Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 135

Thread: is hayden a slogger with lots of luck or just a very good batsmen

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    cape town
    Posts
    5

    is hayden a slogger with lots of luck or just a very good batsmen

    Personally i think his a slogger with lots of luck if you want a good opening batsmen look at sachin tendulkar everything about him is class,with no slashing like our good friend hayden!
    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,790
    I think you cannot call SRT an opener.

    Unless it's in ODI's, in which case Hayden's style of batting is not out of place!
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  3. #3
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I wouldn't call Hayden a slogger, just someone who had a hell of a lot of luck in 2001 and 2002, and has also played some very big innings against popgun bowling in conditions offering no seam or swing.
    Sloggers are the like of Richard Johnson and Shahid Afridi.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  4. #4
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Hayden is someone who doesn't stick to the rule book and a lot of his shots can be classed as slogs. He is a very good batsman but the weakness of current bowling attacks around the world is helping his, and Ponting's records no end.

    Australia have a very ordinary attack without Warne and McGrath, and McGrath's last series wasn't amazing, after all he is getting on a bit at 34.

    South Africa have Pollock who doesn't take as many wickets as he used to, but still takes them at low average with a low econ rate. In Ntini they have the 2003 top Test wicket-taker and the perfect foil for Pollock, a strike bowler who attacks while Pollock keeps the pressure on from the other end. A poor man's Allan Donald but he's doing a job this year, even if he is a little expensive. Nel is looking a useful backup seamer, Pretorius I think can become another useful backup seamer. Lack of quality spin is the reason Australia beat them last time, Adams is either useless or unplayable and is probably the best option at the moment, Peterson is very ineffective, and Boje, whilst useful, is injured at the moment and is picked as a bowler who bats, Australia had no problems with him last time he faced them. South Africa have probably the strongest attack, since Warne and McGrath are of an unknown quantity after so much time off and Lee, Williams and Bracken are hardly as effective.

    England have one of the weakest attacks of the lot, Anderson has serious talent but is burnt out at the moment, Caddick is injured and might never get picked again, even though the attack badly needs him. Gough lost pace after his injury and is mistakenly being left out of the ODI squad when they really need an experianced leader of the attack, a space left open with Caddick's retirement. Hoggard is useful in swinging conditions, Harmison doesn't perform against good batting sides and questions are being asked about him due to injuries and his attitude. Flintoff is an economical Fast Medium change bowler but struggles to be as effective as he is in ODI cricket. Giles and Batty are triers but now even in spinning conditions they are lacking effectiveness.

    India have another very weak attack. Kumble can only bowl effectively in India, Harbhajan has talent but has struggled with a finger injury although he forms a good partnership with Kumble at home on turning pitches. Nehra is very inconsistant, Agarakar is too but he does seem to be able to take wickets now. Khan is their only decent seamer but he's dogged by injury due to a high workload and is expected to cover both the strike and stock bowler roles. The Australian batsmen have made hay against this attack in all but one instance, an inspired spell of bowling by Agarkar in which quite a few Aussie batsmen threw their wickets away.

    Sri Lanka have Vaas who can either be brilliant or amazingly ordinary, most of the other bowlers arn't worth of a mention. Zoysa has fallen out of favour and Buddika looked useful but seems to be out of favour too. Murali usually bowls most of the Sri Lankan overs, and picks up most of the wickets, so the support bowlers are rarely used or even given much of a chance. Due to Murali and Vaas, Sri Lanka's attack isn't the worst, but the lack of strong support bowlers means Murali is over-worked and often bowls with injuries. It also leaves the batsmen with a release of pressure when the support bowling comes on.

    Zimbabwe have Streak who is a world class seamer who is coming back into form. Blignaut is an inconsistant but useful seamer. Price is an ever-improving left-arm spinner. Zimbabwe suffer from politically motivated selections such as Mahwire who is picked for Test after Test without doing anything and such selections stop the pressure building up on batsmen. They usually wait till Price and Streak tire then feast on the support bowling.
    New Zealand have Tuffey who has become a very solid med-fast seamer, but their only World-Class seamer, Bond, is usually injured. Butler recently took 6-46 against Pakistan but followed it up with 1-100. He has pace but only time will tell if he can marry it to consistancy. Vettori is the world's best left-arm spinner but rarely gets the chance to bowl in friendly conditions.

