This thread is inspired by the Golden Pairs feature on cricinfo. The idea is to determine who would win in a hypothetical faceoff between a bowler and batsman in cricket history in a series of 10 matches. So, for example, if I think Dravid woud dominate Mohammad Sami, I would say that Dravid beats Sami 8/10, and if I feel Allan Donald has an edge over Inzamam, I would say that Donald trumps Inzi 6-7/10 times. So just a few matchups to set this off:
Warne vs. Viv Richards (Viv had some occasional trouble with Chander and Qadir, but Warne had his own against the bombastic Pietersen who bats like Richards)
Imran vs. Tendulkar (really hard to say)
Dennis Lillee vs. Steve Waugh (again, very tough to call)
Murali vs. Gavaskar (Gavaskar has an edge IMO, he was superb at playing spin)
Shoaib Akthar vs. Allan Border (unstoppable force vs. immovable object, who wins?)
Brian Lara vs. Derek Underwood on uncovered wickets (a true test of Lara's skill)
Hayden vs. Hadlee (Hayden brutalized medium pacers, but Hadlee was no ordinary medium pacer)
Sydney Barnes vs. Bradman (who knows?)
Lovely. Dont forget Bradman vs WI 4-prong of the 70s & 80s. Greatest batsmen vs greatest bowling attack ever.
For the above:
Originally Posted by subshakerz
Warne (6 out of 10)
Imran (7 out of 10)
S Waugh (5.1 out of 10)
Gavaskar (7.5 out of 10)
Border (6 out of 10)
Lara (8 out of 10)
Hadlee (9.5 out of 10)
Barnes (5.0000001 out of 10)
I get the feeling that Border would have easily handled Akhtar.
Would love to see Sachin at his peak (1998/99) against Saqlain Mushtaq at his peak in an ODI battle.
would most probably be 5 out of 10. at their respective peaks imran is as likely to knock sachin's out early as tendulkar carting him around the ground. have seen khan make attacking batsmen look like fools and sachin make great fast bowlers cry "mommy".
Originally Posted by MrIncredible
I believe they played against each other quite a bit during this time. In tests, Saqlain did fairly well, in ODI it was pretty even.
Originally Posted by metallics2006
I am inclined to agree, especially given Langer's success against Shoaib. And Shoab gets spent pretty easy.
Originally Posted by NUFAN
Although this probably would be a popular view given that many people see Hayden as batsman who would fail againts top-class bowlers/attacks. IMO this is unfortunate since Hayden at the back end of his career sort of extinguished this myth to some degree.
Originally Posted by MrIncredible
true. that is why he gets 0.5 out of 10 against hadlee
Originally Posted by aussie
Hayden scores vs. Hadlee
184* (probably off 200 balls)
Could just seem him having a blinder on one occassion but Hadlee keeping him relatively quiet otherwise.
I actually think he would do fairly better against Hadlee. His real troubles are against 90mph + high pace inswing bowling like Shoaib in 2004, Flintoff/Jones in 2005 and Steyn in 2008. He didn't really seem troubled by medium pace seamers like Pollock. Having said that, Hadlee is arguably the best of all, so I would still give him 6-7/10 over Hayden.
Originally Posted by bagapath
On Australian pitches in the 2000s, Hayden would kill Hadlee. Probably a solid 7/8-10 for Hayden.
In favourable batting conditions in the second phase of his career (and especially aside from his slumps circa.... 2005 and 2008?) Hayden basically annihilated anyone who bowled under 140.
hayden was capable of killing mediocre bowlers. but hadlee belonged to the super elite class - a top 10 pace bowler of all time. dont think matty hayden's weak technique could have withstood hadlee's swing, cut, accuracy and variation.
Originally Posted by thierry henry
paddles was anyway well above pollock's pace. so no stepping out business for mr. hayden. he will have to stay put in crease and he will succumb to his own dodgy back foot play. hadlee averaged an incredible 17+ runs per wicket in australia. in the batsmen friendly 2000s he would have given away more than that; probably as much as mcgrath, but not too much.