• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Matthew Hayden Career Discussion

aussie

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

Sure.
No. Even they would have gotten smacked by Hayden on a non-seamer during that period. Did you see what Hayden did to Hoggard in Ashes 02/03 on similar flat pitches the next season, who swung your NZ side @ christchurch 2002 on seaming pitch?. The same Hoggard who 2 years later in seaming pitches in the 2005 exposed Hayden's then technical flaws??.





Top_Cat said:
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.

Yea its interesting that his average is indeed is't 30+ for example during that post AUS 01/02 PERIOD. But thats what i say just watching him bowl, its was fairly obvious that he wasn't the Pollock of between England 95/96 - AUS 2001/02.

I would just use the times he played againts Australia & England that i saw mainly:

- When England toured SA in 04/05. Pollock clealry was passed it.

- When SA tour Australia in 05/06. It was the same case, Ntini & Nel where the only threats to Australia. I remember Gilchrist tearing Polly apart in the SCG test.

- After 2006 Pollock in a test vs SRI Lanka was reduced to bowling off-spin. It was quite embarrassing for such a great bowler. But of course you dont have to take my word for it. Read this article


quote said:
Shaun Pollock on the decline

Shaun Pollock and Chaminda Vaas have both lost considerable pace over the last couple of years, but while Vaas continues to be a force as a bowler, Pollock's numbers have declined alarmingly

S Rajesh

August 11, 2006

Text size: A | A

Shaun Pollock tries his hand at offspin. Over the last 15 Tests, Pollock the bowler has struggled to be a potent force © AFP




The second Test between Sri Lanka and South Africa in Colombo was among the most exciting matches in recent times - wickets and runs came at a brisk rate, and neither team dominated for long stretches - but in the midst of all that excitement, a little side story that got ignored completely was the performances of two aging stars who are battling to shine like they did in their pomp.

Shaun Pollock is 33 years old, while Chaminda Vaas is just five months short of 33; both missed the first Test due to various reasons, and both returned remarkably similar figures in the second: Vaas bowled 37 overs, and managed meagre returns of 1 for 124; Pollock bowled two fewer overs and got a solitary wicket for 112 (though more than just the figures, what was a telling sign of Pollock's decline was to see him resort to offspin after being tonked over his head for six by Sanath Jayasuriya). With the bat, though, both had more success, indicating perhaps the direction in which both their careers might be headed - Pollock scored 71 runs in the match to Vaas's 68, with each getting to a half-century.

In the most recent four Tests - including the tour to England earlier this year and the Test against South Africa - Vaas only has a tally of six wickets at 64.83, but generally over the last couple of years his bowling has been fairly incisive. Easily the more alarming decline has been Pollock's - in his last 15 Tests the bowling average has ballooned to 37, more than one-and-a-half times his career average, which itself has gone up from 21.79 to 23.42 during this period. While he took a wicket every 56 balls in his first 87 matches, in his last 15 that figure is a less-than-distinguished 82, with no five-wicket hauls. Pollock's career summary in his last 15 Tests also reveals one other shocking number - an overseas average of 73, with a strike rate of a wicket every 141 balls.

Vaas's recent numbers, on the other hand, stand up to scrutiny much better - the batting average touches 30, while with the ball too he has been a handful, averaging 25.44 with a strike rate which is ten balls lesser than his career stat. (Click here for Vaas's career summary over his last 15 Tests.)

Vaas and Pollock as batsmen Last 15 - Runs Average Career Average Difference
Chaminda Vaas 550 30.55 22.75 7.80
Shaun Pollock 515 28.61 31.95 -3.34


Vaas and Pollock as bowlers Last 15 - Wickets Average Career average Difference
Chaminda Vaas 52 25.44 29.51 4.07
Shaun Pollock 42 37.16 23.42 -13.74



It's also interesting to compare the numbers of Vaas and Pollock with the performances of the great allrounders of the past in their last few matches. Among the four great ones in the 1980s, Ian Botham was easily the one with the most undistinguished last 15 matches: both his batting and his bowling stats dipped to far below their usual normal. Kapil Dev became a less potent force with the ball towards the end, taking only 30 wickets in his last 15 matches, but he still managed a bowling average of 29.33. However, the number of overs he bowled per Test came down drastically from 36 in his first 116 matches, to just 27 in his last 15. Imran Khan's hardly bowled much in his sunset days, but became a giant of a batsman, averaging nearly 73, while Richard Hadlee's skills with both ball and bat remained virtually untarnished with age. And the greatest of them all, Garry Sobers, averaged more than 50 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball in his last 15 Tests. You can't argue with numbers like those.


