Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[pasag]

Stop.

 

[Fiery]

I don't think so. Maybe too much swearing, but being falsely accused of that annoys and infuriates me more that being called a racist.

Never called you a rascist and never would dcye...religion and race are two different things anyway... Peace brother.

 

[PY]

I don't think so. Maybe too much swearing, but being falsely accused of that annoys and infuriates me more that being called a racist.

Go **** yourself you idiot.

So you think it's OK to say that to another member?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Never called you a rascist and never would dcye...religion and race are two different things and I wouldn't accuse you of either..just speculation on the motives behind your Haydos-hatred. Peace.

I didn't say you did, was just saying it angers me more to be called that than being called a racist.

But whatever. Lets leave Kaz and C_C to their fun.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

So you think it's OK to say that to another member?

Depends what he said for mine. Clearly against the rules, but I've done worse and not been warned for it.

 

[Fiery]

just saying it angers me more to be called that than being called a racist

be called what?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

be called what?

Anti-religious.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I appreciate Hayden for his ability, as I do with most of the Australians. But he's an ugly batsman IMO, so I can never actually like him. He's a top quality batsman though.

 

[Fiery]

Anti-religious.

since when did anyone get offended by being called "Anti-Religious"

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I do.

 

[Zinzan]

I appreciate Hayden for his ability, as I do with most of the Australians. But he's an ugly batsman IMO, so I can never actually like him. He's a top quality batsman though.

Just demonstates we all have a different view on what is ugly. I certainly wouldn't describe Hayden as elegant batsmen, but he is far from ugly IMO. I enjoy watching him plant his front foot down the wicket as he smashes the ball through the line. He reminds me of a left handed Chris Cairns (obvously a much better batsman than Cairnsey) with his awesome power. IMO i actually think Gilchrist is uglier to watch, but each to their own.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Quite like watching Gilchrist generally. He's one of the best cutters of the ball in the modern era, and like most non-Hayden lefties he's nice to watch through the covers too.

Hayden's not as ugly as, say, Symonds, but he's not an elegant batsman by any stretch, and usually isn't quite as spectacular as Symonds is.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Quite like watching Gilchrist generally. He's one of the best cutters of the ball in the modern era, and like most non-Hayden lefties he's nice to watch through the covers too.

Hayden's not as ugly as, say, Symonds, but he's not an elegant batsman by any stretch, and usually isn't quite as spectacular as Symonds is.

Symonds when batting can be so ugly.Especiallly his dismissal yesterday when the bat twirls around after he plays the shot.He is very unbalanced at the crease IMO and he often try's to hit the ball to hard.Still has a pretty good ODI record mind.

 

[Zinzan]

Don't get me wrong Fiaap, I'm not saying Gilchrist is an ugly batsmen either, I just prefer to watch Hayden in recent form of the two of them. Gilchrist is a magnificent cutter of the ball though, maybe the best i've seen since Greenidge.

 

[mavric41]

I can not stand reading the crap that has been written in this thread about Hayden not being this, not being that, not being good enough, can only play crap bowling, why his career only took off when the Australians bribed the other countries not to pick their best players and the groundsmen to make sure the pitches were flat when they batted.

Unlike a lot of you I have WATCHED cricket since the late 70's and not just rattle off some figures and make generalizations that in your mind justifies your biased point of view.

I have watched Hayden since he made his debut for Queensland (when he scored a hundred).
It was quoted that he made only about 500 runs @26 prior to 2001. I can give you a detailed explanation why. Hayden was selected as the reserve batsman for a tour to South Africa and only made his debut when Mark Taylor pulled on the morning of the match. He made 40 in the first inning but suffered a broken hand courtesy of Allan Donald. Against advice he went out to bat in the second innings where scored a duck. (This was after he toured England in 1993 where he was favorite to open with Taylor but Slater was picked instead)

He then did not get another opportunity until the 1996/97 tour by the West Indies when he was the only Australian top order batsman to hit a hundred in that series. Yet after two more tests against South Africa he was dropped in favour of Matthew Elliot.

The next time he was selected was when Mark Taylor was going through his long form drought. This immediately put pressure on Hayden who was trying to re-establish himself as Taylor was either getting out early or batting selfishly to try to get out of his rut.

It was only when Hayden was picked by Steve Waugh to replace Greg Blewett in the third test against New Zealand and given an extended run that he started to feel part of the team and gain the confidence that he belonged at the top level. He didn't start performing at his elite level until Slater (who was going through freefall in his personal life which reflected in his batting) was replaced with Langer with whom he built a great partnership.

To say that Hayden can't perform against seam attacks is false. He averages over 60 at the Gabba, which along with Perth was the most seam friendly ground in Australia during the 90's

You rattle off that list of bowlers as if they all played in the same team at their peak all the time. The only team that had a truly great attack was the West Indies but they played the game at their pace (65 -70 overs per day) with a lot of balls which today would have been called no-ball or wide because of height.

