Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[dontcloseyoureyes]

How can you "hate his guts"? Here's a guy who has worked hard to become a good enough player to represent his (or your) country and gone on to score mountains of runs in all forms of the game for Australia...(your country). Now he's in the form of his, (or anyone's), life, and you still can't give him credit. Is it because he's religious? too old for you? or is it just the fact he's taken "Watto"'s spot? I'm struggling to fathom it.

WTF? I said I just don't like watching him bat. There's no doubt he's a great cricketer, one of the best of his era, that doesn't mean I have to like watching him.

Also, where the **** did the anti-religious **** come from? Go **** yourself you idiot, don't accuse me of **** like that.

 

[C_C]

I think you have to drill some sense into your own head. You've explained nothing, you've generalised - shotty generalisations at that.

Simple stuff, chap. Lets try it again : Relativistic comparison is meaningless without an empirical standard, unless ofcourse, you happen to be 3x better than your next-best competitor ala Bradman.

Simple enough ? Clear ? This is such a simple point, really. Do you agree or disagree- a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer please. No BS.

It still can't ignore the consistent and dominant century making of players like Ponting or Hayden.

There is a saying in hindi- which i think you should comprehend : Sau sonar ki aur ek lohar ki

That is concise enough.

 

[Fiery]

What's that got to do with it? There's no way you can be serious with this argument really. Ponting's made around 10 centuries in his last 15 or so tests, and has averaged around 70 odd in the last 4 or 5 years. In ODIs Hayden wasn't even in the Australian team six months ago because he got dropped for poor performance, while Ponting's a realistic contender for an all-time world XI.

Hayden's in good form, but he's not the best batsman in the world. Dravid, Kallis, Pietersen etc are better too.

I meant "at this moment in time" Faaip

 

[Fiery]

WTF? I said I just don't like watching him bat. There's no doubt he's a great cricketer, one of the best of his era, that doesn't mean I have to like watching him.

Also, where the **** did the anti-religious **** come from? Go **** yourself you idiot, don't accuse me of **** like that.

brutal

btw, you said you "hated his guts" twice....go back and read your posts, you clown

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Meh, who takes me seriously? I've never met him. I'll go back and edit for you.

 

[Ikki]

Not relative. Its also empiric.
In a post-nuclear holocaust world, where cricket is played by spastic people and lepers, the second best or best side is really an irrelevant benchmark.

Sorry if i have to use extreme examples to drill some sense in your head.

I think i've already explained why being the best in relative terms for your era is utterly meaningless without an empiric benchmark.

The problem is that you seem to be interpreting or giving everyone this benchmark. You're far off.

 

[Ikki]

False.

No, correct.

The teams he did well against did not have those bowlers. Apart from his record in the West Indies which was against Walsh only. Not Ambrose (something I've asked you to prove). So pre-Ponting, those were his scores. From that moment on till now Ponting has been ahead.

Tendulkar = averaged 57 in Ambrose's own backyard. Ponting = umm. nowhere close.
Case closed, really.

This was Tendulkar's peak whereas Ponting was just new and was at #6.

Do you want to compare with Ponting's peak now? He's hitting 60 .

False. Read my quote again. I am comparing the peaks of Tendulkar and Ponting and seeing who the top bowlers and how easy batting was when they hit those peaks.

What does that have anything to do with it? Some players peak more than other players. If they had started at the same time that would be something. As I said, if going by that generalisation, then Tendulkar's record is even poorer for being much poorer now.

It was okay. Seen several dozen better one-day innings, really.

Haha, you're hilarious. Your double standards can be seen in this one thread. You go to lengths to show that a playoff goal is more valuable than one in the regular season and a century knock in the WC final doesn't seem to be impressive. If you compare Ponting's feat to the Hockey, that would be like scoring 3 goals in the Stanley Cup final. Regardless if they're the nicest goals you've seen or not.

And i think you won't see sense even if an alltime great sportsman categorically tells you why/how performance against best of the best is the benchmark for alltime greats, not bashing weak mediocre opposition.

I've given you of examples of those two batsmen doing it against the best, doing it in the most pressuring times. You seem to have reached your capacity for understanding.

 

[Fiery]

Meh, who takes me seriously? I've never met him. I'll go back and edit for you.

good...thanks...you shouldn't take me so seriously either.........................

Watto-lover

 

[C_C]

Do you want to compare with Ponting's peak now?

THATS WHAT I WAS DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE!
COMPARING TENDULKAR AND PONTING AT THEIR PEAKS!

*sigh*

blind fans such as yourself are freaking annoying tbh.

From that moment on till now Ponting has been ahead

Utter, categoric and total lies.
Ponting's record or performance did not even begin to match Tendulkar's since 2002 or so. Simply seeing how they've done since Ponting's debut and saying 'Ponting has been ahead from that moment on' is nothing more than a lie and/or yet another demonstration of your utterly slip-shod grasp on reasoning or logic, since Ponting's form in 2002 says nothing about where he was in 1997.

