*Official* Matthew Hayden Career Discussion

[Top_Cat]

On the topic of average bowlers, rather sadly, I still have some video of Mark Taylor at the crease, bowling in a Hong Kong Super 8's tournament years ago. Should put it up, ordinary at best.

 

[robelinda]

On the topic of average bowlers, rather sadly, I still have some video of Mark Taylor at the crease, bowling in a Hong Kong Super 8's tournament years ago. Should put it up, ordinary at best.

I couldnt believe when Boon became a semi regular bowler towards the end of his career, in the 94/95 one dayers he bowled a fair bit from memory, pretty ordinary! Probably Taylor showing his disgust at the format that summer.

 

[tooextracool]

To me, there ends up being too many attacks that are fading, or out of form, or suddenly exposed, for it all to be a coincidence.

Out of curiosity, what good pace bowling attacks existed between 2000(Hayden's return) and 2005?

 

[morgieb]

Out of curiosity, what good pace bowling attacks existed between 2000(Hayden's return) and 2005?

South Africa? England?

 

[tooextracool]

South Africa? England?

On England, Hayden could barely score a run against the Gough/Caddick/Tudor combo in 2001. Conveniently, the same weakness on show in 2001 was allowed a rerun in 2005 against Harmison/Flintoff/Jones/Hoggard. Right, there was a 3rd English attack that toured except that everyone and their neighbor's dog was injured on that tour which left all the swing bowlers bowling in conditions where the ball barely swung one iota.

As far as the South African attacks are concerned, the attack that toured Australia had Donald who was at the fag end of his career whilst Pollock was always likely to be ineffective in Australia given that he was trundling along at barely 80 mph at that point. Im not even going to bother going into the list of South African bowlers that played the series in SA because there was pretty much no one averaging on the right side of 30.

 

[aussie]

Except you don't wish to discuss anything, you just talk down to others then when they point out clear flaws or inconsistencies in your argument or ask for proof of your "facts" you walk away.

Holddddddd up. Flag up travelling, foul, off-side, wide, no-ball. I "walk away"?.

Firstly you should be last person critiquing anyone about walking away from arguments on CW.net. You of all the posters in this websites history that i have seen, who optimises the idea of poster, who makes posts but never backs up his position & walks away.

If you go through every post & every discussion i have ever had in my near 6 years on this site. You would find absolute no evidence of me walking away from an argument ever, ever, ever , ever. But i know i can find i few from you.

Secondly i have spoken down to anyone ever. Thats is a gross mischarterisation of how i post.

Lets just take this thread for example. You claimed this is what based on every post in this thread about Hayden's carrer, that this is the conclusion you came to:

So let me (try and) get this straight.

For the majority of Hayden's career there was only 1 good bowling attack, the Australian one, and because he didn't score runs against that attack he was a FTB.

Later in his career he faced some tricky attacks and scored runs against them, thus showing he'd corrected the FTB failings.

And i responed by this:

Oh my. Well if this is how summarised every single post i said in this thread about Hayden career. You definately have to try again, since this is stunning lack of comprehension again.

You haven't even responed to that & so you is walking away from discussions now????



Which is unbelievable reasoning when such a post exists earlier in this thread: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2353046-post39.html

So if you saw & read that post & came to the conclusion above. The only inconsistencies here is either in your comprehension skills, reading ability or your vision. You chose the one thats fits the bill.

 

[aussie]

On England, Hayden could barely score a run against the Gough/Caddick/Tudor combo in 2001. Conveniently, the same weakness on show in 2001 was allowed a rerun in 2005 against Harmison/Flintoff/Jones/Hoggard. Right, there was a 3rd English attack that toured except that everyone and their neighbor's dog was injured on that tour which left all the swing bowlers bowling in conditions where the ball barely swung one iota.

As far as the South African attacks are concerned, the attack that toured Australia had Donald who was at the fag end of his career whilst Pollock was always likely to be ineffective in Australia given that he was trundling along at barely 80 mph at that point. Im not even going to bother going into the list of South African bowlers that played the series in SA because there was pretty much no one averaging on the right side of 30.

Sense has come back just in time.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Think a bit of revisionism goes on with Pollock, the guy was still a very good bowler around the 2001/02 series, and a lack of pace never hurt McGrath or Stuart Clark in Australian conditions. Not that he'd seemed to have lost too much pace at this stage of his career, certainly was a fair bit slower next time he came out to Australia.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yes but how will people rubbish Hayden's batting otherwise?

From memory he came to OZ in good touch and was touted as the key to SA winning, Hayden and Langer's rent was just too daaaamn high.

 

[Flem274*]

Not sure what Pollock's pace has to do with anything anyway. He never was that quick and he's too clever and too good to let something like a lack of pace stop him from taking bucketloads of wickets. Pace was never the reason he was so good, accuracy and movement was.

