because you've come up with such convincing evidence havent you? not even a single success on a seamer friendly wicket. instead you'd much rather choose to use the excuse of"how many openers have averaged more than him?"zinzan12 said:
2 thingszinzan12 said:
no its not, 4.5 is just about as good as 4.2-4.3 was in the 90s, especially if you bowl at the death.Richard said:
umm let me get this straight here, wouldnt the fact that hes got hammered at 6 runs an over suggest that he hasnt managed to reduce the momentum and scoring rate? or am i just dreaming?FaaipDeOiad said:
and how many people managed to come up with such convincing evidence against me?zinzan12 said:
hardly, neither of us are simply stupid enough to base our opinions solely on what 'everyone else says', or 'how good someone's average is'.zinzan12 said:
C'mon your evidence for Hayden struggling on seaming wickets was awful. In fact it was laughable. With regards Lee, you criticised him in the VB series for being too expensive and getting smashed around....Do u want me to find your quotes to prove it?tooextracool said:
You hav a very short memory don't you....if i wasn't so busy at work, i'd find the quote where you mentioned Lee was getting "smashed" in the VB series.tooextracool said:
your point is? yes he did get smashed in certain games and as we all saw that he bowled well in certain games.my argument was that he was inconsistent, and a player like kaspa should have been in the side over him. where did i say that he was not ODI class?, if you could refer me to that id be more than grateful.zinzan12 said:
no because its absolutely 100% wrong. because any fool who watched the game would know that it wasnt a seaming wicket. and like every other human hayden doesnt have a 100% success record on flat wickets. if i were to selectively pick games, you'd think that id include more failures than what ive done, just to make the evidence point more in my direction.zinzan12 said:
My point is you can't seem to conceed that Hayden and Lee would be automatic selections for any other test team in the world.....Instead it seems to be your hobby to criticise them constantly....its just become so predictable and boring ...yawn yawntooextracool said:
where have i said that hayden wasnt an automatic choice for any test team? ive simply said that had he played on more seamer friendly wickets he wouldnt have had anywhere near the same record, had he played in the 80s he wouldnt have been an automatic choice for any side.zinzan12 said:
No doubting his recent average record in test cricket....but also no doubting he's bowling both quicker and better than any other stage in his career.....thats what u are struggling to see....tooextracool said:
which shows how much of lee you've actually watched pre 2004. vb series 2003, lee was bowling just as fast and just as accurately, and still got hammered in test matches at the time. this ' hes bowling faster than ever' is a ludicrous claim really.zinzan12 said:
except that both ponting and dravid have succeeded on seamer friendly wickets, hayden clearly hasnt. id expect dravid to still average over 50, ponting in the high 40s and hayden in high 20s were they play in the 80s.zinzan12 said:
Not even close to proveable, this guff. I mean, come on, how could anyone possibly know? The argument is academic and redundant.
of course its not provable, and really even saying something like so and so player is great is not provable either.its an opinion, which based on his constant failures on seamer friendly wickets seems extremely likely indeed.Top_Cat said:
Well i don't think he should be dropped, just that he has a weakness like most batsmen.Ming said:OK, shutup all of you. Give Matthew Hayden to us, and we would kindly accept him.
I can't believe you guys are arguing about the selection of Hayden in the team, when Waugh once labelled him the BEST batsman in....