 

[PY]

WTF? I said I just don't like watching him bat. There's no doubt he's a great cricketer, one of the best of his era, that doesn't mean I have to like watching him.

Also, where the **** did the anti-religious **** come from? Go **** yourself you idiot, don't accuse me of **** like that.

Cut it out mate, you took that way overboard. Not acceptable really whether said in jest or otherwise.

And this is a topic about Hayden, not anyone else. Let's keep it that way or the thread'll get shut.

 

[C_C]

The problem is that you seem to be interpreting or giving everyone this benchmark. You're far off.

Stop trying to teach me the relation between relativism and empirical study( i dont think you can teach me anything on this topic that Engineering hasn't), stop beating around the bush and answer my goddamn question :

Relativistic comparison is meaningless without an empirical standard, unless ofcourse, you happen to be 3x better than your next-best competitor ala Bradman.Do you agree or disagree?

Keep your answer to a simple 'Yes' or 'No', please. I hope this is not a very challenging or difficult question to answer for you in one word.

 

[Ikki]

THATS WHAT I WAS DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE!
COMPARING TENDULKAR AND PONTING AT THEIR PEAKS!

*sigh*

blind fans such as yourself are freaking annoying tbh.

If I'm blind, you're blind and deaf.

What do you think I was asserting there? That it's a stupid measure just to compare peaks and their relative difficulty in acquiring them. Because it also works conversely against Tendulkar. *knock knock*

 

[Ikki]

Stop trying to teach me the relation between relativism and empirical study( i dont think you can teach me anything on this topic that Engineering hasn't), stop beating around the bush and answer my goddamn question :

Relativistic comparison is meaningless without an empirical standard, unless ofcourse, you happen to be 3x better than your next-best competitor ala Bradman.Do you agree or disagree?

Keep your answer to a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

What, you're the lawyer now?

Yes, you need a standard. But whether that's the case or not does not strengthen your argument. The standard you're implying is ridiculous. That's the problem. You base it on non-sense generalisations. I don't know how clearer anyone can tell this to you.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Cut it out mate, you took that way overboard. Not acceptable really whether said in jest or otherwise.

I don't think so. Maybe too much swearing, but being falsely accused of that annoys and infuriates me more that being called a racist.

 

[honestbharani]

As much as I hate interfering into another Kazo/CC duel, ( ) one point we should concede to Hayden is that his style of play is suited for the current scenario in cricket. As others have said, if he played the same way against the past attacks, he may flop. But maybe, IF those kind of bowlers and pitches were still around, he COULD have made the necessary adjustments and played well. Perhaps not as well as he is doing now, but maybe well enough to be considered a genuine test class opener.


IT is all just a lot of speculation, really. To give Hayden his due, he has done really really well against the best international bowlers of his time. When you are rating him all time, it is inevitable that he will put down a bit when compared to players who have had the opportunity of facing some greats in tough conditions and have done well against them. Also, Hayden has flopped once or twice against genuinely good swing bowling. Talking of Hayden alone, these things can be neglected and I suppose he could be called a really good player of our generation. But when you are trying to rate him, as with Ponting and that record in India, these things will be argued upon. Personally, I don't think Hayden would have been as good as some of the other great openers of all time. In fact, even I would rate Langer above Hayden. But that doesn't mean I won't call him one of the great openers of our time. That is obvious, really.

 

[vic_orthdox]

WTF? I said I just don't like watching him bat. There's no doubt he's a great cricketer, one of the best of his era, that doesn't mean I have to like watching him.

Also, where the **** did the anti-religious **** come from? Go **** yourself you idiot, don't accuse me of **** like that.

You know that's not acceptable. Don't push the boundaries.

 

[Richard]

Poor old Smith, Pete and Jack telling him off.

 

[Fiery]

You know that's not acceptable. Don't push the boundaries.

It's all good guys...don't worry about it. I give as good as I take

 

[C_C]

Because it also works conversely against Tendulkar. *knock knock*

No it does not. Gretsky says so. I would love to see you say you understand better about criterias for measuring greatness than one of the greatest sportsmen in history of this planet.

Life does not work that way. Screw up your class tests- no probs. Do well on finals- all that matters. Same applies here. Quality is measured against quality. Tendulkar/Lara/Steve Waugh achieved their peaks at a time when bowling standards were much better and pitches much harder. Therefore, their peaks are far more impressive. Simple-as.

Yes, you need a standard.

Thank you ! finally some light getting into your eyes.

The standard you're implying is ridiculous. That's the problem. You base it on non-sense generalisations

Or maybe not. Spoke too soon about light in your eyes i guess.

Its not a very difficult point i am making. Really, it is not.

if you average 60 between 2050 and 2060 while the par-for-course is a 300-350 first innings score and half a dozen alltime great bowlers going around, i average 60 between 2060 and 2065 where there is 1 half-jaded one around and par for the course is 400+, you >> me.

Is this really that difficult for your mind to grasp or is the green-n-gold clouding your vision too much ?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

You know that's not acceptable. Don't push the boundaries.

Have a quick nap eh?