You belittle Hayden and Ponting because they haven't scored runs against the best attack. It is not their fault that their team had the best bowlers. Following this logic, you would have to discount the records of Viv Richards and co because they never faced their own attack.

Cricket has changed enormously over the last 30 years that I have been watching. Conditions have changed, new teams and rules have been introduced, players are full time professionals who train with innovative techniques designed by computers. Its pointless trying to compare how someone might have gone due to some imagined flaw or fault in their technique that you don't like.

Players can only perform against the opposition they face in the conditions they are given. In this regard Hayden had an outstanding record. If test cricket was so easy, everybody would have better records than Hayden - few do.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Surprise Surprise? Not really - He'd been out of form for about 6 months before the tour and continued his poor run until the Oval test. England had a decent pace attack, but they didn't undo Hayden owing to his poor back foot play, they did him with XXX mints and reverse swing which they haven't gone anywhere near repliating since. And he did pretty well against that England attack next time around, albeit without Jones.

Small point, but generally it was conventional swing & fielders put on his drive that did for Hayden in the 05 Ashes rather than reverse. He didn't really last long enough for the ball to start to "go Irish" until The Oval.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He did actually get out to reverse a couple of times. There was one spell in particular from Flintoff where he was causing Hayden plenty of trouble with reverse and then bowled him behind his pad with an outswinger that started outside leg.

 

[Zinzan]

Gawd please don't tell me, not the Hayden can't play against seam bowling argument again

I remember having this argument with TEC a couple of years and all he could come up with was approximately 6 instances in the 120 odds innings hayden had played at the time of him failing on a seamers pitch.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just demonstates we all have a different view on what is ugly. I certainly wouldn't describe Hayden as elegant batsmen, but he is far from ugly IMO. I enjoy watching him plant his front foot down the wicket as he smashes the ball through the line. He reminds me of a left handed Chris Cairns (obvously a much better batsman than Cairnsey) with his awesome power. IMO i actually think Gilchrist is uglier to watch, but each to their own.

Gilchrist also falls firmly into the ugly category for mine. The only Australian batsmen of the last 5 years who I genuinely enjoyed watching are Damien Martyn, Justin Langer and Mike Hussey.

 

[Matt79]

I can not stand reading the crap that has been written in this thread about Hayden not being this, not being that, not being good enough, can only play crap bowling, why his career only took off when the Australians bribed the other countries not to pick their best players and the groundsmen to make sure the pitches were flat when they batted.

Unlike a lot of you I have WATCHED cricket since the late 70's and not just rattle off some figures and make generalizations that in your mind justifies your biased point of view.

I have watched Hayden since he made his debut for Queensland (when he scored a hundred).
It was quoted that he made only about 500 runs @26 prior to 2001. I can give you a detailed explanation why. Hayden was selected as the reserve batsman for a tour to South Africa and only made his debut when Mark Taylor pulled on the morning of the match. He made 40 in the first inning but suffered a broken hand courtesy of Allan Donald. Against advice he went out to bat in the second innings where scored a duck. (This was after he toured England in 1993 where he was favorite to open with Taylor but Slater was picked instead)

He then did not get another opportunity until the 1996/97 tour by the West Indies when he was the only Australian top order batsman to hit a hundred in that series. Yet after two more tests against South Africa he was dropped in favour of Matthew Elliot.

The next time he was selected was when Mark Taylor was going through his long form drought. This immediately put pressure on Hayden who was trying to re-establish himself as Taylor was either getting out early or batting selfishly to try to get out of his rut.

It was only when Hayden was picked by Steve Waugh to replace Greg Blewett in the third test against New Zealand and given an extended run that he started to feel part of the team and gain the confidence that he belonged at the top level. He didn't start performing at his elite level until Slater (who was going through freefall in his personal life which reflected in his batting) was replaced with Langer with whom he built a great partnership.

To say that Hayden can't perform against seam attacks is false. He averages over 60 at the Gabba, which along with Perth was the most seam friendly ground in Australia during the 90's

You rattle off that list of bowlers as if they all played in the same team at their peak all the time. The only team that had a truly great attack was the West Indies but they played the game at their pace (65 -70 overs per day) with a lot of balls which today would have been called no-ball or wide because of height.

You belittle Hayden and Ponting because they haven't scored runs against the best attack. It is not their fault that their team had the best bowlers. Following this logic, you would have to discount the records of Viv Richards and co because they never faced their own attack.

Cricket has changed enormously over the last 30 years that I have been watching. Conditions have changed, new teams and rules have been introduced, players are full time professionals who train with innovative techniques designed by computers. Its pointless trying to compare how someone might have gone due to some imagined flaw or fault in their technique that you don't like.

Players can only perform against the opposition they face in the conditions they are given. In this regard Hayden had an outstanding record. If test cricket was so easy, everybody would have better records than Hayden - few do.

If you're going to start bringing actual information, rather than half-baked stats or crass generalisations, Mav, I'd suggest that you're in the wrong thread...