Your All-time Top 5's

[The Sean]

*Punches self hard in face for getting involved*

 

[Ikki]

Except Hayden, apparently.

 

[aussie]

Hayden faced them:

Ntini's never been that good.

What??

Hoggard's good period - 2004-2007/08 (in which time Hayden scored one century and absolutely nothing else against England apart from another century where Hoggard twice had him lbw before he'd reached 13).

What have I an the entire CW community told you about your FCA ignorance??. You cannot you that ideological barrier of yours to judge any batsman.

Pollock's good period - 1995/96-2001 (as of 2001/02 he was only capable on seaming decks and not on the flat ones which were always the sort he faced Hayden on).

Dont agree with that. I'd say Pollock good period ends @ Pak 2003/04. Since i remember him taking a 6 wicket haul during that series. From 2004 Pollock started to dip.

Caddick's good period - 1999-2001 (in which Hayden never faced him).

Am Caddick's good period ended in the 01 Ashes (just that the Australian took down him & Gough) & he did bowl to Hayden.

Vaas is constantly hot and cold and you never know which one is going to turn-up.

Yes but how does that discredit that Hayden has a good record againts him??

 

[Richard]

Except Hayden, apparently.

Even Hayden I doubt remained the same - I've had people assure me he played totally differently for Qld for the first 7-8 years or so of his career than he became famous for in his Test career, and I've no reason to doubt that. He didn't even play in exactly the same way all his Test career. But the crucial fault always remained, and was always exploited by bowlers who were good enough, throughout his career.

 

[Richard]

What??

You 'eard.

What have I an the entire CW community told you about your FCA ignorance??. You cannot you that ideological barrier of yours to judge any batsman.

I can, will and it's not remotely close to the entire CW community - half, at best, have ever continued to argue against the idea.

Dont agree with that. I'd say Pollock good period ends @ Pak 2003/04. Since i remember him taking a 6 wicket haul during that series. From 2004 Pollock started to dip.

He was the same in 2005/06 as he was in 2002/03 IMO - a bowler capable of taking wickets aplenty on a seaming deck, one who'd almost always be anodyne on a non-seaming deck.

Wisden in 2003 described Pollock-post-2001/02 best: "on a flat deck, he was unhittable; on a spicy deck, he was unplayable".

Sadly, he didn't get anywhere near as many of the latter as you'd hope (as didn't just about every bowler from 2001/02 onwards) and none in games where Australia were involved. Though this trend was reversed, gloriously, in 2006/07 and Pollock was back to his very best.

Am Caddick's good period ended in the 01 Ashes (just that the Australian took down him & Gough) & he did bowl to Hayden.

Caddick's good period actually ended the Test before the 2001 Ashes. Anyone who watched him bowl in the Second Test at Pakistan (a game I believe I've heard you make mention of being present at) could tell he was not the same bowler he had been for the last 2 years. And he never again got that back either.

Yes but how does that discredit that Hayden has a good record againts him??

I don't know whether it does or doesn't - I've seen just 2 of Vaas' Tests against Australia. In those 2, he was encapsulated perfectly - absolutely brilliant in the 1st, hopeless in the 2nd.

 

[Richard]

There isn't a remote significance at all. Neither is there for 1998 or 1989 other than people tend to look at eras in terms of decades.

You seem to suggest pitches went flat on the stroke of midnight September 2001? Did the curators ring you and give you this knowledge?

Your reasoning is arbitrary. I say pitches were getting flat in 2000. Prove me wrong.

I really don't have the inclination to. You know full well that such a thing did not happen. Pitches did not go flat at midnight on the stroke of September 2001. There was a break in the schedule (as there almost always was until very recently), with just 16 serious Tests (ie, Bangladesh excluded) being played in 3 countries between April and November 2001, and when the 2001/02 season started, pitches just about everywhere were being prepared with almost no life in them.

In my view, if you deny this, you're sticking your head in the sand. But I know plenty of people do, and I've no wish to discuss it further.

I could care less that some of the players were retiring. When Hayden met S.Africa for example, he met 2 (Pollock, Kallis) of the bowlers in their best forms, Donald in his downslope (still better than most bowlerS) and Ntini as a newb and averaged 100+ for the series. That doesn't "just" happen. That attack is better than most of the 90s.

I've gone through this before and have no desire to again. SA's attack in 2001/02 was very weak, and their catching was poor, sometimes woeful. End of story.

Players don't go from averaging in the mid-30s to 50s because 2-3 bowlers retired and pitches got slightly flatter. Your continuous contention is nonsensical.

Yes, they do, if they're the right sort of players. Some players have low capability to play certain types of bowling and excellent capabilities to play other types of bowling. If a certain type of bowling all but disappears, it's perfectly conceivable that such a player will go from a nobody to a superman.

