When 50= Greatness

[archie mac]

What i said about Hayden & Langer's career progression is not guessing. Thats what happened. Thus it satisfies the the notion that they succeeded in tough batting conditions enough, that it wouldn't be hard to assume they would go do well in a past difficult batting era.

I don't thing Langer would have survived. He was hit in the head that often he would have been the first Test cricketer killed on the field of play

 

[Furball]

What i said about Hayden & Langer's career progression is not guessing. Thats what happened. Thus it satisfies the the notion that they succeeded in tough batting conditions enough, that it wouldn't be hard to assume they would go do well in a past difficult batting era.

I'm not saying your assumptions are wrong, but you're still guessing.

 

[aussie]

I don't thing Langer would have survived. He was hit in the head that often he would have been the first Test cricketer killed on the field of play

, well JL was the best AUS batter in the Ashes 05 statistically & all so although he would have been hit alot still, i reckon his fighting qualities would have gotten him through.

edit: Plus i remember @ Perth 04 when the pitch was flying on the first morning, JL was brillaint againts Akhtar..

 

[archie mac]

, well JL was the best AUS batter in the Ashes 05 statistically & all so although he would have been hit alot still, i reckon his fighting qualities would have gotten him through.

edit: Plus i remember @ Perth 04 when the pitch was flying on the first morning, JL was brillaint againts Akhtar..

No doubt he was brave

 

[Debris]

Combination of two things.

1. Preparation of pitches has improved and they target them to make the game last 5 days. How often these days do you see the pitches that really favour the quick bowlers. The green seamers and pitches with variable bounce has almost disappeared.

2. Protective equipment. Fast bowlers used to have a fear factor that they no longer have. This naturally reduces their effectiveness a bit.

 

[jeevan]

Here's something that's been a bit of a puzzle to me, looked it up and the stats seem to match.

It is generally accepted (in the last 10-15 years or so) that: i) India produces flat tracks. ii) Indian bowlers are not superstars. I.e. all the factors necessary for piling on great scores are present.

Then, how is it that so many of the usual (non-Indian) batting suspects (being discussed in this thread) have poor records here? [ Of course not every one of them, Younis has almost matched Sehwag blow for blow. Jayawardene also scores about 8 more per innings than his career average in India, which is very good).

Other batsmen from the list above that have done fine in India (i.e. Hayden, Kallis,Hussey) have pretty much the same average in India as their overall average. But look at the rest of the bunch:

in India career avg
Ponting 21 55
MoYo 34 54
Sanga 36 55
Samaraweera 24 51
Lara* 33 53
(*Though I dont recall Lara making a dominating impact on any test in India, I was surprised to find he had played only one series in India. His average vs India is 35, over 17 tests - so felt OK to list him with a caveat).
I.e. from the 50+ average group of the oughties: one has done really well, one has done quite well, three have been average and five have seriously underachieved.

Certainly other less storied batsmen have made a mark in India (Misbah, Dilshan not checked stats but from recalling impact in recent tests), and so it can hardly be the case that India is a graveyard for visiting batsmen. But why have so many greats/ftbs floundered when the general arguments suggest otherwise?

(I cant think of a simple answer unlike the case of Warne, Murali in India. I know what I'd wish the answer to be, but dont have a sufficient grasp of the game to come up with a convincing argument).

 

[aussie]

I'm not saying your assumptions are wrong, but you're still guessing.

If i say "I believe the reinvented Hayden wouldn average less than 50 in the 90s". Thats backed up by what he actually did when he played againts 90s like attacks & conditions @ the Oval & vs SA 05/06.

But if i say " i believe he would average exaclty 44.62 if the reinvented Hayden played in the 90s" that is guessing since i can never prove that.


All of this is just like the argument, would Bradman average 99 if he played in 70s, 80s or 90s. I'd say the majority would say no given how he fared in bodyline, which was the only time in his career when he faced a bowler/pace combo on par with what was around in the 70s, 80s or 90s.

 

[Sir Alex]

If i say "I believe the reinvented Hayden wouldn average less than 50 in the 90s". Thats backed up by what he actually did when he played againts 90s like attacks & conditions @ the Oval & vs SA 05/06.

That is the assumption. How can u be certain that 90s attack was exactly like Oval and SA 04-05 attack?

 

[aussie]

That is the assumption. How can u be certain that 90s attack was exactly like Oval and SA 04-05 attack?

05/06 correction. Yes both pace attacks along with the difficult batting conditons where definately on par with anything i saw or that was present in the 90s.

 

[Sir Alex]

05/06 correction. Yes both pace attacks along with the difficult batting conditons where definately on par with anything i saw or that was present in the 90s.

