david warner v matthew hayden

[Spark]

Elaborate?

Think he's making a reference to a no-longer-present poster with some... interesting views.

And yeah I find it hard to dislike Warner, who's obviously no intellectual but in a sort of way that's easy to forgive. Hayden's overt religiosity, for one, makes that a lot harder.

 

[uvelocity]

funny that davey couldnt get a shield game for some time

 

[Adders]

And yeah I find it hard to dislike Warner,

You mustn't be trying hard enough..........it really is very easy,

 

[GIMH]

You had to be there, TBH.

And boy are you glad you were

 

[Spark]

You mustn't be trying hard enough..........it really is very easy,

Oh he's very easy to hate in a panto villain sort of way, but not quite in the same way as Hayden

 

[GIMH]

Oh he's very easy to hate in a panto villain sort of way, but not quite in the same way as Hayden

Yeah it is different. That being said Hayden has done a bit of commentary over here and comes across okay

 

[Red]

Haydos did himself no favour with that Hayden's Way crap. FMD

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not sure if 'this site' is skewed by one particular person? Which brings me onto...



This is phenomenal

Nah, in general the English rate Hayden lower than other supporters, and a lot of the cricket posters here are English. You'd get a very different perspective on Hayden from the Indians, just see this thread.

 

[Saint Kopite]

I think by the time he finishes his career, Warner will overtake Hayden but as of now, Hayden.

 

[smash84]

Hayden did play significantly better attacks in the beginning of his career didn't he?

 

[OverratedSanity]

There have not been any "significantly better" attacks than Steyn-Philander-Morkel in history.

 

[Zinzan]

Hayden did play significantly better attacks in the beginning of his career didn't he?

Only right at the start of his career IIRC, around 1994 in which played one or two games against a strong SA bowling line-up. Once he really established himself as a regular around 2000/01, Australia were miles ahead of any other team out there, and during that period I wouldn't say the bowlers he faced were any tougher than what Warner has had to deal with.

All that said, as of today, surely Hayden is still ahead.

 

[smash84]

There have not been any "significantly better" attacks than Steyn-Philander-Morkel in history.

yaeh but when hayden entered pretty much everybody had good attacks

SA had fannie D, Donald, (Pollock would follow soon), Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, even India had Srinath (India's ATG), zim had streak (?) and brandes.

So while there is one very good attack these days, the others aren't really comparable (although England is better these days with Anderson/Braod)

 

[Zinzan]

yaeh but when hayden entered pretty much everybody had good attacks

SA had fannie D, Donald, (Pollock would follow soon), Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, even India had Srinath (India's ATG), zim had streak (?) and brandes.

So while there is one very good attack these days, the others aren't really comparable (although England is better these days with Anderson/Braod)

This is all well & good, however although Haydos debuted in 1994, he only played 5-6 tests between then & becoming a regular around 2000/2001, so those great attacks you talk of weren't really such a factor in his career record.

 

[OverratedSanity]

yaeh but when hayden entered pretty much everybody had good attacks

SA had fannie D, Donald, (Pollock would follow soon), Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, even India had Srinath (India's ATG), zim had streak (?) and brandes.

So while there is one very good attack these days, the others aren't really comparable (although England is better these days with Anderson/Braod)

Please.

SA have Steyn, Philander, Morkel. NZ have Boult, Southee and Wagner (when they bother to select him), England have Anderson and Broad, Pakistan have Junaid and Ajmal (had, sadly), Even West Indies have Roach. Almost everyone these days has a good new ball attack except India and SL. Most of the bowlers I named will go down as great bowlers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is all well & good, however although Haydos debuted in 1994, he only played 5-6 tests between then & becoming a regular around 2000/2001, so those great attacks you talk of weren't really such a factor in his career record.

Might have been a factor if he actually did anything against them ,too.

 

[Zinzan]

Might have been a factor if he actually did anything against them ,too.

Well this is true, think it's fair to say his confidence was shattered in his first few outings at Test level.

 

[smash84]

Please.

SA have Steyn, Philander, Morkel. NZ have Boult, Southee and Wagner (when they bother to select him), England have Anderson and Broad, Pakistan have Junaid and Ajmal (had, sadly), Even West Indies have Roach. Almost everyone these days has a good new ball attack except India and SL. Most of the bowlers I named will go down as great bowlers.

Do you really believe that the attacks that you mention are better than the ones that I mentioned? Pfft

Its another matter of course, as ZinZan mentioned, that Hayden was scarred so badly early on in his career by good bowlers that he took a long time coming back

 

[OverratedSanity]

Do you really believe that the attacks that you mention are better than the ones that I mentioned? Pfft

Sa's attack is certainly up there for me. As is Australia's. NZ's coud be too. In terms of how they're bowling right now in terms of quality, they're as good as any of those attacks. They just need to keep doing it for years and years to build up reputations like those in the 90s. So, yeah, "significantly better"? Not for me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah it is different. That being said Hayden has done a bit of commentary over here and comes across okay

Pretty much, but does kiss the Indian ring something rotten at times.

Knows where his bread is buttered.