Newsflash: Hayden is arrogent

[pasag]

Its a little weird reading all of you saying these things about my hero, but now that I think of it I would also dislike him were I not Australian. I dont like Grahame Smith because of his arrogance, so if I was SAfrican I would assume that I would love Smith for being strong and not taking any crap and I would hate Hayden. Though its still a strange feeling reading all this stuff. I hope he shows England by churning out runs in the manner he has been known to do.

 

[andyc]

I read the article yesterday and I didn't really think he was being arrogant. He was just being honest and saying what most of the Aussie players probably felt; namely, that they didn't play their best and they hadn't prepared for it as much as they had for the Indian tour. Good interview for mine.

 

[howardj]

Don't really have a problem with the interview - being supremely confident is part of Hayden's makeup, and part of what makes him an outstanding player. It would concern me, however, if the Australian team do actually believe that the only reason they lost the Ashes was because they were down on form. Whilst that is true, that they were down on form had more to do with the opposition bowling lineup than anything that Australia could control.

 

[Blaze]

Good article. Nothing wrong with self-confidence. Of course Australia believe they are better than England. If they didn't then they would be in big trouble.

 

[Raymond]

He seems Honest than Arrogant

Infact, each and everything he said was correct

 

[Francis]

Here's why I found them arrogent...

"Our Ashes were India in 2004-05."

There was a massive build-up between the countries months prior to the Ashes. I've read ratings in Australia were massive and greater than usual. India was a year ago when they happened and I remember the Channel Nine commentary team talking about the Ashes in advance. In other words, it was a big deal and their Ashes were the Ashes.

"What went right? Nothing really..."

Yeah this is kind of true. Aside from Warne nothing went wrong after the 1st test so I'll let that one go.

"We let them back in."

The only way England were let back in during the second test was when Ponting stuffed up the toss, which Hayden defended. Losing McGrath of course was the biggest reason Australia lost the Ashes, but that had nothing to do with letting them back in. In fact England got off to a great start and were ahead the whole test until Warne got 6-40odd and the game looked even. Flintoff made a great partnership was Jones that took the game away from Australia and it was a brilliant tail effort that nearly got them there. But England were ahead the whole time.

"England are a very good team but Australia are better."

He meant if they performed the way they could then they would have won the Ashes. And yes that's true if I'm honest, but the point is they didn't play they way they can so no excuses. They could've played great but they collapsed and Warne had to carry them.

"Freddie Flintoff had an enormous series. I think he carries England and that is a big responsibility. "

Kevin Pietersen is right, Warne carried Australia more than Freddie did. England had brilliant contributions from Jones, Pietersen and Tresco... Tresco got badly underrated in that series. Flintoff was more of the man for the hour. When England needed more runs in the 2nd test, he made a 50 run partnership with Jones where he faced all the Warne deliveries and killed the rest of the attack. In the 5th test when Australia were going well, he took 7 wickets in a session. When England needed to break a partnership, he was the man to take wickets.

Flintoff impacted at the right times and sadly at time goes on, people wont understand how, when the pressure was on, Freddie was the man for the hour.

"It was a good reminder for Australia to keep our standards, keep our levels."

This was worst of all. Like losing the Ashes isn't a big deal. It was the crown jewell in the Australian heirachy (spelling I know) and I'd be willing to bet that's the one trophy Aussies would want. Insted Hayden's phobbing it off as just a reminder to play well. Yep it was just a reminder for people to call for Ponting's captaincy, it was just a reminder of how poor the middle order has become, it was just a reminder... oh I stop.

The Ashes was a big deal for both countries. I know some Aussies and losing them hurt them, oh it did hurt them.

 

[Craig]

I believe this interview is kind of old news as I read in the local paper about a week or two before this article was published on cricinfo.

He is right about Flintoff and England.

 

[Ikki]

Don't see anything so much wrong with it. He's confident, but I wouldn't say arrogant. Bluntly honest with his opinion. Even though winning the Ashes is a grand prize. The vigor involved in the series had dissolved quite a bit before last year. Defeating England pretty easily for so many years...

...just like we'll start to do again back here in a few months time (looks at Eddie) .

 

[luckyeddie]

Don't see anything so much wrong with it. He's confident, but I wouldn't say arrogant. Bluntly honest with his opinion. Even though winning the Ashes is a grand prize. The vigor involved in the series had dissolved quite a bit before last year. Defeating England pretty easily for so many years...

...just like we'll start to do again back here in a few months time (looks at Eddie) .

You're perfectly entitled to hold such an opinion - I only hope that you share it with the entire Australian squad.

 

[Matt79]

I think strongly backing himself is a big part of his game - he enjoys and feeds of the feeling of having the upper hand over his opposition. Part of this is probably a degree of arrogance. If so, it is the same arrogance which various champions have had - Mohammad Ali, Viv Richards, The Rock (not really, but ), etc. I'm not putting Hayden in the same class as Ali or Richards, but the mental attitude is a part of being a consistent winner.