 

[Uppercut]

No he wasn't. Andy Flower was a fairly poor wicketkeeper, by all accounts. As I said earlier, I have no doubt as to the fact that he was the best batsman who ever kept wicket regularly in Tests, but his wicketkeeping did not meet the minimum standard expected of Test-class wicketkeepers, so thus he can't qualify for any list where wicketkeeping is a factor AFAIC.

And much as Sangakkara is an excellent wicketkeeper (it wasn't always that way BTW), he started his career with the gloves, then gave them up, then took them back, then gave them up again, then took them back again, and has now given them up again.

Such a player cannot, to my mind, be considered for a list of wicketkeeper-batsmen. Me, I just wish Sangakkara had never taken the gloves at all, because it'd be very interesting to see if he might've been an even better batsman in that eventuality than he's ended-up being so far. Though to my mind that's relatively unlikely.

Sanga's keeping has hit the ropes again since he gave up the gloves in tests, incidentally.

 

[Richard]

As in, hit the ropes in ODIs?

 

[Fusion]

Top 5 Opening Batsmen

1. Hobbs
2. Gavaskar
3. Hutton
4. B. Richards
5. Sutcliffe


Top 5 Middle-Order Batsmen

1. Bradman
2. V. Richards
3. Sobers
4. Tendulkar
5. Headley


Top 5 All-Rounders

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Miller
4. Botham
5. Dev

Top 5 Wicket-Keepers

1. Gilchrist
2. Knott
3. Ames
4. Flower
5. Sangakkara

Top 5 Pace Bowlers

1. Marshall
2. Hadlee
3. Imran
4. Lillee
5. Ambrose


Top 5 Spinners

1. Warne
2. Murali
3. Laker
4. O’Reilly
5. Grimmett

Top 5 Cricketers of All Time

1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Imran
4. V. Richards
5. Hobbs

 

[SJS]

Oh I forgot this...

Top five cricketers

• Hobbs
• Bradman
• Hammond
• Sobers
• Barnes

 

[Uppercut]

As in, hit the ropes in ODIs?

Yep, pretty shoddy these days itbt.

Or at least, he always is when I'm watching. Wicket-keeping quality is pretty subjective so it's hard to be sure of such things unless it's blindingly obvious. Like Matt Prior's incompetence was in his first spell in the side. (Ftr, not convinced about him currently, but at least it's now open to debate.)

 

[steve132]

The voting has gone almost exactly as I expected.

My own choices:

Opening Batsmen

1. Hobbs
2. W.G. Grace
3. Barry Richards
4. Hutton
5. Gavaskar

Middle Order Batsmen

1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Viv Richards
4. Tendulkar
5. Hammond

All Rounders

1. Sobers
2. W.G. Grace
3. Imran Khan
4. Miller
5. Botham

Wicketkepers/Wicketkeeper Batsmen

1. Ames
2. Gilchrist
3. Knott
4. Evans
5. Waite

Fast Bowlers

1. Marshall
2. Lillee
3. Hadlee
4. Lindwall
5. Imran Khan

Spin Bowlers

1. Murali
2. Warne
3. O'Reilly
4. Grimmett
5. Rhodes

All Cricketers

1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. W.G.Grace
4. Hobbs
5. Viv Richards

 

[subshakerz]

The problem with Hayden is that all of his losses in form seem to coincide with him facing fast bowlers of high class. His first struggle was early in his career in the 90s, when he faced Ambrose and Donald. His next major loss of form was in 2004-2005, the same time he faced the Ashes bowlers and a fired up Shoaib in Australia. Then he ended his career in poor form, around the time he faced Steyn, Sharma and others. More than a coincidence to me.

 

[Uppercut]

If you watched the games recently, it was pretty clear his poor form had little to do with quality bowling (unlike in 2004/05 when he had a bit of trouble with the inswinger). When you're getting out caught short-cover and caught mid-off or dragging on from well outside the off-stump it's safe to say it's a coincidence.

 

[Debris]

All Cricketers

W.G Grace
Victor Trumper
Fred Spofforth
Sydney Barnes
Charles Bannerman

Don't rate anyone who played after the first world war.

 

[SJS]

All Cricketers

W.G Grace
Victor Trumper
Fred Spofforth
Sydney Barnes
Charles Bannerman

Don't rate anyone who played after the first world war.

Good

 

[SJS]

All Cricketers

W.G Grace
Victor Trumper
Fred Spofforth
Sydney Barnes
Charles Bannerman

Don't rate anyone who played after the first world war.

Why Bannerman? What did he do after his debut hundred ?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Taylor was the best of nothing in 1996/97, as I've said before. He was completely out-of-nick and how someone performed in relation to him is 100% irrelevant. Elliott certainly didn't get the chance to establish himself against weaker opposition, he debuted that same series Hayden played in (Hayden only played because Elliott had gotten injured). Taylor and Slater did, playing England in 1989 and 1993 as their first series', but that's really unimportant. Good attacks will find you out if you're not up to it, regardless of whether you've gorged yourself against weaker ones beforehand, and you'll cope with good attacks if you've got the ability, regardless of whether you've never pumelled a weak one beforehand.