    Pakistan have Shoaib Ahktar who is often brilliant, and have support seamers in the talented but inconsistant Mohammed Sami and the solid looking Shabbir Ahmed. They have a talented young leg-spinner in Danish Kaneria who has only really performed against Bangladesh, and continue to leave out Saqlain Mushtaq who is, by fair, their best spinner. Pakistani Selection Politics mean that you are never sure who will play in the next game.

    Bangladesh have an incredibly weak attack, which is not helped by the captain, Khaled Mahmud's willingness to over-bowl himself. Mortaza, the talented young seamer, is injured and has suffered from several bad injuries of late. Only time will tell if they affect him. Left arm spinner Mohammed Rafique has a decent Test record although he rarely turns the ball.

    Some decent attacks, but also, a lot of weak ones.
    "Age is just a stupid number"

    20...that's a rather big number :(:(:(


  5. #5
    International 12th Man Bazza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hants, England
    Posts
    1,710
    I agree that Hayden has ridden his luck alot. It's hard to believe he has such a high average, even compared to Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid or even Ponting. I think his average will fall steadily over the next couple of years - he actually averaged higher than ever this year but subtract his 380 (I don't think we'll be seeing a repeat of that in 2004) and he 'only' averaged 58. I think with Hayden now 32 also he might start to decline, but one thing is that he has only really made runs in Australia. At home he averages 65 but away his average is 49, and most of that is from two good tours to India and West Indies. To be fair Hayden has only played 20 away tests which isn't the biggest sample.

    In conclusion, he has an exceptional record but has probably rode his luck to do so well, his style suggests he shouldn't really be able to average over 50. Again though I feel Hayden has tended to make runs when the going is easy and I think if he had played 100 tests his average would be significantly lower.
    My house is burned down but I can see the sky.

  6. #6
    State Captain krkode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,781
    I personally don't think Hayden is a luck rider. Just a darn good bat.

    He's unstoppabe.

    He's intimidating.

    He's good.

    I haven't been able to say that about a batsman since Tendulkar, but now I can. Hayden is just something else. He's the kind of batsman who will never have a peak, because he doesn't need one!

    I also agree, though, that his average will slide somewhat. But I'm pretty sure it'll never go below 50. He's not that kind of a bat

    It is unlikely, however, that he'll ever be rated alongside Tendulkar by the "cricketing gods" just because he's Australian (and Australians have it easy, don't they?) and because he hasn't played as much as Tendulkar. When you're playing since 16, you evolve into a legend. When you're playing since 25 (?) you gotta go till you're 45 to evolve into a legend. Legendary evolution takes time :P

  7. #7
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,364
    Originally posted by Bazza

    In conclusion, he has an exceptional record but has probably rode his luck to do so well, his style suggests he shouldn't really be able to average over 50. Again though I feel Hayden has tended to make runs when the going is easy and I think if he had played 100 tests his average would be significantly lower.
    What!? A first class average of over 50 having played 230 first class matches. This is a ridiculous post and brought about by non-Australian supporters who are jealous that their countries don't have adequate talent or development programs that breed test-class players.

    Throughout Hayden's career he had been a nicker and got early in his innings especially on green pitches. But you know what he did - he worked hard at it and now hardly ever nicks the ball. Before the tour of India he got Kevin Mitchell to do him up an Indian like pitch at A.B. field and he practiced and practiced and practiced and it paid off as he averaged over 100 on that tour of India.

    JUST BECAUSE HE MAKES BATTING LOOK EASY AND CAN DO WHAT MANY OTHER BATSMAN CANNOT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A SLOGGER.

    People like to throw in Hayden's face that he has had a lot of big innings against weak attacks, but people never mention that Bradman also scored prolificly against South Africa, India & the West Indies who were very weak when they entered the test arena.

    Get off it, Hayden is a great batsman, and average of 58.54 stands for itself.
    Last edited by Mister Wright; 30-12-2003 at 05:54 PM.
    Cricketweb Colts Captain



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Hayden > Lehmann
    I'm a member of Club Kerry

    I'm Green

    The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!

  8. #8
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by Mister Wright
    JUST BECAUSE HE MAKES BATTING LOOK EASY AND CAN DO WHAT MANY OTHER BATSMAN CANNOT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A SLOGGER.
    It is more due to Hayden's style of play, which is not the most attractive. He relies a lot on brute power and hits the ball in the air a lot. He is not what I would call an attractive orthodox batsman, and he also does score a lot of runs against weak attacks.