I think there's also an element of Hayden not simply being brutally honest for its own sake, but trying to twist England's tail - a position McGrath and Warne normally own, but which Matty has made great strides in I'm reading Gideon Haigh's 'A Fair Field and No Favour' at the moment (great book by the way IMO) and his comment on the psych war Australia normally initiates with England was interesting. He put it down to a combination of Australia believing England, when pressured, became a group of individuals rather than a team, and their awareness that the English press can be so savage with their own team that sowing seeds like this will be continuing to reap a bumper harvest long after Hayden or whoever has forgotten about it.

Whether you think these kinds of mind games are eddifying or not, they are undoubtedly effective so long as you back them up with good play on the field. But before labelling Hayden as arrogant, its worth considering whether he was making an exaggerated statement to provoke, rather than concluding that he's just up himself. I doubt very very very much whether any of the Aussies are going to be assuming anything about this Ashes rematch - if they aren't raring to prove a point now, they'll never be switched on for any game of cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

KP reacts, and I'd say, at least with direct reference to the Ashes, he's on the money.

He is definitely more right than Hayden.

 

[Matt79]

Don't bother working on that technique, Matty. You were just unlucky.

Although I don't want to fall into the pattern of a certain big Harmison fan who regularly posts on this board seeking to answer a joke with a serious dissertation on 'the serious meaning underlying it', I think Hayden did acknowledge, albeit perhaps privately to himself, that it wasn't just bad luck, but rather an attitudinal problem that was contributing to his slump. He certainly appears to have tried to alter his approach to building innings, and although his new approach is yet to be tested by a line up the quality of England's attack, so far it seems to have worked for him.

Whether his critics will be satisfied with anything less that Matt holding a press conference and tearfully admitting that he is a flat track bully who is useless against quality bowling on competitive pitches because of his technical/mental/character defects remains to be seen however!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He is definitely more right than Hayden.

I'd say Australia are far too good a team to rely entirely on Warne. It's true of course that in the Ashes they did, but Warne's form since hasn't really been that great, just about average by his standards, and Australia have still won all but one test in that time, with the other being a draw. The issue in the Ashes was that McGrath was injured and Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz weren't performing, and MacGill didn't play and Tait was in his first series. Along with the unusually lacklustre batting, it left a huge burden on Warne.

Since then, we've seen Hayden, Ponting and Hussey carry the batting back to an acceptable level, McGrath come back, and after he lost form and then left the team again Lee had come good as a replacement. Then there's Clark and Gillespie, who had one good series each. Basically, when Warne doesn't perform, Australia usually still win, because there's not a serious reliance on him as a player.

I don't think England totally rely on Flintoff either, and they are a much better side when he gets good support, but there's no doubt it's a more serious issue when he doesn't play well, particularly with Jones almost never being in the side, and Harmison being so poor in the last couple of years. It's basically Hoggard, Trescothick and nothing else in terms of consistently fit and performing players for England, when you take Flintoff out of the team.

And, more to the point, if you took both Warne and Flintoff out of the teams for the Ashes, I would think Australia would suffer less due to an able replacement in MacGill, while England would have to alter their entire gameplan.

 

[Matt79]

This might go better on the AShes 2007 chatboard, but I was thinking about this, and obviously England were not a one man team during the Ashes, there were several good performers, with Flintoff the standout. But Simon Jones also played out of his skin, while Trescothick, Pieterson were very good and nobody, except maybe Geraint Jones was down. For the Australians Warne obviously performed in the same 'extraordinary' category as Flintoff and S. Jones. Otherwise, Langer, and as a batsman, Ponting, probably 'passed' given the bowling they faced. Clarke wasn't bad til he hurt his back, while McGrath (injury), Gilchrist, Gillespie and Kasprowicz (form) were disappointing (McGrath was disappointing by his standards).

I think in any series, I don't think its so much whose 'one-man' will play better, but how the best three or four and the worst couple of performers in each team play.

 

[Mister Wright]

...and Lee, Gillespie and Kasprowicz weren't performing, ...

Strike me down and call me Rosie...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Strike me down and call me Rosie...

Well, Lee was better than Gillespie and Kasprowicz, but he wasn't bowling brilliantly or anything. He varied between decent and poor. If you look at how he has bowled since the Ashes, there's a huge gulf, and his improvement has taken some of the load off Warne compared to the Ashes.

I still think he was the right selection choice, mind you.

 

[luckyeddie]

Although I don't want to fall into the pattern of a certain big Harmison fan who regularly posts on this board seeking to answer a joke with a serious dissertation on 'the serious meaning underlying it', I think Hayden did acknowledge, albeit perhaps privately to himself, that it wasn't just bad luck, but rather an attitudinal problem that was contributing to his slump.

(shouts) Richard, I think he's talking to you

 

[Mister Wright]

Well, Lee was better than Gillespie and Kasprowicz, but he wasn't bowling brilliantly or anything. He varied between decent and poor. If you look at how he has bowled since the Ashes, there's a huge gulf, and his improvement has taken some of the load off Warne compared to the Ashes.

I still think he was the right selection choice, mind you.

I was just in utter shock. I could not believe you would come out with such comments after you defended him to the ends of the earth when I was critisising his performances during the Ashes series (which was justiftied).

 

[marc71178]

I'd say Australia are far too good a team to rely entirely on Warne.

So how come they didn't show it?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So how come they didn't show it?

As I said, they relied on Warne in the Ashes, that doesn't mean they rely on him all the time.