A half-century of hundreds
The other veteran bowler in the Sri Lankan side, though, has been wheeling away over after over, and adding bucketfuls of wickets to his tally every match. With his 12-wicket haul in the second Test, Murali equalled his own record of taking ten or more wickets in four consecutive Tests. However, had he conceded three more runs in the second innings, Murali would have achieved another first - he would have become the first bowler in the history of Test cricket to concede 100 or more runs in an innings 50 times. Murali has so far taken 175 wickets in the 49 innings in which he has gone for more than 100, with only Anil Kumble anywhere close to him. In fact other than Murali, only three other bowlers - Kumble, Shane Warne and Botham - have had a three-figure number in their runs column more than 30 times. The table below gives the top eight, and it's interesting that Danish Kaneria already has 26 such instances in 39 Tests - that's as many as Abdul Qadir managed in his entire career - and the ratio of Tests to 100-plus innings is far lesser than any other bowler who has given away more than 100 at least 16 times.

Bowlers who've conceded 100 or more runs most number of times Bowler Innings Wickets Average Tests/ 100+ innings ratio
Muttiah Muralitharan 49 175 37.21 2.20
Anil Kumble 43 132 43.62 2.56
Shane Warne 37 117 38.15 3.78
Ian Botham 31 88 42.31 3.29
Danish Kaneria 26 76 43.03 1.50
Abdul Qadir 26 74 42.51 2.58
Kapil Dev 25 70 44.10 5.24
BS Chandrasekhar 22 74 36.84 2.64.
 
Last edited:

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Remember someone (maybe Atherton) saying that Pollock was as quick as Donald when he first faced him, although maybe that was a little by-play in the rivarly that he had with Allan.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
Yeah he looked flat but I put it down to the successive 200-run opening partnerships. Langer/Hayden were on fire, would have troubled anyone the way they were batting. And that was on top of the monster at number 3 who was busily smashing the daylights out of anyone who dared bowl a red or white ball out of him. And, after that came the Waughs. Then Martyn, a bloke in stupidly good form and looking to put the hurt on South Africa himself. Then, just when you were begging for the pain to stop, Gilly would come in and piss on your grave.

**** bowling to that line-up.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Remember someone (maybe Atherton) saying that Pollock was as quick as Donald when he first faced him, although maybe that was a little by-play in the rivarly that he had with Allan.
haha, yep. Do you remember that Atherton also questioned the legitimacy of Pollock's action after that series? May well have been after his first Test.

WAC.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
No. Even they would have gotten smacked by Hayden on a non-seamer during that period. Did you see what Hayden did to Hoggard in Ashes 02/03 on similar flat pitches the next season, who swung your NZ side @ christchurch 2002 on seaming pitch?. The same Hoggard who 2 years later in seaming pitches in the 2005 exposed Hayden's then technical flaws??.
What do seaming pitches have to do with swing?
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
haha, yep. Do you remember that Atherton also questioned the legitimacy of Pollock's action after that series? May well have been after his first Test.

WAC.
I always was interested, after the stringent testing came in for those guys with questionable actions, whether there were high levels of elbow flex on guys like Gillespie and Pollock, who had that real wrist snap about them.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah he looked flat but I put it down to the successive 200-run opening partnerships. Langer/Hayden were on fire, would have troubled anyone the way they were batting. And that was on top of the monster at number 3 who was busily smashing the daylights out of anyone who dared bowl a red or white ball out of him. And, after that came the Waughs. Then Martyn, a bloke in stupidly good form and looking to put the hurt on South Africa himself. Then, just when you were begging for the pain to stop, Gilly would come in and piss on your grave.

