• 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.

Anyone know what he's referring to?

Majin

International Debutant
"I can't believe Haydos is trying to start another war of words, I thought he would have learned from last time."
Ooh, ominous ... Simon Jones is bemused as to why Matthew Hayden would want to kick off again after what happened last summer

What did Hayden say? Anyone know?
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
DanielFullard said:
Might have been the comments about England relying too much on Flintoff
That was part of it. In the same interview, he opined that the Ashes defeat was entirely down to Aus mistakes and the injury to McGrath - England did nothing to deserve victory.

I'm fine with that, especially if that's how the rest of his side see it. The longer Hayden (and others) stay in denial about 2005, the more chance we have of seeing them off in 9 months time.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Simple fact of the matter is that Engand dominated pretty much from-the-word go if you ignore Lord's (which would be better placed in the past 8 series').
McGrath being fit might've changed that, but it might not have.
The war-of-words really has started early this time...
 

sideshowtim

Banned
Yes, coming from the man who said that England were now the #1 side in the world after narrowly beating the Aussies....maybe you should be the one learning, Simon Jones...
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
sideshowtim said:
Yes, coming from the man who said that England were now the #1 side in the world after narrowly beating the Aussies....maybe you should be the one learning, Simon Jones...
:laugh:

Looking forward to the ****fest just before Nov.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
sideshowtim said:
Yes, coming from the man who said that England were now the #1 side in the world after narrowly beating the Aussies....maybe you should be the one learning, Simon Jones...
Hang about....

Hayden (supposedly) opens his gob and suddenly it's (supposedly) Jones's fault?

Figures, I (supposedly) suppose.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Jones should just throw a ball at Hayden again if he seriously started talking crap after his series last time.

Warne should be the designated smack talker for Australia, because he's the only one that could seriously come out of that series and throw something at the English.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
Hayden actually said something like "looking at the 2 sides, we still have the best 11 players and if we play to our potential, we'll win."

Pretty true but also pretty dumb considering how they performed last year.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
sideshowtim said:
Yes, coming from the man who said that England were now the #1 side in the world after narrowly beating the Aussies....maybe you should be the one learning, Simon Jones...
Narrowly, was it?
Sorry, someone seems to have missed England's utter domination of the final 4 Tests.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
social said:
Hayden actually said something like "looking at the 2 sides, we still have the best 11 players and if we play to our potential, we'll win."

Pretty true but also pretty dumb considering how they performed last year.
And given that he said something similar at several stages last summer.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Narrowly, was it?
Sorry, someone seems to have missed England's utter domination of the final 4 Tests.
While England clearly had the better of the final four test matches, "utter domination" is a ridiculous description. The only one of the four tests that England utterly dominated was the Old Trafford test, where only Ponting prevented them from winning. At Edgbaston the final margin was 2 runs, without a declaration from England, which obviously shows it was a close test. Yes, England dominated the early stages of the test (as they did in all the middle three), but they fell away quite badly and if it wasn't for Flintoff's huge effort with bat and ball on day 3 they almost certainly would have lost.

At Trent Bridge, Australia followed on, but set a tricky target which England had a fair amount of trouble making. It wasn't as close as the second and third tests, but it wasn't a case of domination either, at least not after the end of Australia's first innings.

The Oval was an even test match, and before bad light and rain changed the course of events Australia was probably on top. Indeed, even after the bad light and into the final day an Australian victory was quite plausible and may well have happened if it wasn't for Pietersen's innings, whereas an England win by that point of the game was out of the question.

The 2005 Ashes was one of the closest series in memory, and all of the matches aside from Lords and Old Trafford could have gone either way right up towards the very end. The 2002/03 Ashes was "utter domination", the 2005 Ashes was a close series where one team had the better of the last four tests and were deserved winners. There's a big difference, and for Jones to come out and claim that England were the best in the world (if he did in fact do that) after it is pretty silly, especially comparing the records of the two sides since.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
While England clearly had the better of the final four test matches, "utter domination" is a ridiculous description.
No, it's not.
At Edgbaston the final margin was 2 runs, without a declaration from England, which obviously shows it was a close test. Yes, England dominated the early stages of the test (as they did in all the middle three), but they fell away quite badly and if it wasn't for Flintoff's huge effort with bat and ball on day 3 they almost certainly would have lost.
And but for the near-unthinkable 2 tail-end partnerships we'd have won by 100 runs or so... so the Flintoff effort wouldn't have been so significant.
At Trent Bridge, Australia followed on, but set a tricky target which England had a fair amount of trouble making. It wasn't as close as the second and third tests, but it wasn't a case of domination either, at least not after the end of Australia's first innings.
It wasn't remotely tricky, and we NEVER looked like not making it.
The Oval was an even test match, and before bad light and rain changed the course of events Australia was probably on top. Indeed, even after the bad light and into the final day an Australian victory was quite plausible and may well have happened if it wasn't for Pietersen's innings, whereas an England win by that point of the game was out of the question.
Bad light and rain were always going to be part of a game played that late, and one could argue that but for it Australia wouldn't even have got the position they ended-up getting.
Had bad light not been an issue - say if it was a timeless Test - England might very easily have won after the Warne drop enabled the Pietersen innings.
The 2005 Ashes was one of the closest series in memory, and all of the matches aside from Lords and Old Trafford could have gone either way right up towards the very end. The 2002/03 Ashes was "utter domination", the 2005 Ashes was a close series where one team had the better of the last four tests and were deserved winners.
No, the 2002\03 Ashes was merely domination right from the start - by the team already holding the advantage of being the trophy-holders.
Had Lord's been part of 2002\03, and had a series-draw been effectively a victory for England, and had we finished things off at Old Trafford, 2005 would have been regarded as pretty much every bit as much of a domination as 2002\03 was.
There's a big difference, and for Jones to come out and claim that England were the best in the world (if he did in fact do that) after it is pretty silly, especially comparing the records of the two sides since.
Except that the comparison was made in the immidiate aftermath, not recently...
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Richard said:
Had Lord's been part of 2002\03, and had a series-draw been effectively a victory for England, and had we finished things off at Old Trafford, 2005 would have been regarded as pretty much every bit as much of a domination as 2002\03 was.
Do you read what you type sometimes Richard? Seriously?

Had this, had that. Its really silly going over this.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
There was this incident I remember when Hayden was running out, then Jones threw the ball to the keeper, and hit Hayden by mistake, and then there was some war of words. I don't remember what was said then.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Jono said:
Do you read what you type sometimes Richard? Seriously?

Had this, had that. Its really silly going over this.
No, it's not.
None of them are remotely unreasonable.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Had Lords been apart of 2002/03 isn't unreasonable? It makes no sense. That test was part of the series. England played that test, so did Australia, Australia smashed them, hence England didn't dominate the series.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Err, that match was clearly part of something that disappeared at Edgbaston.
Australia dominated at Lord's. As they had done for most of the Tests since 1989.
Lord's would've been far more appropriately placed in the previous series.
Lord's had virtually nothing in common with the rest of the series.
 

Top