    People like to throw in Hayden's face that he has had a lot of big innings against weak attacks, but people never mention that Bradman also scored prolificly against South Africa, India & the West Indies who were very weak when they entered the test arena.
    The difference is Bradman scored heavily against a very strong England attack, the team he played the most often.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,364
    Originally posted by Rik
    It is more due to Hayden's style of play, which is not the most attractive. He relies a lot on brute power and hits the ball in the air a lot. He is not what I would call an attractive orthodox batsman, and he also does score a lot of runs against weak attacks.
    Go see one of his big innings live and then if you tell me it isn't attractive I will believe you. I agree he is not orthodox, but his record speaks for itself.



    The difference is Bradman scored heavily against a very strong England attack, the team he played the most often.
    Yes, I know and if every batsman played against just England I'm sure alot more players would be averaging close to 100.

  10. #10
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by Mister Wright
    Go see one of his big innings live and then if you tell me it isn't attractive I will believe you. I agree he is not orthodox, but his record speaks for itself.


    Record means nothing when you are talking about weather he's attractive or not. Hayden is one of the least attractive batsmen I've seen based on seeing a lot of his innings in highlights (ie the best bits) and live in England.


    Yes, I know and if every batsman played against just England I'm sure alot more players would be averaging close to 100.
    Now you must be joking. I'm sorry but if every batsman played against just England they would not average 100, not now, not then.

    Bradman played 37 of his 52 Tests against England. He averaged 89.78

    Strong performances against India (5 Tests average 178.75), South Africa (5 Tests average 201.50) and the West Indies (5 Tests average 74.50) boosted his average to 99.94

    Bowlers such as Gubby Allen and Hedley Verity, Wally Hammond, Alec Bedser and Eric Hollies not good enough for you? Any batsman average over 100 against them? Actually just look back to the last series against England and the one before that, I don't see any batsman averaging 100, let alone Hayden.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,364
    Originally posted by Rik






    Now you must be joking. I'm sorry but if every batsman played against just England they would not average 100, not now, not then.

    Bradman played 37 of his 52 Tests against England. He averaged 89.78

    Strong performances against India (5 Tests average 178.75), South Africa (5 Tests average 201.50) and the West Indies (5 Tests average 74.50) boosted his average to 99.94

    Bowlers such as Gubby Allen and Hedley Verity, Wally Hammond, Alec Bedser and Eric Hollies not good enough for you? Any batsman average over 100 against them? Actually just look back to the last series against England and the one before that, I don't see any batsman averaging 100, let alone Hayden. [/B]
    Yes, I was joking. I was just making the point that Hayden has scored against strong attacks (India in India, South Africa at home and in South Africa) like Bradman did against England but people like to think that Bradman scored ALL his runs against strong attacks when it is not the case.

  12. #12
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by Mister Wright
    Yes, I was joking. I was just making the point that Hayden has scored against strong attacks (India in India, South Africa at home and in South Africa) like Bradman did against England but people like to think that Bradman scored ALL his runs against strong attacks when it is not the case.
    You were joking? Bloody hell Wrighty let me know next time!

    Bradman didn't score all his runs against strong attacks, but seriously he played all but 15 Tests against England and averaged 89.78, and against quality bowlers. So really Bradman did what no batsman had done before or done since, played most of his Tests against a strong opponent and still averaged damn near 90. Tests against England basically made up his Test Career, so he did make most of his runs against strong attacks.

  13. #13
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    I couldn't be bothered to read through this thread at minutes to 11 in the night, so if my views have been shared already so be it.

    IMO Hayden is not a slogger with a lot of luck. Rather I think he is a very good batsman. However, he is not a very attractive batsman and accumulates his runs with rather unattractive strokes, yet not particularly risky.

    Of what I have seen he doesn't give an awful lot of catches, so I really don't see a problem with him aside from the fact that I wouldn't watch him bat unless I had to.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."


  14. #14
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,364
    Originally posted by Rik
    You were joking? Bloody hell Wrighty let me know next time!

    Bradman didn't score all his runs against strong attacks, but seriously he played all but 15 Tests against England and averaged 89.78, and against quality bowlers. So really Bradman did what no batsman had done before or done since, played most of his Tests against a strong opponent and still averaged damn near 90. Tests against England basically made up his Test Career, so he did make most of his runs against strong attacks.
    Surely England didn't have a strong attack for every test against Bradman!

  15. #15
    Rik
    Rik is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year Rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Shropshire, England
    Posts
    8,353
    Originally posted by Mister Wright
    Surely England didn't have a strong attack for every test against Bradman!
    Pretty much every Test I've looked at had at least one bowler who would go on to take 1000-2000 FC wickets.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •