coming in at three?

 

[Richard]

And if they continue to be competitive/dominant (!?) for a day here and there in each test then they'll lose the Ashes again this time around. You need to compete every day of the test, winning one day out of 5 will see you lose everytime.

SPOT THE SARCASM!!!!!!!!
I cannot believe anyone could possibly think I meant that post - and it's over a year old!

 

[Richard]

But then you could also ask why no-one else has scored 380 against them while they've been so poor.

Because it hasn't happened.
It doesn't mean no-one else is capable of it.
You could ask why didn't Hayden do it again?

 

[Richard]

Gee, so Caddick's hoping to be there for this years ashes? So he can perform some second innings heroics I presume once all has been said and done and the team's already in dire straits!? I think England would be far better off picking the guys that are performing now rather than looking at bringing back someone whose impact against Australia hasn't exactly been astounding in Ashes series gone by. He's dead wood left over from times gone by when England struggled against Australia, not someone I'd personally be looking at to join a team attempting to win the Ashes. Have I mentioned I think he has a heart the size of a pea?

Have you not taken any notice of the date on that post?
Yes, it's a bit out-of-date now given the happenings of the past year, but you've still got some misplaced issues there.
So what if he's played against Australia and struggled? It's not exactly like no-one has played their first Ashes Series since 1989. Everyone started somewhere - and almost everyone struggled, new or old.
Of course England would be better picking the guys performing now - if there were any. Even Hoggard hasn't exactly been the most consistent in The World, and of Jones I'm still totally to be convinced. Ain't like any other specialist-bowlers set The World alight in South Africa.
What a stupid generalisation about second-innings!!!!! So most of Caddick's best performances happen to have come in second-innings' - wow, that means they haven't had a huge impact on the match? If you get figures like Caddick in some second-innings' you can turn matches totally on their heads - not just perform when the match has already gone!!!!!!!
An as for heart the size of a pea - I'd consult his doctor before stating that. I'd also consult Nasser Hussain, who says that as long as his mind's right he'll run through a brick-wall for you.