Hayden or Anwar?

[nightprowler10]

Matt Hayden's FC: 23484 runs @ 53.37
Saeed Anwar's FC: 10169 @ 45.19

Which player do you think played in a higher standard of FC matches?

What do stats have to do with technique?

 

[Matt79]

Nothing, but the conversation has moved on since then. I voted for Anwar in answer to your specific question anyway.

 

[nightprowler10]

Nothing, but the conversation has moved on since then. I voted for Anwar in answer to your specific question anyway.

Good man, now I shall let you live.

 

[The_Bunny]

Anwar had the better technique, but I think Hayden would still handle those attacks better...
Third option it is

 

[Matt79]

As I said it is a question that is little more than a curiosity. Technique is only one leg of the tripod that any good test batsman needs, the others being a good "eye" and concentration. Hayden's technique, while effective enough for him, is inferior to many, but his eye and concentration are so good he's still a superior Test batsman to many out there - including Anwar.

 

[Craig]

Has to be jumanji.

 

[Richard]

As I said it is a question that is little more than a curiosity. Technique is only one leg of the tripod that any good test batsman needs, the others being a good "eye" and concentration. Hayden's technique, while effective enough for him, is inferior to many, but his eye and concentration are so good he's still a superior Test batsman to many out there - including Anwar.

Disagree, feel he'd be inferior to Anwar and many others in most times, but happens to be superior at the current one.

 

[Matt79]

Shocked - don't know what to say tbh.

 

[Mister Wright]

Disagree, feel he'd be inferior to Anwar and many others in most times, but happens to be superior at the current one.

Disagree. At the time Hayden begun his career he was far from the batsman he is today. He had the talent, temprement, technique etc to suceed at the highest level, as was shown by his dominance at domestic level. The only thing that was holding him back was his belief that he could succeed at the top level. Once he broke through (as he did in India) he has never looked back, apart from a few lean patches. I'd say if he was facing the likes of Ambrose, Akram, Younis etc at their peak the batsman he is today he would be very successful.

 

[Perm]

[/queensland]

 

[Richard]

People seem to be forgetting that Anwar's technique was hardly from the textbook either, he (like Hayden) was a magnificent player of spin, however against the quicks he was at times very flashy and his footwork quite often lacking, relied on a great eye and excellent wrists but I remeber a fair few flat footed slashes outside the offstump.

You could say the same about Gordon Greenidge, no-one called him technically poor, and he averaged 47 for most of his Test career against attacks mostly infinitely better than Hayden has ever faced.

Anwar, likewise, averaged fairly similar against probably even better attacks. If Hayden would be remotely capable of scoring 43 and 118 against Donald, de Villiers, Pollock and Klusener (pretty indisputably the best seam-attack since Marshall, Holding, Garner and Walsh in 84\85) I'll eat my computer.

 

[Richard]

Disagree. At the time Hayden begun his career he was far from the batsman he is today. He had the talent, temprement, technique etc to suceed at the highest level, as was shown by his dominance at domestic level. The only thing that was holding him back was his belief that he could succeed at the top level. Once he broke through (as he did in India) he has never looked back, apart from a few lean patches. I'd say if he was facing the likes of Ambrose, Akram, Younis etc at their peak the batsman he is today he would be very successful.

Have always believed belief is an overrated thing. That and the fact that I've never believed he was technically equipped to succeed against the best seam-bowlers.

 

[Mister Wright]

You could say the same about Gordon Greenidge, no-one called him technically poor, and he averaged 47 for most of his Test career against attacks mostly infinitely better than Hayden has ever faced.

Anwar, likewise, averaged fairly similar against probably even better attacks. If Hayden would be remotely capable of scoring 43 and 118 against Donald, de Villiers, Pollock and Klusener (pretty indisputably the best seam-attack since Marshall, Holding, Garner and Walsh in 84\85) I'll eat my computer.

2001/02 season against South Africa. South African attack contained Pollock, Donald, Hayward, Ntini, Kluesner & Kallis.

Scores of 31, 131, 138, 3*, 105.

Enjoy your meal.

 

[Athlai]

That and the fact that I've never believed he was technically equipped to succeed against the best seam-bowlers.

There's always that major argument that he's been statistically one of the most successful openers of all time and has played so much that you can hardly just dismiss it as luck. He's also done well against the best seam-bowlers the rest of the world has to offer which is good enough for me.

I believe he could make any side in the world.

Though its very unlikely you'll ever change your opinion on him, a shame really. Because he is a good cricketer.

 

[Mister Wright]

Have always believed belief is an overrated thing. That and the fact that I've never believed he was technically equipped to succeed against the best seam-bowlers.

Considering he average mid 50s for Qld during the 90s when the 'Gabba had the most seam of any ground in Australia I beg to differ.

 

[Mister Wright]

There's always that major argument that he's been statistically one of the most successful openers of all time and has played so much that you can hardly just dismiss it as luck. He's also done well against the best seam-bowlers the rest of the world has to offer which is good enough for me.

I believe he could make any side in the world.

Though its very unlikely you'll ever change your opinion on him, a shame really. Because he is a good cricketer.

A great cricketer.

 

[Goughy]

Have always believed belief is an overrated thing.

That quote may as well be an advert that says "Ive never played sport at a decent level"

Belief is the key to the success of players and the lack of such is the downfall for many talented and technically gifted players.

The mental side of the game is equally, if not more important, than the physical

 

[Richard]

2001/02 season against South Africa. South African attack contained Pollock, Donald, Hayward, Ntini, Kluesner & Kallis.

Scores of 31, 131, 138, 3*, 105.

Enjoy your meal.

Ntini was rubbish at that time, Donald was nothing but a shadow of a once brilliant bowler, Pollock was not much good on flat pitches by then, Kallis likewise, Klusener was past his best, and Hayward for all his potential never managed to be that good.

That, like almost all other attacks since 2001\02 that Hayden's faced, was wholly average.

 

[Richard]

There's always that major argument that he's been statistically one of the most successful openers of all time and has played so much that you can hardly just dismiss it as luck. He's also done well against the best seam-bowlers the rest of the world has to offer which is good enough for me.

I don't dismiss it as luck, I just dismiss it as that virtually every single one of those seam-bowlers didn't really offer that much of a threat, because most of them weren't that good on the flat surfaces mostly (nay, almost exclusively) abounding.

 

[Richard]

That quote may as well be an advert that says "Ive never played sport at a decent level"

Belief is the key to the success of players and the lack of such is the downfall for many talented and technically gifted players.

The mental side of the game is equally, if not more important, than the physical

The mental side of the game is hugely important, no doubts - and lack of the mental skill can stop physically skilled players from being successes. But being good mentally will not stop a technically poor player from doing well, especially one as poor as Hayden.