 

[tooextracool]

Think a bit of revisionism goes on with Pollock, the guy was still a very good bowler around the 2001/02 series, and a lack of pace never hurt McGrath or Stuart Clark in Australian conditions. Not that he'd seemed to have lost too much pace at this stage of his career, certainly was a fair bit slower next time he came out to Australia.

I think to me it was pretty obvious by that stage that he needed something in the pitch to take wickets. I think had he played the return series in SA, he might actually have had a better chance of being threatening. The guy had a dreadful tour of Australia that year, I mean you can talk about how well Australia played him but for someone who was still a very 'good' bowler, you'd expect better returns than 8 wickets off which almost half were tailenders.

Not that I dont think Pollock wasn't a good bowler at that point, its just that on a flat pitch the guy had about as much of a chance of taking wickets as anyone else in the SA attack.

 

[robelinda]

Pollock was plenty pacy early in his career, in his debut series in 95/96 vs England he was quite quick, same on the 97/98 Aussie tour. Had us in all sorts on day 1 of the 1st test at the MCG, no-one could lay a bat on him. Flat as a tack pitch at Adelaide he got 7-fer and was a real handful for us, but that was literally the only time he troubled us, and SA might have won that test if the umpires gave M Waugh out hit wicket.......

 

[tooextracool]

Not sure what Pollock's pace has to do with anything anyway. He never was that quick and he's too clever and too good to let something like a lack of pace stop him from taking bucketloads of wickets. Pace was never the reason he was so good, accuracy and movement was.

Pollock was definitely quicker earlier in his career. Not lightening quick, but the guy was bowling regularly at speeds in the mid 80s earlier in his career.

And yes, accuracy and movement was what he relied on but he got no movement in Australia. He was still accurate but I think its fairly obvious that accuracy alone doesn't take wickets and definitely not against Hayden.

 

[aussie]

Think a bit of revisionism goes on with Pollock, the guy was still a very good bowler around the 2001/02 series, and a lack of pace never hurt McGrath or Stuart Clark in Australian conditions. Not that he'd seemed to have lost too much pace at this stage of his career, certainly was a fair bit slower next time he came out to Australia.

Pollock clearly was still good during the 2001/02 series in AUS. He was the only good bowler in the 2001 series for SA. The argument is that after that series he suffered a shoulder injury which caused him to miss the return series SA, which aftetwards he went into steady decline as a test bowler. Pollocks peak as a test bowler was from 95/96 - 2001/02 (vs AUS).

Pollock suffered from lack of support in that series & plus given he wasn't a swing bowler. He didn't have the ability to trouble Hayden's then weakness againts inswingers on those flat pitches in that series.

 

[aussie]

I think to me it was pretty obvious by that stage that he needed something in the pitch to take wickets. I think had he played the return series in SA, he might actually have had a better chance of being threatening. The guy had a dreadful tour of Australia that year, I mean you can talk about how well Australia played him but for someone who was still a very 'good' bowler, you'd expect better returns than 8 wickets off which almost half were tailenders.

Not that I dont think Pollock wasn't a good bowler at that point, its just that on a flat pitch the guy had about as much of a chance of taking wickets as anyone else in the SA attack.

Would have struggled equally as well. Given those pitches in SA 01/02 was just as flat as the ones seen in AUS (except for parts of the Durban test).

 

[Flem274*]

Pollock suffered from lack of support in that series & plus given he wasn't a swing bowler. He didn't have the ability to trouble Hayden's then weakness againts inswingers on those flat pitches in that series.

So what you're saying is he needed to give James Anderson and Tim Southee the smack to be a proven non-FTB?

Sure.

 

[Top_Cat]

Pollock averaged about 2 runs more than his career average and took about half his Test wickets after 2000.

Any cricketer (let alone a pace bowler) would take a steady decline that good.

 

[TT Boy]

Not sure what Pollock's pace has to do with anything anyway. He never was that quick and he's too clever and too good to let something like a lack of pace stop him from taking bucketloads of wickets. Pace was never the reason he was so good, accuracy and movement was.

Not lightening but he was rapid early on. The speed guns Sky use in the UK, the ones which make Tim Bresnan clock 88mph would definitely have him touching 90+mph regularly. Recall Polly being quicker on debut than when Dale Steyn first appeared. Steyn wasn’t actually that quick in the debut series against England, just completely wayward.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah I do remember he was quick early on but unless I'm bang off target here that pace didn't last for very long? IIRC it lasted a couple of years max.

Pace wasn't too important to his bowling imo. Made batsmen look ******** often enough bowling in the high 130s. Such a gun to manage that in the modern era.

 

[tooextracool]

Pollock averaged about 2 runs more than his career average and took about half his Test wickets after 2000.

Any cricketer (let alone a pace bowler) would take a steady decline that good.

The guy was seriously good when he got anything in the pitch. The problem was that post 2001 he didn't have the pace to trouble anyone when there wasnt anything in the pitch. I dont deny that he wasn't a good bowler overall. But did he bowl well in that series in Australia? Lets be honest here, he really didn't ever look like taking wickets.