That it was par is just your assumption. test cricket was played in the subcontinent also, and in the 92 series (?) where India whitewashed England 3-0, there were 3 spinners playing. So Oval and SA 05-06 do not capture the entire nuances of the 90s.

 

[aussie]

That it was par is just your assumption. test cricket was played in the subcontinent also, and in the 92 series (?) where India whitewashed England 3-0, there were 3 spinners playing.

Huh?.What does batting in the sub-continent or the 92 ENG tour to IND have to do with this discussion??

So Oval and SA 05-06 do not capture the entire nuances of the 90s.

It perfectly captures the nuances of a good/very good/quality pace attack & difficult batting conditons, which was present in the 90s.

 

[Sir Alex]

Huh?.What does batting in the sub-continent or the 92 ENG tour to IND have to do with this discussion??



It perfectly captures the nuances of a good/very good/quality pace attack & difficult batting conditons, which was present in the 90s.

That 90s is just "good pace attack and difficult batting attacks" is an assumption.

 

[aussie]

That 90s is just "good pace attack and difficult batting attacks" is an assumption.

I never said that only difficult batting conditions & good/very good/quality pace attacks existed in the 90s. Of course you had flat pitches & turners, poor attacks as well then.

I was comparing the runs Hayden scored @ the Oval 05 & SA 05/06 againts two good pace attacks in difficult batting conditions. To the acutal good/very good/quality pace attacks & difficult batting conditions that where present in the 90s. There is no difference.

 

[Sir Alex]

So Oval and SA 05-06 do not capture the entire nuances of the 90s.

It perfectly captures the nuances of a good/very good/quality pace attack & difficult batting conditons, which was present in the 90s.

I never said that only difficult batting conditions & good/very good/quality pace attacks existed in the 90s.

Short memory much?

Of course you had flat pitches & turners, poor attacks as well then.

I was comparing the runs Hayden scored @ the Oval 05 & SA 05/06 againts two good pace attacks in difficult batting conditions. To the acutal good/very good/quality pace attacks & difficult batting conditions that where present in the 90s. There is no difference.

The question is what Hayden would have averaged in the 90s and not what he could have done against "g/vg/q p.a in d.b.c". 90s consisted of turners. flat ones, your "g/vg/q p.a in d.b.c"s, swinging conditions, everything.

 

[aussie]

Short memory much?

Can't you read??. That first statement is nothing making GENERAL view that ALLL the condtions in 90s for batting, where just againts a good/very/good attacks in bowler friendly conditions.

I was refering the those attacks & conditons whenever they where present. Which Hayden clearly got a taste of in the test i already mentioned.

The question is what Hayden would have averaged in the 90s and not what he could have done against "g/vg/q p.a in d.b.c".

No my question & statememt was always refering to what he would have in 90s vs g/vg/qp in d.b.c.

90s consisted of turners. flat ones, your "g/vg/q p.a in d.b.c"s, swinging conditions, everything.

We already know what Hayden did on turners see IND 01 & SRI 04 & on flat decks. Between IND 04 to SRI 04 those where the conditions he dominated in. So one can never doubt the Hayden would have smoked similar stuff he encoutered them if Hayden in peak form played in 90s.

The question marks has always been againts ability againts g/vg/qp in d.b.c's, swinging conditions. So based on how he did in similar 90s like g/vg/qp in d.b.c's @ the Oval 05 & SA 05/0, after correcting his past failures in such conditions. He clearly would have done well in 90s or any past difficult batting era, but I dont believe he would averaged 50 under such circumstances.

 

[Sir Alex]

Can't you read??. That first statement is nothing making GENERAL view that ALLL the condtions in 90s for batting, where just againts a good/very/good attacks in bowler friendly conditions.

I was refering the those attacks & conditons whenever they where present. Which Hayden clearly got a taste of in the test i already mentioned.

Ha a copout with sentences that make sense to only yourself.

No my question & statememt was always refering to what he would have in 90s vs g/vg/qp in d.b.c.



We already know what Hayden did on turners see IND 01 & SRI 04 & on flat decks. Between IND 04 to SRI 04 those where the conditions he dominated in. So one can never doubt the Hayden would have smoked similar stuff he encoutered them if Hayden in peak form played in 90s.

The question marks has always been againts ability againts g/vg/qp in d.b.c's, swinging conditions. So based on how he did in similar 90s like g/vg/qp in d.b.c's @ the Oval 05 & SA 05/0, after correcting his past failures in such conditions. He clearly would have done well in 90s or any past difficult batting era, but I dont believe he would averaged 50 under such circumstances.

Again you are just guessing Hayden of 2001 would have done exactly the same in the 1990s as well. I think the trio of Raju-Chauhan-Kumble of 90s would have posed much problems for him than the lone Harbhajan of 2001.