**** bowling to that line-up.
Nah they just took advantage of SA bowling unit in decline on flat pitches. If that then unofficial # 1 series was played in 2000 for example. The AUS batsmen would had to work hard for runs just like all those SA vs AUS series between 1993-98.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pollock had flexible limbs in general, remember the big goose-step he had early on? Looked like a collection of rubber bands on stilts was running into bowl.

Gumby
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Now since when Tudor was considered among the greatest bowlers of the world ? If he had scored runs against the Legends like Tudor and Company, you would have come up with another excuse...Wait....both happened..Hayden did score runs against the Greatest English Bowler ever Alex Tudor and you came up with the excuse of Injury.
You also discount his success against SA using another set of bogus excuse.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
What do seaming pitches have to do with swing?
This cant be a serious question.

It is common cricket knowledge that swing bowlers like Hoggard (post 2006), Anderson, Southee become ineffective when they bowl flat pitches, compared to when they bowl on greentops or in overcast conditions. Because the ball does not swing for them & they dont have the ability to reverse-swing the ball to make them dangerous on flat pitches. Thus they become gun-barell straight & batsmen play them easily.

I feel like i'm stating the obvious here.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Yeah he looked flat but I put it down to the successive 200-run opening partnerships. Langer/Hayden were on fire, would have troubled anyone the way they were batting. And that was on top of the monster at number 3 who was busily smashing the daylights out of anyone who dared bowl a red or white ball out of him. And, after that came the Waughs. Then Martyn, a bloke in stupidly good form and looking to put the hurt on South Africa himself. Then, just when you were begging for the pain to stop, Gilly would come in and piss on your grave.

**** bowling to that line-up.
Im not sure thats really a logical reason for why someone who many consider to be an all time great would struggle. That maybe a very good batting side, but there were cracks that were exposed by an even more ordinary bowling NZ bowling attack only a month or so before this series. Both Waughs were on the downhill slope by this point, so the middle order was kind of brittle even though Langer and Hayden were having their golden run of form at this particular moment in time.In fact there was a mini collapse in the first test that was sparked by Claude Henderson of all people but Pollock (and the rest) failed to show to the party.
 
Last edited:

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Now since when Tudor was considered among the greatest bowlers of the world ? If he had scored runs against the Legends like Tudor and Company, you would have come up with another excuse...Wait....both happened..Hayden did score runs against the Greatest English Bowler ever Alex Tudor and you came up with the excuse of Injury.
You also discount his success against SA using another set of bogus excuse.
Just as the discussions where flowly so nicely. This chap enters again.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No team, even one that good, can put up 500+ every knock. NZ bowled smartly that series but were smashed in general, OZ only scoring less than 400 in Perth when facing a 500+ total themselves. Similarly, in general, the Aussies belted the Saffies. Once or twice when they looked in trouble a bit doesn't change that the were in awesome form. Any Test team worth their salt should trouble the Aussies at least once.

That and the pitches were flat. Pollock struggled because of those two things combined I reckon but even if there was a bit in the pitch, the Aussie line-up was just too good.
 
Last edited:

tooextracool

International Coach
Now since when Tudor was considered among the greatest bowlers of the world ? If he had scored runs against the Legends like Tudor and Company, you would have come up with another excuse...Wait....both happened..Hayden did score runs against the Greatest English Bowler ever Alex Tudor and you came up with the excuse of Injury.
You also discount his success against SA using another set of bogus excuse.
Alex Tudor was part of the bowling attack that played, hence his name was mentioned. No one denies that he wasnt ordinary, the point is that it was universally acknowledged at the time that Gough and Caddick were the 2nd best fast bowling pair going around in international cricket.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
No team, even one that good, can put up 500+ every knock. NZ bowled smartly that series but were smashed in general, OZ only scoring less than 400 in Perth when facing a 500+ total themselves. Similarly, in general, the Aussies belted the Saffies. Once or twice when they looked in trouble a bit doesn't change that the were in awesome form. Any Test team worth their salt troubled the Aussies at least once.

That and the pitches were flat. Pollock struggled because of those two things combined I reckon but even if there was a bit in the pitch, reckon teh Aussie line-up was just too good.
Well I dont think the bottom half of your post is relevant because its more of an assumption than a fact. Bottom line is that the pitches that summer were extremely flat and hence Pollock was ineffective.

