***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[social]

I have been calling for Hayden's axing since the ODIs.

However, I expect him to play and would not be surprised to see him score runs.

His problems are mental not form or technical related.

For the past 30 innings or so he has averaged 30 with a highest score of 70. You simply cannot get that many starts as an opener in test cricket if your game is not up to it.

For me, the 2 biggest examples of how he has deteriorated mentally are how many get out shots he plays after getting a start and how England have been allowed to bowl at him with a short mid-off.

In the first case, he has always been renowned for going on after getting any sort of a start but that is now simply not the situation. I have lost count of the no. of poor shots that he has played after doing most of the hard work.

In the second case, 18 months ago he would simply resort to pummelling the ball through or over that fieldsman. Even now, it is useful only in the sense that Hayden is aware of it rather than it ever physically connected with his dismissal.

As for those who criticise his technique:

a. the guy averages 50 in test cricket and has always played the same way; and

b. who is perfect? Name one batsman and I'll tell you what his weakness is.

Hayden, like virtually every other established player that has a trot, has been inventing ways of getting himself out for over a year.

 

[matty1818]

well Hayden has been playing perfectly well in the matches imbetween tests. But crap against a good seaming attack. now i think thats alot down to the variety of Engands bowling and especially Hoggards swing into his pads. However you can say every player has a weakness, but for that weakness to be him 'planting his foot down' and getting caught behind his pad almost every time. Then you have to think his technique comes down to being a massive guy that purely hits bad balls down the ground. But when he comes to the crease hes like tres but with no hand-eye coordination. Every time he gets bat on the ball it doesnt look convincing and hes just waiting to get out. Gilchrist, yes, i think he is definately better than hayden, but the way he has simply not been able to adapt to round the wicket is massive, bowling round the wicket to left handers isnt a new thing.

So i think that they are probably both in form, but they are facing a v good attack, but there inability to adapt to it over the series removes there percieved skill in my mind. You are not a great batsmen if you can get a triple hundred against zimbabwe, your a great batsmen when your facing the best, and these guys haven't up to this point in the series. Pretty flimsy to rely on well established averages to state that someone is obviously 'out of form' when in fact there just not good when faced with genuine swing and round the wicket delieveries, i mean thats basic. But they are very good at dispatching village bowling attacks that might have one or two excellent pacers in (eg donald and pollock, curtly and courtney) but no sustained attack.

 

[SJS]

I dont remember the exact words but there was a thread, about a year ago, in which it was asked, "why are the Aussies so much better batsmen than anyone else in the world" (or words to that effect). And I said ..."because they never face Aussie bowling".

This series has shown the truth of that comment.

 

[Slats4ever]

very good comment SJS

 

[twctopcat]

I dont remember the exact words but there was a thread, about a year ago, in which it was asked, "why are the Aussies so much better batsmen than anyone else in the world" (or words to that effect). And I said ..."because they never face Aussie bowling".

This series has shown the truth of that comment.

I've always said this..........

 

[Slow Love™]

Aaargh! I can't stand this "Aussies were actually crap all along and we all knew it" rubbish....

 

[Slow Love™]

There's a diffence between playing late and half forward.

Secondly, Clarke is always feeling at balls outside the offstump when he shouldn't, that is probably his most common mode of dismissal...Khan on debut, Akhtar, Sami, now Hoggard, and a few others I can't remember. LBW has to be his next, getting caught half forward, that's happened at least twice this series.

Promissing batsman, but just not ready for test cricket yet.

If his performance against perhaps the best bowling attack in the game right now (particularly by comparison to those of his far more established team-mates) is indicative of anything, it's that he's ready for test cricket.

 

[twctopcat]

Aaargh! I can't stand this "Aussies were actually crap all along and we all knew it" rubbish....

That's not my gist, i'm merely saying they aren't the best team ever, as some people have gone so far to say. To say they are rubbish is naive and short sighted.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If his performance against perhaps the best bowling attack in the game right now (particularly by comparison to those of his far more established team-mates) is indicative of anything, it's that he's ready for test cricket.

Yea if he isn't ready what does that make all the other Aussie batsmen this series?

 

[Top_Cat]

If his performance against perhaps the best bowling attack in the game right now (particularly by comparison to those of his far more established team-mates) is indicative of anything, it's that he's ready for test cricket.

Yep. I was one of those who was cautioning against picking him too early but minor technical problems aside, he's made up for it with the guts, thoughtfulness and application he showed in a few key innings. Unfortunately he's only made it past good starts once but he's been one of the few players not getting out to poor shots other than one when he had his dicky back. In fact, he's generally been there to stem the tide of English momentum. Certainly, he's had less of the 'deer in the headlights' look than certain other more esteemed batting colleagues.

 

[andyc]

Yep. I was one of those who was cautioning against picking him too early but minor technical problems aside, he's made up for it with the guts, thoughtfulness and application he showed in a few key innings. Unfortunately he's only made it past good starts once but he's been one of the few players not getting out to poor shots other than one when he had his dicky back. In fact, he's generally been there to stem the tide of English momentum. Certainly, he's had less of the 'deer in the headlights' look than certain other more esteemed batting colleagues.

Yeah, I agree. Looks like he could mature into a sort of Steve Waugh, stop the rot, save the team kind of role.

