Mark Waugh

[stephen]

Originally Posted by Richard

I've never said he didn't have the talent to handle fast bowling, I've said he didn't have the talent to handle fast swing and seam bowling. If the ball didn't move, Hayden was dynamite against bowlers 130-150kph; if it did, he wasn't much crack at all. That was proven immediately after the India 2000/01 tour (all that tour proved was how good he was against spin when there was no seam around), and it was even proven again in 2004/05, 2005 and 2006/07.

So you are saying that the very best bowlers that have ever existed in the history of the game, in ideal conditions are going to do well against Hayden. You could say the same about any batsman.

Oh and his form slump in 04/05 was an extended slump which started against India, which were hardly known as having a great seam attack, which ended with a century in his last test in swinging conditions and bad light (though admittedly with the absense of Simon Jones).

Fact is I've seen Hayden triumph against extremely quick domestic attacks when the ball has been swinging and seaming at the Gabba. Bowlers who were bowling around the 140-145 kph mark. Fact is that Hayden dominated his era and scored a higher ratio of centuries than any batsman since Bradman.

Which openers in this decade have been better than Hayden? Which would you consider "world class" who could play "in any era" and be successful?

[stephen]

So ultimately what Richard is saying is that Hayden wasn't good against quick swinging and seaming bowling but you must discount his success against Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Akhtar and pretty much every other quick he played against.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by stephen

So ultimately what Richard is saying is that Hayden wasn't good against quick swinging and seaming bowling except when you discount his success against Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Akhtar and pretty much every other quick he played against.

I think that over simplifies it a bit. His successes only occurred when those bowlers had been suffering from Green Parrot Disease and weren't at their best, and a flattening out of wickets occurred - probably delayed action resulting from the Biblical Flood.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

I've seen pitches described as minefields. That deck was a little tougher. Psychologically more than anything because when the ball didn't hit the massive cracks, it played relatively true. It's just that Taylor, Mark Waugh and Blewett got unplayables so it looked a bit worse than it was. Patient play won the day as Lara's knock showed.

Won't try to take away from Haydos' knock that day because he did play quite well but his knock suffers because he got out padding up playing for spin to a bloke who (maybe) turned a handful of balls in his Test career and I don't recall him getting too many which spat in the same way as the other blokes' did. Good knock but 'worth a ton', I dunno.

lol.. wasn't Lara's knock a bit of a stroke filled treat? Gary Sobers was interviewed and I think it was Ian Chappell who mentioned he never really watches cricket that much as he finds most players play boring. And he sat through a whole session where Lara almost scored a 100...

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

lol.. wasn't Lara's knock a bit of a stroke filled treat? Gary Sobers was interviewed and I think it was Ian Chappell who mentioned he never really watches cricket that much as he finds most players play boring. And he sat through a whole session where Lara almost scored a 100...

Yeah, I meant in between the shots there was patient play, basically waiting for the loose ones and hammering them, keeping out everything else..

[social]

Originally Posted by stephen

So you are saying that the very best bowlers that have ever existed in the history of the game, in ideal conditions are going to do well against Hayden. You could say the same about any batsman.

Oh and his form slump in 04/05 was an extended slump which started against India, which were hardly known as having a great seam attack, which ended with a century in his last test in swinging conditions and bad light (though admittedly with the absense of Simon Jones).

Fact is I've seen Hayden triumph against extremely quick domestic attacks when the ball has been swinging and seaming at the Gabba. Bowlers who were bowling around the 140-145 kph mark. Fact is that Hayden dominated his era and scored a higher ratio of centuries than any batsman since Bradman.

Which openers in this decade have been better than Hayden? Which would you consider "world class" who could play "in any era" and be successful?

Dont bother, you'll never get any sense rom Richard on this issue

[Richard]

Originally Posted by stephen

So you are saying that the very best bowlers that have ever existed in the history of the game, in ideal conditions are going to do well against Hayden. You could say the same about any batsman.

I know, and hence I'm not saying such a thing. I'm saying that any particularly good swing and seam bowler (regardless of whether fast, fast-medium or medium-fast) when not completely nullified by ball or pitch (whichever applicable) would pretty much always have the wood over Hayden, and in fact did.

Oh and his form slump in 04/05 was an extended slump which started against India, which were hardly known as having a great seam attack, which ended with a century in his last test in swinging conditions and bad light (though admittedly with the absense of Simon Jones).

