Andrew Strauss - Not a bad start, chap.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Langer is a solid, reliable player but he's not a Hayden or Gilchrist (in terms of batting value to a team not style). Strauss could well be a Hayden or a Gilchrist. Langer is always going to be decent, but not in the same class as those. Also Strauss has a great temprament and oozes class when he bats and if you'd seen him bat perhaps you'd see this and not come out the attitude that suggests you'd stick with a guy until he retires just because he's a reasonable player.

Langer has been more of a 'Hayden' and 'Gilchrist' than either Hayden or Gilchrist have been lately.

Langer's last 15 Tests:

29 innings, 0 NOs
1528 runs @ 52.68
5 hundreds, 4 fifties
2 ducks

Hayden's last 15 Tests:

29 innings, 2 NOs
1172 runs @ 43.40
3 hundreds, 6 fifties
0 ducks

Gilchrist's last 15 Tests:

26 innings, 3 NOs
950 runs @ 41.30
4 hundreds, 3 fifties
4 ducks

Credit where it's due...

 

[Smudge]

Of late he's been poor.
After the end of the New Zealand tour it was perfectly conceivable that he'd finish his Test-career with an average in the 60s.
So he'd be a contender - and no more - for the 2nd-best batsman of all-time.
The recent games have made that look ever more unlikely with every one.

By your reckoning, after the end of the Pakistan series in 1972/73 it was perfectly conceivable Rodney Redmond would finish his test career with an average in the 80s...

 

[social]

If Clarke were an opener or Strauss were a middle order batsman, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

That's the point, Strauss can logically look at being the replacement for 1 of 3 players (Hayden, Langer and Ponting). On that basis, he's a good backup to have for those positions.

But then again, so would Sehwag, Dravid, etc., etc., etc.

 

[tooextracool]

He's had a start more sensational than most, that's certain.
If he keeps this up, he could replace Graeme Smith as the potential next-best-after-Bradman.
But of course we've seen orgies of run-scoring like this before - the real test will come when the form runs-out. As Vaughan so pointedly repeated time and again 2 winters ago - and I'll bet he's incredibly glad he did now.

oh get off it, graeme smith never had the potential to be anywhere near sobers, pollock or anyone else.

 

[Mr Casson]

oh get off it, graeme smith never had the potential to be anywhere near sobers, pollock or anyone else.

Or the temperament. He has a horrible attitude.

 

[Craig]

To think that someone was arguing that Strauss wouldn't make the Australian Test side the other day...

Maybe he could.

But there is no way he would get in now.

 

[Craig]

I'm not on about whether he would have gotten a start or not - it's pointless arguing that, I'm on about if he was suddenly available for Australia tomorrow he'd waltz into the Australian side.

Again in place of whom?

 

[tooextracool]

FTB hayden.

 

[Craig]

His ending his career with a 60+ average could only have been perfectly conceivable to someone who simply reads scorecards and doesn't watch cricket. Watching the English bowlers sling down rubbish tailored to his few strengths and attacking none of his obvious weaknesses while he compiled 259 at Lord's was painful in the extreme. At least they learned their lesson and didn't do it again that series, which is why he could hardly buy a run thereafter.

Cheers,

Mike

If it takes a team two Tests to work out somebodies weakness after scoring tow big double hundreds, then the bowling coach/es, and those who pile all sorts of analysis clearly aren't doing their job and thus have their employment questioned.

Hey I would of thought after Edgbatson or other South African Tests Smith had played in (ie against Australia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan), they are enough opportunity to asess him strengths and weakness and go from there. It is hardly Smith's fault England's management were a bunch of amatuers or the bowlers bowled were he likes to score. What did you expect him to do? Block?

How about giving him some credit for actually playing well.

Dammed if you and dammed if you don't on this site I guess.

 

[Craig]

FTB hayden.

Which is about as likely Stephen Fleming having his Test captaincy stripped.

 

[tooextracool]

its unlikely yes, because hayden is simply as overrated as anyone else in cricket today.

 

[Craig]

So what is the best way of getting him out then?

Personally Hayden is going threw a form slump, since he has been given the chance to fish, cook and surf, it wouldn't surprise me if he comes back firing.

 

[tooextracool]

hayden has always struggled whenever the ball seams around, his weakness against the in swinger is the most pronounced of weaknesses. in fact hes never scored runs on a seamer friendly wicket in his entire career. personally had hayden played in the 80s or 90s he would have struggled.

 

[social]

FTB hayden.

Strauss should not be spoken of as being as good as the great batsmen of the world until he strings together a few years of outstanding performances.

Using your criteria, for example, virtually any one in test cricket would take Tendulkar's spot in the Indian side at present (allowing for the fact that everyone seems to ignore performances against Bangladesh). In reality, he continues to be amongst the first chosen in any World X1.

 

[tooextracool]

you might want to read what i posted in the previous post. hayden is hardly a proven performer on seamer friendly pitches. i dont not rate hayden for his poor form off late.

 

[thierry henry]

Hayden just stands and swings at the line of the ball. He is incredibly talented but not exactly what I would call a classical batsman. He admits himself that he initially failed in test cricket because he "tried to play all the proper shots", and is now succeeding by "playing his natural game". My guess is his natural game has coincided very nicely with the prevailing conditions of this era.

 

[tooextracool]

absoultely 100% correct. IMO its one of those strange situations where someone can perform so brilliantly on flat pitches and fail on seamer friendly ones and as a result end up with a flattering test average.

 

[social]

you might want to read what i posted in the previous post. hayden is hardly a proven performer on seamer friendly pitches. i dont not rate hayden for his poor form off late.

Just who is a proven performer on seaming wickets?

But I would assume his Test average of mid-50s indicates that he is as good as most.

As for weaknesses against in-swing, you have taken a snap-shot of a person's career and blown it out of proportion. Tendulkar, Ponting, Langer, etc., etc., etc, have all, at times, been guilty of the same. The trouble for bowlers is that, for 95% of the time, the same balls which periodically trouble them disappear with monotonous regularity to the boundary.

No-one is saying that Hayden is technically perfect but he is as talented as anyone and, by almost unanimous concensus, has been THE dominant batsman in world cricket for more than 3 years until relativel recently.

 

[social]

You might also like to inform me of when Australia last played on a seaming pitch.

We certainly havent played on any in the period when Hayden's form has been down. In fact, if anything, virtually every pitch, with the exception of Brisbane and Perth (which hardly seam but do bounce) has been slower and lower than pitches we usually play on.

Hayden's problems appear to me to be more mental than anything. Having gone through 3 or 4 years when seemingly every errant (and many not so bad) delivery disappeared to or over the fence, he has now become impatient and is looking to hit every ball too hard.

 

[Smudge]

hayden has always struggled whenever the ball seams around, his weakness against the in swinger is the most pronounced of weaknesses. in fact hes never scored runs on a seamer friendly wicket in his entire career. personally had hayden played in the 80s or 90s he would have struggled.

It would be even more pronounced if umpires actually gave him out LBW when he was out.