• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

If it was Hayden and Langer in such a spot

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Yesterday, I was watching the South African second innings (following-on) in the Test. My folks said this is what Test cricket is about. They're prepared to stay out there for a time long enough, without taking any risks. Looking at the bowling figures of the English bowlers, none of them got carted around- which was a good thing, because they were very keen on staying there.

Now it's got me thinking. What if it was Hayden and Langer in such a spot, following on and set back by a huge run deficit? Would they carry on their trademark aggression and take on the bowlers? Especially such an attack? Or would they too get stuck in the middle and play out a whole day? Would the Australians' play-to-win style still be seen here? And would it work?
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
They would likely play their own games, be 250 in front by lunch day 5 then roll England for 120 in the afternoon :ph34r:

It's hard to know really. I'd back Langer to play a long dig, Hayden more likely to score a quickish 50-70 odd maybe, although it seems the deck was flat and the ball not doing much. That being so, maybe he'd prosper too.

Good players have the ability to surprise watchers of the game. You see guys like Ponting and Tendulkar scoring quickly, but then you also see them grind out big scores when they need to - Tendulkar in Sydney in 04 and Ponting's 3rd test 2005 2nd innings ton being two examples of players altering their games for the team.
 
Aussies always play their natural game. I have never seen them going back at the backk foot even if they are losing. Playing natural game always goes in your advantage. A little bit aggression decreases the number of close catching fielders very quickly.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hayden has had his share of innings where he's had to dig it out. But, if you go on the attack and score runs quickly the pressure is back on the fielding captain. Langer and Hayden complemented each other so well, not really with their games, but with their relationship as an opening pair.
 

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
May as well have a look at the only time Australia ever followed on during their careers:
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/AUS_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T4_25-29AUG2005.html

I remember a few other times when they flopped when the odds were against them. Sydney 2002 for instance. Although, The Oval 2005 was evidence that they can grind out a match saving partnership if need be so I'd say their capable of doing it.

If given a choice of Smith and McKenzie or Hayden and Langer to save my life in that situation I'd probably toss a coin.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The Question is would Hayden/Langer or for that matter Australia have been in the dire situation South Africa were in? Testament, that only once in their opening partnership that they had to follow on.

Which would you prefer an opening partnership that gets you runs in the first innings or one that saves you tests in the 2nd innings?
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
The Question is would Hayden/Langer or for that matter Australia have been in the dire situation South Africa were in? Testament, that only once in their opening partnership that they had to follow on.

Which would you prefer an opening partnership that gets you runs in the first innings or one that saves you tests in the 2nd innings?
Clearly no one is even suggesting for a minute that Smith and Mckenzie are a better opening partnership.

Its just an interesting question to see how the Australian side would have tackled such an occurrence. Part of me says Hayden would have gone on the attack, considering the pitch, but ya never know.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Clearly no one is even suggesting for a minute that Smith and Mckenzie are a better opening partnership.

Its just an interesting question to see how the Australian side would have tackled such an occurrence. Part of me says Hayden would have gone on the attack, considering the pitch, but ya never know.
I didn't think anyone was suggesting that. However, the question was raised which partnership you'd prefer in the current situation. The answer was a toss of the coin. Given the standing of the Hayden/Langer partnership I'd give them the gong, rather easily.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Reckon they'd start quickly and play their natural game. One thing about having guys like Ponting, Hussey, the Waughs, Clarke, Martyn coming in after you is that you'd back the team to recover if your attempt to knock it off quickly came a cropper. And often the aggressive approach pays off and gets the opposition on the defensive, so its worth the calculated gamble.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I don't think there have been many innings, regardless of position, that Hayden has ever played within himself. One recalls the Oval in 05, but I would put my money on Hayden to play his natural game. As for success? Langer and Hayden would most likely succeed; that is why they are Langer and Hayden.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
May as well have a look at the only time Australia ever followed on during their careers:
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/AUS_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T4_25-29AUG2005.html

I remember a few other times when they flopped when the odds were against them. Sydney 2002 for instance. Although, The Oval 2005 was evidence that they can grind out a match saving partnership if need be so I'd say their capable of doing it.

If given a choice of Smith and McKenzie or Hayden and Langer to save my life in that situation I'd probably toss a coin.
I'd ahrdly say 4-0 from 4 balls at the end of the day constitutes a match-saving partnership :ph34r:
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Australia had similar if not more testing situations in SRI 04 when both Hayden & Langer (although they didn't do it in a partnership) played innings where they had curb their attacking instincts & did it very well.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think there have been many innings, regardless of position, that Hayden has ever played within himself. One recalls the Oval in 05, but I would put my money on Hayden to play his natural game. As for success? Langer and Hayden would most likely succeed; that is why they are Langer and Hayden.
A few I can think of against Pakistan in Columbo and Sharjah, also his breakthrough series against India, he caught, up but started slowly. Even his 380 against Zimbabwe, he took a fair while to get his first 80 or so, it wasn't until the last session on day 1 that he really went beserk.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Would be surprised if they ever played in any way other than looking for strokes.

Whether it worked or not, who would know? Sometimes it would, sometimes it wouldn't. Same as it did under more "normal" circumstances.

And the chances are Australia during their careers wouldn't have been in the position enough times to give us a chance of seeing how it'd work on a longer-term basis.
 

Top