His "form slump" of 2004/05 was mostly due to the fact that Kyle Mills and Shoaib Akhtar (mostly - there were others on occasions) exploited the flaw in his game that had always been there. His moderate performances in India early in the season had less to do with that though the last two of the four Tests were played on (uncharacteristically) very bowler-friendly decks.

Fact is I've seen Hayden triumph against extremely quick domestic attacks when the ball has been swinging and seaming at the Gabba. Bowlers who were bowling around the 140-145 kph mark.

Great - I haven't and haven't seen any evidence to suggest he did.

Fact is that Hayden dominated his era and scored a higher ratio of centuries than any batsman since Bradman.

Couldn't care less - completely irrelevant.

Which openers in this decade have been better than Hayden? Which would you consider "world class" who could play "in any era" and be successful?

None have been better of those who've played since 2001/02, but plenty of them would in my books have been more successful had they and Hayden played prior to 2001. You have to get out of your head the idea that a player who is more successful than another under one set of circumstances will always be more successful under any set of circumstances.

[stephen]

Well Richard, I'm just in shock that anyone could think that a player who has had so much success on both the Gabba and in South Africa could be seen to be weak against high quality swing and seam bowling. Those two places would expose a flawed technique against seam/swing moreso than anywhere else.

[Richard]

There is no hard-and-fast rule and I've seen hundreds of utterly lifeless decks at The 'Gabba and the many Test grounds in South Africa. Hayden certainly played on many such things.

[Mister Wright]

The international pitches at the 'Gabba are not a representation of the pitches that are used during the domestic season.

The conditions in Brisbane have also changed over the last 10 years. There is a lot less rain earlier in the season and the average temperature has increased by 3 degrees. I can understand why you wouldn't have seen seaming pitches in Brisbane. However, that cannot deny the FACT that during the 90s there were a lot of seaming decks in Brisbane, and I, myself watched countless innings when Hayden had to nullify first day decks with plenty of juice in them and quality quicks such as Reiffel and Fleming (who were genuine swing bowlers). More often than not Hayden not only succeeded in these conditions, but he flourished.

Yes, early on in Hayden's career he struggled against top class quicks. But, he was never given true confidence by the selectors or Taylor. It is no coincidence that when he came into the team under Waugh, a man that valued his place in the team he became the world class player he should be remembered as.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

The international pitches at the 'Gabba are not a representation of the pitches that are used during the domestic season.

The conditions in Brisbane have also changed over the last 10 years. There is a lot less rain earlier in the season and the average temperature has increased by 3 degrees. I can understand why you wouldn't have seen seaming pitches in Brisbane. However, that cannot deny the FACT that during the 90s there were a lot of seaming decks in Brisbane, and I, myself watched countless innings when Hayden had to nullify first day decks with plenty of juice in them and quality quicks such as Reiffel and Fleming (who were genuine swing bowlers). More often than not Hayden not only succeeded in these conditions, but he flourished.

Yes, early on in Hayden's career he struggled against top class quicks. But, he was never given true confidence by the selectors or Taylor. It is no coincidence that when he came into the team under Waugh, a man that valued his place in the team he became the world class player he should be remembered as.

Mr.Wright is always right...

[Ikki]

Stephen...Richard doesn't know what he is talking about.

You mention the S.African series where Hayden faced Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Kallis and he has an excuse. Sure, Donald was not at his best at that time...but he was far from poor. However, both Kallis and Pollock were at their career bests during that time and them 2 + a raw Ntini and a still decent Donald got pummelled. IIRC Hayden averaged 100+ in that series. Not 40, 50...but 100+. He even has the audacity to downplay the 50 degree monster series played against Pakistan when batsmen had trouble getting to double digits. Sure, it was hot for the bowlers...it was hell for the batsmen.

His whole argument rests on a handful of tests in the 90s. He ignores the fact that Hayden beat up touring bowlers while playing for Queensland or even his innings against the very best like McGrath domestically. He ignores the fact that Hayden could have adjusted had he been given the chance all for the sake of his limited argument.

IMO, Richard's problem with Hayden runs deeper than Cricket, and I am puzzled as to what it could be. Go to this thread where he is trying to argue Hussain was better than Hayden. His posts there are truly cringeworthy.

----

Anyway, I expected to be reading about Waugh in this thread. I think Junior was a very good player but like TC I wonder what would have happened to him had he been dropped several times when he really didn't merit his place.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Stephen...Richard doesn't know what he is talking about.

No, you don't know what you're talking about when you mention me, but that's nothing new.

You mention the S.African series where Hayden faced Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Kallis and he has an excuse. Sure, Donald was not at his best at that time...but he was far from poor. However, both Kallis and Pollock were at their career bests during that time and them 2 + a raw Ntini and a still decent Donald got pummelled. IIRC Hayden averaged 100+ in that series. Not 40, 50...but 100+. He even has the audacity to downplay the 50 degree monster series played against Pakistan when batsmen had trouble getting to double digits. Sure, it was hot for the bowlers...it was hell for the batsmen.

I've no desire to go through all this again but suffice to say this entire paragraph is wrong.

His whole argument rests on a handful of tests in the 90s.

You can say this as often as you like and you can try to misrepresent other people's words as often as you like. All it does is show you up as of poor character. I'd suggest you stop doing it.

He ignores the fact that Hayden beat up touring bowlers while playing for Queensland or even his innings against the very best like McGrath domestically. He ignores the fact that Hayden could have adjusted had he been given the chance all for the sake of his limited argument.

I don't ignore those opinions (not facts) but I don't agree with them.

IMO, Richard's problem with Hayden runs deeper than Cricket, and I am puzzled as to what it could be.

The fact that you're puzzled as to what it could be but still think that such a thing exists says it all. You can't counter the cricket-related points so you resort to fabricating other nonsensical ideas.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

The international pitches at the 'Gabba are not a representation of the pitches that are used during the domestic season.

The conditions in Brisbane have also changed over the last 10 years. There is a lot less rain earlier in the season and the average temperature has increased by 3 degrees. I can understand why you wouldn't have seen seaming pitches in Brisbane. However, that cannot deny the FACT that during the 90s there were a lot of seaming decks in Brisbane, and I, myself watched countless innings when Hayden had to nullify first day decks with plenty of juice in them and quality quicks such as Reiffel and Fleming (who were genuine swing bowlers). More often than not Hayden not only succeeded in these conditions, but he flourished.

If your experiences lead you to this conclusion then fair enough and I've never decried anyone for doing so (there are one or two others like you). I have seen different things and thus come to a different conclusion.

Yes, early on in Hayden's career he struggled against top class quicks. But, he was never given true confidence by the selectors or Taylor. It is no coincidence that when he came into the team under Waugh, a man that valued his place in the team he became the world class player he should be remembered as.

Took a good while after he came into the team under Waugh for him to start scoring prolifically. 24 months in fact. Kinda suggests that Waugh's influence was not significant and that rather something else was.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Stephen...Richard doesn't know what he is talking about.

You mention the S.African series where Hayden faced Donald, Pollock, Ntini and Kallis and he has an excuse. Sure, Donald was not at his best at that time...but he was far from poor. However, both Kallis and Pollock were at their career bests during that time and them 2 + a raw Ntini and a still decent Donald got pummelled. IIRC Hayden averaged 100+ in that series. Not 40, 50...but 100+. He even has the audacity to downplay the 50 degree monster series played against Pakistan when batsmen had trouble getting to double digits. Sure, it was hot for the bowlers...it was hell for the batsmen.

His whole argument rests on a handful of tests in the 90s. He ignores the fact that Hayden beat up touring bowlers while playing for Queensland or even his innings against the very best like McGrath domestically. He ignores the fact that Hayden could have adjusted had he been given the chance all for the sake of his limited argument.

IMO, Richard's problem with Hayden runs deeper than Cricket, and I am puzzled as to what it could be. Go to this thread where he is trying to argue Hussain was better than Hayden. His posts there are truly cringeworthy.

----

Anyway, I expected to be reading about Waugh in this thread. I think Junior was a very good player but like TC I wonder what would have happened to him had he been dropped several times when he really didn't merit his place.

Hate going around in circles. But Richard is right about the SA attack of 2001/02 tbf. Donald was definately passed his peak by then - no comparison to the Donald Hayden faced in the 90s. Donald bowling at high pace 90mph last was seen when ENG toured SA in 99/00.

Otherwise of course has is DEAD wrong.