is hayden a slogger with lots of luck or just a very good batsmen

[Eclipse]

As for Hayden's luck in 2003, as far as I'm aware he scored a 380 where he should have been lbw 1st ball, a 136 and 53* where he should have been lbw in the 40s and 30s respectively, and two chanceless 100s in West Indies plus a 99.
Popgun attacks have still got to be punished, but the fact should still be remembered.

Well seeing as I saw all those inning's I will clear thing's up for you.

No he should not have been LBW first ball in his 380 ball was missing the stump's need I say more.

136 & 53* in Melboune well it really depend's what you call luck. He would have been a little unlucky to be given out to any of those decision's but still they were fairly close so the bowlers could also consider themself's a little unlucky aswell.

 

[Eclipse]

Give me some examples where you've pointed-out my misfounded assumptions and I've still maintained them.
If so I'll take them back here and now.

Well clearly that's imposible.

If you still maintained them you are not going to accept that you are wrong are you?? So you would dismis any example I showed you.

 

[hank_thebigman]

ok, lets strap the pads on some of you boys who are claiming he has made his runs against mediocre attacks and see how long u lastout in the heat and pressure cooker atmosphere of test cricket... it takes skill to get into test cricket and to be successful at it, the ability to last hours under constant on the spot bowling is something which will send some people mad. The quality of hayden is shown through his aggregate of runs in the past 3 calendar years, he clearly has the ability to dominate attacks through his great eye and technique....

 

[marc71178]

No such thing.

I hate to be the one that breaks it to you, but there's no such thing as First Chance Averages either.

 

[marc71178]

No, because you can't use such an unreliable thing to make-up a statistic.

Yet YOU appear to think you can use an unreliable thing to make up your average?

 

[marc71178]

Give me some examples where you've pointed-out my misfounded assumptions and I've still maintained them.
If so I'll take them back here and now.

This whole thread springs to mind...

 

[age_master]

This whole thread springs to mind...

very true though

 

[Cloete]

well tendulkar was dropped twice through his innings. now would you call that lucky?

see even the "best" players in your book give chances throughout big innings. rarely do you see a faultless 100-200. so if your calling hayden lucky. then your probably looking at leading century makers having about 5 at the top that aren't "lucky" in your book. or is it just because you don't like him? or he's australian? or you have sour grapes?

becasue really he has to be considered in the top 5 batsmen in the world. and he didn't get there by luck!

 

[Richard]

Twice? I only saw one. And it was on 140-odd. So he was lucky to get more than that, of course he was, do you really need me to tell you that? But he wasn't lucky to make however many he made before getting dropped.
If enough people say "he didn't get there by luck" it seems they comfort each other they are right. And yet I have demonstrated that he has scored many of the runs which have mislead people to rate him such through luck.
Everyone gets dropped sometimes, that is inevitable, especially with the abysmal standard of catching ATM. But just because everyone else gets dropped doesn't detract from the fact that Hayden does. More than most.

 

[Richard]

Yet YOU appear to think you can use an unreliable thing to make up your average?

As I say, very rarely is a let-off disputable. Nor is an unlucky saw-off.
The unreliable thing is to use three chances when very rarely, even these days, are three let-offs received in one innings.

 

[Richard]

This whole thread springs to mind...

Well, then, provide some examples...

 

[Richard]

I hate to be the one that breaks it to you, but there's no such thing as First Chance Averages either.

Yes there are, you just don't value them.
And yet you still haven't answered the question: what is the difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a dropped catch and a caught catch, a missed stumping and an accepted stumping? And a bad Umpiring decision and a correct one?

 

[Mister Wright]

Twice? I only saw one. And it was on 140-odd. So he was lucky to get more than that, of course he was, do you really need me to tell you that? But he wasn't lucky to make however many he made before getting dropped.
If enough people say "he didn't get there by luck" it seems they comfort each other they are right. And yet I have demonstrated that he has scored many of the runs which have mislead people to rate him such through luck.
Everyone gets dropped sometimes, that is inevitable, especially with the abysmal standard of catching ATM. But just because everyone else gets dropped doesn't detract from the fact that Hayden does. More than most.

I can't remember Hayden getting dropped all India series.
Ponting's the one who has been dropped this series.

And the innings you refer to hayden being dropped against England at the 'Gabba, he had already posted his hundred before he was dropped. Did he get those runs through luck?

 

[Mister Wright]

Yes there are, you just don't value them.
And yet you still haven't answered the question: what is the difference, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned, between a dropped catch and a caught catch, a missed stumping and an accepted stumping? And a bad Umpiring decision and a correct one?

Cricket

 

[Richard]

ok, lets strap the pads on some of you boys who are claiming he has made his runs against mediocre attacks and see how long u lastout in the heat and pressure cooker atmosphere of test cricket... it takes skill to get into test cricket and to be successful at it, the ability to last hours under constant on the spot bowling is something which will send some people mad. The quality of hayden is shown through his aggregate of runs in the past 3 calendar years, he clearly has the ability to dominate attacks through his great eye and technique....

Yet another great emotive, talking-up statement that attempts to reveal non-existant values and does nothing to devalue the basic fact that lots of his runs have been scored through luck.
As for the substandardness of myself as a batsman, so what? I never said it doesn't take any skill to score runs in Test-cricket, I never said it was simple. I simply said it is far simpler than people think it is.

 

[Richard]

Well seeing as I saw all those inning's I will clear thing's up for you.

No he should not have been LBW first ball in his 380 ball was missing the stump's need I say more.

136 & 53* in Melboune well it really depend's what you call luck. He would have been a little unlucky to be given out to any of those decision's but still they were fairly close so the bowlers could also consider themself's a little unlucky aswell.

That's all fair enough.
Finally I know for sure about the Hayden 1st ball of 380.
As for the MCG innings', I call luck being given not-out to a ball that hit the pad without hitting bat first, hit in line, did not pitch outside leg and was clearly going on to hit the stumps. It's not rocket-science, the lbw law.

 

[Richard]

Mate, you rarely get a big innings without giving a chance.

An oft-used phrase to attempt to talk-down the value of dropped catches. And totally untrue. You get big innings that don't contain let-offs all the time.
Inevitable, really, given that there are so many good batsmen around and so many matches to play in.

 

[Sudeep]

Stop this nonsense. Hayden, on any given day, is a very very good batsman. His style maybe different, but is darn GOOD.

 

[marc71178]

Yes there are, you just don't value them.

And neither, it appears, does the rest of the Cricketing World.

 

[Rik]

And neither, it appears, does the rest of the Cricketing World.

And ANOTHER post by Richard you feel the need to put one over him with!

Marc, if it doesn't need to be said, don't say it. Saying that the whole "Cricketing World" doesn't care what one person says...if you can tell that then obviously you are on another level to us.

All these threads are about is you taking what Richard says the wrong way, and I doubt all of them are just by mistake. Seriously about half the forum is made up of exactly why you think certain people are idiots or arguing old old arguements using the same evidence which proves nothing!

This forum is for everyone to make their views known, and I don't see why it is your job to make mindless replies to those views. Give it a break and close any threads that arn't going anywhere, like this one.

Do you realise what it feels like to get the internet back after a few days without it and come onto this forum and be faced with at least another 100 posts by you slagging Richard's ideas off? Come on they are ideas, he's a little eccentric, sometimes he doesn't explain his ideas fully, but then, since when have you been so perfect you've answered everything you've been asked? It makes me wonder why I even come back to this forum, it's not discussion, it just seems to be "Let's Insult Richard Time."

Go on just say it, 100 lines now:

"I think Richard is an idiot"

And be done with it.