 

[social]

well Hayden has been playing perfectly well in the matches imbetween tests. But crap against a good seaming attack. now i think thats alot down to the variety of Engands bowling and especially Hoggards swing into his pads. However you can say every player has a weakness, but for that weakness to be him 'planting his foot down' and getting caught behind his pad almost every time. Then you have to think his technique comes down to being a massive guy that purely hits bad balls down the ground. But when he comes to the crease hes like tres but with no hand-eye coordination. Every time he gets bat on the ball it doesnt look convincing and hes just waiting to get out. Gilchrist, yes, i think he is definately better than hayden, but the way he has simply not been able to adapt to round the wicket is massive, bowling round the wicket to left handers isnt a new thing.

So i think that they are probably both in form, but they are facing a v good attack, but there inability to adapt to it over the series removes there percieved skill in my mind. You are not a great batsmen if you can get a triple hundred against zimbabwe, your a great batsmen when your facing the best, and these guys haven't up to this point in the series. Pretty flimsy to rely on well established averages to state that someone is obviously 'out of form' when in fact there just not good when faced with genuine swing and round the wicket delieveries, i mean thats basic. But they are very good at dispatching village bowling attacks that might have one or two excellent pacers in (eg donald and pollock, curtly and courtney) but no sustained attack.

Your comparing the current Eng bowling line-up to attacks containing at least 2 greats?

Get over yourself.

Gilchrist is by far the best ever in his position.

Hayden has averaged over 50 in over 70 tests yet you compare him unfavourably to Tresco who has averaged way less than that in both his career AND in this series (where he has played well but benefitted massively from McGrath's absence, Gillespie's off-form and numerous let-offs).

On this basis, Strauss, Bell, and Vaughan are similarly incompetent batsmen whilst Giles must be amongst the worst bowlers ever.

 

[Slow Love™]

That's not my gist, i'm merely saying they aren't the best team ever, as some people have gone so far to say. To say they are rubbish is naive and short sighted.

But I don't think this series proves they weren't the best ever. If we like, we can take Richie Richardson's '96 West Indian team and say "HAHAHA! Who were these jerkwads saying the West Indians dominated the world???"

For various reasons, including age, injury and form, the Australian bowling attack has been but a shadow of what it once was. They are, for the first time in quite a long period, the second best attack in the series.

Some of the batsmen are also past their best or haven't been in great form even moving up to this series. Hayden has been OOF for a period that outdates the Ashes by far. Ponting's hasn't been in world-beating form for some time either. Katich is still establishing himself (as is Clarke) and we lack the sheer guts (and the hard captaincy) of Steve Waugh in the middle order.

This is to take nothing away from the superlative performance of the English bowlers (and to be fair, the English batsmen, whom I thought would be the team's real weakness coming into the series).

I dislike the implication (and I'm not sure if you're making it, but it seems like you are) that this has somehow exposed the Australians' dominance of the game to be some kind of illusion because they are being beaten by a side that's come up to a level that looks at this stage to be superior. Every dynasty ends at some point, and it doesn't automatically render their earlier performances as somehow overrated as a result. Usually it's a combination of your team not being as good as it once was, and another team working upwards to a peak.

 

[luckyeddie]

Aaargh! I can't stand this "Aussies were actually crap all along and we all knew it" rubbish....

Slightly OTT reaction - who's saying that?

I think more to the point is that
a) You're not as good as you were
b) You're nowhere near as good as you thought you were
c) The Poms are at last worthy opponents.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, I agree. Looks like he could mature into a sort of Steve Waugh, stop the rot, save the team kind of role.

Nah. He'll eventually bat at 3. If there's any rot to be had, he'll be part of it.

 

[social]

That's not my gist, i'm merely saying they aren't the best team ever, as some people have gone so far to say. To say they are rubbish is naive and short sighted.

They're getting old!

Unfortunately, we all do.

Get over it because if the English cricket team is anything like your rugby and football team you're in for a huge disappointment and very soon.

 

[twctopcat]

They're getting old!

Unfortunately, we all do.

Get over it because if the English cricket team is anything like your rugby and football team you're in for a huge disappointment and very soon.

Alec Stewart was 40 when he retired, and look how great he was...

And i don't quite understand how that relates to the footie team.

 

[luckyeddie]

They're getting old!

Unfortunately, we all do.

Get over it because if the English cricket team is anything like your rugby and football team you're in for a huge disappointment and very soon.

Translation: Yah boo sucks it'll happen to you.

You know, that is quite the mardiest and most pathetic quote you've managed in this entire summer.

 

[Slow Love™]

Slightly OTT reaction - who's saying that?

I think more to the point is that
a) You're not as good as you were
b) You're nowhere near as good as you thought you were
c) The Poms are at last worthy opponents.

This is essentially what I just posted (although point (b) is pretty impossible to measure, and I DO think that side under Waugh was one of the best sides to play, if not the best).

What I find irritating (apart from the barrage of new trolling) are the constant extrapolations being made of the past, rather than the comments being made about the current series.

 

[Top_Cat]

Actually, I think England will be a bit vulnerable after this series. They've spent the last two years working towards the goal of winning the Ashes and if they do it, they could well suffer from 'well...... now what?' syndrome. Certainly, playing against anyone else will be one heck of a come-down. How they respond to that will be interesting.