Hmm ok.
What does it matter when the Hansie Cronje era ended? We're talking about their bowling. It was clearly excellent for at least a year before the Aussie test series.
Australia had 3-4 batsmen at their absolute peaks at that time and no attack was going to blunt them.
The argument is not whether the SA attack & team where in good form leading up the 2001/02 - they clearly where. But whether the team looking at their form with all the hype at the time of the clash with AUS being the "Unofficial World Test Championship" - was IF SA
really had the artilery to topple AUS. The feeling by a few was ATT that the SA team was a bit over-rated although & AUS was likely to smoke them & that was proven.
If you compare the SA team form leading into the 2001/02 series to lets say the form ENG where before the 05 Ashes or SA before the won in AUS last summer. Those teams always looked capable of potentially toppling AUS snce they where better equipped than SA 01/02.
And in your case you're just being arbitrary then. I saw Donald too, yes clearly past his peak. No, nowhere near poor or bad or even decent. Still taking wickets at a good clip. As I said, you need to go back to 99 for a series where he averages above 30 and that was against Zimbabwe, who were on the up, but definitely not a great team.:
Donald may not have entered the series in poor or bad form - but seeing him bowl in the 4 tests he played he was CLEARLY a spent force as soon as the series started. Donald probably should have retired after the AUS tour since it a disappoiting sight seeing that great bowler bowling at 80 mph in Jo'Burg getting smashed & having to be carried of injured.
Donald bowling in AUS in 2001/02 was a bit like Walsh & Akram the previous years in 2000/01 & 99/00. They where both passed their peaks (although still decent) - but without the
pace of their youth on those flat AUS pitches they were easy for the AUS batsmen.
Whether you said it or think so is frankly irrelevant. Pollock was in that time an excellent
seamer...in fact better than McGrath was uptil that point. Something more interesting: Pollock had
never averaged above 30 in a series until that one. He was on track to be one of the top all-time bowlers ever.
Pollock wasn't better than McGrath up 2001 at all even if he statistically is better.
Secondly Pollock was an excellent seamer yes - but not a
swing-bowler. So Pollock had two problems in 2001.
- Hayden's weakness of the ball swinging into the front pad, Pollock never had the ability to swing the ball into the pads of left-handed in his carrer even at his peak. Plus his record againts left-handers is not as good as agiants right handers.
- Plus the pitches where flat, so Pollock didn't have any seamer friendly conditions to exploit.
Theifore with the conditons not in his favour, Pollock didn't trouble Hayden.
Kallis is not supposed to be a great bowler but as an attack of 3 it was a pretty good one. To write it off shows regard for only extremes. An awesome Pollock, a good enough Donald and a career peak Kallis. Very fine attack.
See above.
Actually, upto that point the pitches were still fairly good although they were getting flatter.
I dont know about the rest of the world. But in those 6 tests their was not a bowler/seamer friendly conditions prevalent. Mcgrath/Warne being the great bowlers they where of course could get wickets on glass - so the pitch conditions where never going to be an obstacle for them.
This is the problem, you can't really say anything about his batting in the 90s for he barely played any Test cricket. So this whole argument is a farce.
No. It plainly obvious that Hayden was in test he played in the 90s was technically exposed by some great bowlers, you just had to watch him bat. Get the 96/97 DVD of the WI vs AUS series & see him leaving alone Ambrose & getting bowled like a dunce. That was the worst dismissal of Hayden's career until Flintoff bowled him behind has back during the 05 Ashes.
Do you know how well Hayden did against McGrath in the 90s for instance? I suggest you check it up. You, like Richard, are generalising too much.
Again, this is why your arguent, like Richard's, in certain aspects is just a farce.
You can accept how he did for Queensland and acknowledge he face like quality and succeeded...yet you deny it as something that is not bankable or a "clear argument" yet your argument rests on, what, 7 tests in the 90s? Puh-lease.
Intensity? You watch him play for Australia A vs McGrath? Did you see their little tussle?
YouTube - McGrath/Hayden Incident - 1995
It was very competitive back then and Hayden's record is too good to argue. Besides you're arguing about a technical deficiency Hayden had...what you're arguing here refers more to form.
Firstly that youtube clip potentially is a bit misleading since that C&B series match was in 94/95. McGrath technically didn't peak as bowler until the WI Tour in 95.
Plus i'm sure you will be able to dig up some scorecard from a domestic game with QSL vs NSW where he may have scored a hundred vs McGrath. I did say in that post that FC cricket in AUS in 90s was definately as competitve as tests.
But what about the runs vs the touring teams?. As the example i gave with Cartlon Baugh over even Alastair Cook during the 05 Ashes, scoring runs againts a touring team is not the best guide, since that team could have very well have been playing on low intensity.
Facts is you can't seriously believe the Hayden you saw in the 90s was the same batsman when he came back in 2001.
Wrong though, facing India in India was at that time was about as hard as anywhere. In fact, even Richie boy doesn't demean his performances there...that's why you never hear Richard talk about Hayden playing great quality spin - he certainly showed himself there.
I said runs againts quality pace attacks in bowler friendly conditions in that period. His ability againts the spinners was never in doubt. Between Mumbai 01 to Cairns 04 he smoked average pace attacks on flat decks - no debates.
Hayden went 15 tests without a century there, it was more than a bit bad - he averaged around 30 IIRC.
Yes he indeed went into a trott between Bangalore 04 to Wellington 05. But at the same time in few tests vs PAK & NZ - he was expossed technically to swinging ball into his pads - the first time since ENG 01.
He only faced Mills in 1 inning and got the better of Akhtar in what only a looney would call favourable batting conditions.
Check it back. Off my head right now i'm very sure Akhtar dismissed Hayden about 3 times in 4 innings, Hayden was all at sea to Akhtar bowling full & straight at high pace swinging back into his pads.
When you're arguing Kyle Mills exposed Hayden in 1 inning yet ignore that S.African series...that says it all really.
Mills is a swing bowler, he swings the new ball red or white & had the ability to swing the ball into the pads of left-handers - thus he got Hayden. As i said above the SA 01/02 attack has to be ignored since none of those bowlers had that ability.
Plus as i mentioned in previous post SA attack of 05/06 & 07/08 was better. Especially 05/06 where Hayden had seamer friendly conditions to counter & he clearly had erased that technical flaw from the past.
LOL. I've never heard such glaring technical deficiencies being fixed in a MONTH in 3-4 tests. If they were that easy to overcome, surely he would have done so in the 90s
.
Well he did it, which shows why he is great player. Since as i said before such a technical & mental adjustment could end careers.
Hayden was just rank bad and out of form prior and during this series. You're taking too many liberties here.
Already explained this above.
All in all, technique is only a means to an end. What bothers me most about some cricket fans is when people talk about them as if they are hard and fast scientific rules.
Hardly any batsman in history has ever had a perfect technique. But those batmsen with the least technical flaws, surely would be most likely to survive & score runs againts a quality pace attack - vs a batsman who is not so technically sound.
You want to talk about techniques...look at Sehwag. Yet he did awesome against both McGrath and Warne. Yet had he not played them some would say "had he played in that era he could never have scored against them, and Atherton is better".
Haa well i wont say that. Although i would say Sehwag wouldn't average 50 if he played in 90s & Atherton would definately have averaged 45+ in this 2000s era. Plus i'd back Atherton to survive and score hundreds againts a testing pace attack than Sehwag.
At the end of day Ikki dawg we both clearly agree that Hayden is great & is one of the best openers of all-time & i presume you like me would have him opening for the AUS ATXI. It just seems here that means by which we have come to this conclusion about his greatness, is slightly different. But no prob..