You are guessing only Aussie. Guessing, guessing, guessing.

 

[Furball]

If i say "I believe the reinvented Hayden wouldn average less than 50 in the 90s". Thats backed up by what he actually did when he played againts 90s like attacks & conditions @ the Oval & vs SA 05/06.

But if i say " i believe he would average exaclty 44.62 if the reinvented Hayden played in the 90s" that is guessing since i can never prove that.


All of this is just like the argument, would Bradman average 99 if he played in 70s, 80s or 90s. I'd say the majority would say no given how he fared in bodyline, which was the only time in his career when he faced a bowler/pace combo on par with what was around in the 70s, 80s or 90s.

You can't prove the first one any more than you can prove the second.

 

[aussie]

Ha a copout with sentences that make sense to only yourself.

No copput, that was the point i was making all the time. You just misinterpreted. I never suggested the 90s that batsmen ONLY encounted on good/very good/quality pace attacks. Do you understand this?? Allright then..

Again you are just guessing Hayden of 2001 would have done exactly the same in the 1990s as well

He doesn't have to score EXACTLY 540+ runs @ 100 if he had played in the 98 series to prove that he could dominate spin. He would done well based on his efforts in similar conditions in this 2000s era.

So i presume you are now to question whether he would have smoked joke attacks on flat decks that were also present in the 90s. That he did for the with much ease through 2001-2009? haa

I think the trio of Raju-Chauhan-Kumble of 90s would have posed much problems for him than the lone Harbhajan of 2001.

Nonsense. Murali,Herath, Chandana (who took 10 wickets in a test in AUS) is SRI 04 on far more spin freindly pitches where better than Kumble-Raju-Chahaun in the 98 series. Which Hayden dominated.

Plus i'm not too sure that how Harbhajan/Kulkarni/Bahutule isn't comparable to that 98 attack. Its one dominant spinner (Harbhajan & Kumble) & two average spinners (Chauhan/Raju vs Bahutule/Kulkarni) who where dangerous in Indian conditions - who troubled exposed AUS batsmen achillies heel vs spin equally as much.

Also Raju played in 01 as well. He was no different to what he was in 98 when i saw him, which was an average spinner who was dangerous in Indian conditons.

You are guessing only Aussie. Guessing, guessing, guessing.

Na i stop guessing since you entered this discussion, since you have engaged me in posting inaccurate information., which i have to correct.

 

[Sir Alex]

He doesn't have to score EXACTLY 540+ runs @ 100 if he had played in the 98 series to prove that he could dominate spin. He would done well based on his efforts in similar conditions in this 2000s era.

So i presume you are now to question whether he would have smoked joke attacks on flat decks that were also present in the 90s. That he did for the with much ease through 2001-2009? haa

Yet why did he not emulate that in 2004 and 2008 in India?

Nonsense. Murali,Herath, Chandana (who took 10 wickets in a test in AUS) is SRI 04 on far more spin freindly pitches where better than Kumble-Raju-Chahaun in the 98 series. Which Hayden dominated.

No. You are guessing again.

Plus i'm not too sure that how Harbhajan/Kulkarni/Bahutule isn't comparable to that 98 attack. Its one dominant spinner (Harbhajan & Kumble) & two average spinners (Chauhan/Raju vs Bahutule/Kulkarni) who where dangerous in Indian conditions - who troubled exposed AUS batsmen achillies heel vs spin equally as much.Also Raju played in 01 as well. He was no different to what he was in 98 when i saw him, which was an average spinner who was dangerous in Indian conditons.

Again you are just comparing bowlers across years and eras by assuming that they could have been better etc.

Na i stop guessing since you entered this discussion, since you have engaged me in posting inaccurate information., which i have to correct.

You are guessing only aussie. Look up the meaning of the term.

 

[aussie]

Yet why did he not emulate that in 2004 and 2008 in India?

In 2004 he was out of form from IND 04 to NZ 05 en route to the 2005 Ashes.

In 2008 he had just came back from an injury which kept him out of cricket for 6-8 months before that tour.

Although he wasn't domiant like 01, he never struggled againts the spin in 2004 & 08. In 08for example Zaheer Khan trouled him the most.

No. You are guessing again.

No i saw both series & that was what occured. I didn't dream that. No way where Chauhan-Raju ind 98 better than Herath & Chandana in 2004

Again you are just comparing bowlers across years and eras by assuming that they could have been better etc.

Haa. 98 & 2001 is a 3 year difference between tours sir.

For all the talk of comparing across eras the 90s & 2000s are very similar in many ways.

You are guessing only aussie. Look up the meaning of the term.

As i said i stop guessing. I am now correcting your inaccurate information about Hayden's career playing spin & the AUS tours to IND 98 & 2001.