As far as the Australian batting is concerned, I think you're exaggerating. Im not saying that they werent the best going around but that wasnt the best batting card Australia put up that decade. Nor was the first test against SA the first time that that middle order collapsed either. It happened in almost every test against NZ that same summer. The fact that Hayden and Langer were in the biggest purple patch of their careers at the same time, whilst Gilchrist and the tail notched up a lot of runs kind of covered up the failings of the 2 Waughs. And whatever you say about Australia's batting performances against NZ, no one can deny that they came very very close (and arguably should have) to losing that series.
 

Flem274*

123/5
This cant be a serious question.

It is common cricket knowledge that swing bowlers like Hoggard (post 2006), Anderson, Southee become ineffective when they bowl flat pitches, compared to when they bowl on greentops or in overcast conditions. Because the ball does not swing for them & they dont have the ability to reverse-swing the ball to make them dangerous on flat pitches. Thus they become gun-barell straight & batsmen play them easily.

I feel like i'm stating the obvious here.
Swing has nothing to do with seam or the pitch (unless it's reverse swing). Swing is generally caused by overcast and/or humid conditions, though sometimes you find the ball hoops around randomly under batting friendly skies as well.

Seam is directly influenced by the pitch, not conventional swing.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well I dont think the bottom half of your post is relevant because its more of an assumption than a fact. Bottom line is that the pitches that summer were extremely flat and hence Pollock was ineffective.

As far as the Australian batting is concerned, I think you're exaggerating. Im not saying that they werent the best going around but that wasnt the best batting card Australia put up that decade. Nor was the first test against SA the first time that that middle order collapsed either. It happened in almost every test against NZ that same summer. The fact that Hayden and Langer were in the biggest purple patch of their careers at the same time, whilst Gilchrist and the tail notched up a lot of runs kind of covered up the failings of the 2 Waughs. And whatever you say about Australia's batting performances against NZ, no one can deny that they came very very close (and arguably should have) to losing that series.
Come on, that's omitting some pretty important info! The first Test was rain-affected and only close due to declaration after OZ were 200 runs up on first innings. The second was rain-affected and Australia had NZ in in even more trouble after putting up another huge score. NZ had the better of the 3rd Test but were absolutely in the ****ter in the first two.

Take the rain away and I'm reasonable comfortable in saying that the series would have been all over going into Perth.

As for how what any middle-order collapses meant for the following series against SA, I'd say not a lot. SA's strength was in its pace bowling. Get on top of them and you win the series as just about every team in that period who didn't found out when suddenly the Saffies were all over them. That Hayden and Langer were smashing all before them means a lot more than whether the Waughs were having a run of outs.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
Come on, that's omitting some pretty important info! The first Test was rain-affected and only close due to declaration after OZ were 200 runs up on first innings. The second was rain-affected and Australia had NZ in in even more trouble after putting up another huge score. NZ had the better of the 3rd Test but were absolutely in the ****ter in the first two.

Take the rain away and I'm reasonable comfortable in saying that the series would have been all over going into Perth.
Christopher Cairns would have blasted 150* (86) and we'd have been all good.:cool:
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Swing has nothing to do with seam or the pitch (unless it's reverse swing). Swing is generally caused by overcast and/or humid conditions, though sometimes you find the ball hoops around randomly under batting friendly skies as well.

Seam is directly influenced by the pitch, not conventional swing.
Pitches with grass coverage look after the ball much better, and keep conventional swing happening for longer.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Come on, that's omitting some pretty important info! The first Test was rain-affected and only close due to declaration after OZ were 200 runs up on first innings. The second was rain-affected and Australia had NZ in in even more trouble after putting up another huge score. NZ had the better of the 3rd Test but were absolutely in the ****ter in the first two.

Take the rain away and I'm reasonable comfortable in saying that the series would have been all over going into Perth.
The point I'm making here is that the fact that they even managed to get into that sort of sticky situation in the 3rd test against an attack that was in all fairness bread and butter, should surely have been enough inspiration for the likes of Pollock and Co to not be intimidated.

Australia were certainly a better team than NZ, you are right. But the result of that series could so easily have been 0-2 and you know it.
 

Top