Hayden was completely out of nick before the 2005 Ashes series, so I guess that excuses him for being mediocre during the majority of that series, right? There if a difference in difficulty when facing a quality attack when you are unproven compared to when you are established.

Possibly because he himself was totally out-of-nick around that time so thus did find it difficult. It didn't do a lot though, as you can see by watching some footage from the game.

So you are trying to undermine the conditions of someone who actually played in that match?

OK, all of that is of complete irrelevance. None of these bowlers were much good at the time Hayden faced them.

Ntini's never been that good

Many batsman that have faced him would beg to differ. Much like many bowlers would beg to differ on your views of Matthew Hayden.

Hoggard's good period - 2004-2007/08 (in which time Hayden scored one century and absolutely nothing else against England apart from another century where Hoggard twice had him lbw before he'd reached 13)

Scored 2 hundreds against Hoggard between the times that you mentioned. One at the Oval and in Melbourne, when Australia were on the ropes at 5/80. Not only that, but he also carried Symonds during that innings aswell. Under 1000 runs were scored in the match, in overcast bowler-friendly conditions.

Flintoff's good period - 2003/04-2006 (Hayden faced him once and came-off spectacularly second-best)

Hayden eventually got the laugh last on him.

Pollock's good period - 1995/96-2001 (as of 2001/02 he was only capable on seaming decks and not on the flat ones which were always the sort he faced Hayden on)

That's wrong. Pollock didn't start to deteriorate until 2003. Pollock averaged 20 during the time he bowled to Hayden and maintained that same average up until the start of 2004.

Caddick's good period - 1999-2001 (in which Hayden never faced him)

Really, he was no different in those periods to 2002 when Hayden got the better of him. Hayden just made him look worse then what he actually was.

Vaas is constantly hot and cold and you never know which one is going to turn-up.

Poor excuse. Vaas is class and Hayden murdered him, just admit it.

Donald's good period - 1992-2001 (in which time he had the wood over Hayden every single time)

He dismissed Hayden once, in 7 Tests.

Ishant Sharma's good period - well, it appears to have started in 2008/09, in which time Hayden hardly did a lot, did he?

Are you kidding? Did you not see Sharma bowl in Australia? Hayden was all him over.

You can try to blur the issue with names and you can convince some people who are unaware of the truths of the matter, but the above is the truth. Hayden failed against all good seam-bowling he faced, and could only conquer the poor-quality ones who could not get the ball to deviate much if at all.

Funny how you fail to mention Hayden's efforts at Shoaib during 2002, when Shoaib was at his absolute peak. I think that facing someone with their tail up and swinging the ball at 155kph would be more difficult then anything else. Or Hayden's success against the ICC World XI, when he got man of the match, facing the best bowlers in the world at that particular time?

 

[Ikki]

Yes, they do, if they're the right sort of players. Some players have low capability to play certain types of bowling and excellent capabilities to play other types of bowling. If a certain type of bowling all but disappears, it's perfectly conceivable that such a player will go from a nobody to a superman.

I won't rehash the rest of that garbage argument but I will address this.

The bowling of the time did not drop in quality, nor did the pitches allow, that someone who averages in the 20s or 30s to suddenly became an all-time great opener. This is irrefutable. It's only conceivable with your warped bias.

Someone who fails to acknowledge Hayden's poor form pre-Ashes, or is a stickler for his first handful of tests, or goes as far as creating a date to judge Hayden to disadvantage him...or even rate him lower than the likes of Atherton and Hussain...simply has issues.

 

[King Pietersen]

ROFL, Hussain and Atherton better than Hayden. That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. Hayden was a class batsman, averaged 58 almost 59 in Test cricket when on form, and that came after 51 Tests. He also was once rated the best batsman in the world in the ICC Rankings. He's played some seriously class innings, and scored hundreds in very tough conditions. Here are a few examples:

Hundred in a match where Pakistan were bowled out for under 60 twice, with Hayden being the only batsman to make it past 50

Hundred at Johannesburg against Donald, Ntini, Kallis and Nel where South Africa were bowled out twice for around 150 twice

Hundred in Mumbai in the 2nd innings of the match after India were bowled out for 176 and then 219 in the 2nd innings

Hundred at Galle in Australia's 2nd innings against Murali and Vaas, on a wicket where Sri Lanka were later bowled out for 154

Double hundred at Chennai as Australia were bowled out for 390, one of only 2 batsmen to make hundreds in the match

There are a few innings on wickets that clearly weren't batting paradises against some very competent bowlers. Then you've also got his domination in the 2007 World Cup, where he made 659 runs in 11 games, with 3 hundreds, an average of 73.22 and a strike rate of over 100. But I'm sure all the pitches were featherbeds and none of the bowlers any good........