*Official* Matthew Hayden Career Discussion

[aussie]

Swing has nothing to do with seam or the pitch (unless it's reverse swing). Swing is generally caused by overcast and/or humid conditions, though sometimes you find the ball hoops around randomly under batting friendly skies as well.

Seam is directly influenced by the pitch, not conventional swing.

Although overcast conditions is the key for swing to occur.

If a bowlers seam is not upright he is unlikely to maximise even swing even on a overcast day. So seam position certainly does play a part.

Pitches that have alot of grass. Aid in keeping the ball to swinging longer (coventional swing).

The reason a ball hoops around under batting friendly skies is because the bowler has an upright seam (with the new ball mainly). There is nothing random about that.


But either way going back to the point about Hayden when i said:

No. Even they would have gotten smacked by Hayden on a non-seamer during that period. Did you see what Hayden did to Hoggard in Ashes 02/03 on similar flat pitches the next season, who swung your NZ side @ christchurch 2002 on seaming pitch?. The same Hoggard who 2 years later in seaming pitches in the 2005 exposed Hayden's then technical flaws??.

Based on what i hope is your new found understanding of what the ball does on seaming pitches. Do you understand now why in the 2001/02 series with no swing bowlers capable of exposing Hayden's then technical faults in the SA line-up bowling on flat pitches, where smoked by Hayden. Then how swing bowlers in overcast condtions in Ashes 01 & Ashes 05 did?.

 

[Top_Cat]

The point I'm making here is that the fact that they even managed to get into that sort of sticky situation in the 3rd test against an attack that was in all fairness bread and butter, should surely have been enough inspiration for the likes of Pollock and Co to not be intimidated.

If it was me, that the same team who had a dicky middle order was still putting up 400+ wouldn't have given me a lot of hope, no. Dread that the Waughs were due, maybe.

 

[robelinda]

No team, even one that good, can put up 500+ every knock. NZ bowled smartly that series but were smashed in general, OZ only scoring less than 400 in Perth when facing a 500+ total themselves. Similarly, in general, the Aussies belted the Saffies. Once or twice when they looked in trouble a bit doesn't change that the were in awesome form. Any Test team worth their salt should trouble the Aussies at least once.

That and the pitches were flat. Pollock struggled because of those two things combined I reckon but even if there was a bit in the pitch, the Aussie line-up was just too good.

Hayden was the key there, boy did he impose himself. Langer too obviously, but apart from the HObart test that summer it was Hayden all the way just laying into the Saffers, and wasnt it a beautiful sight!!!!!!!!!

Wish I could find the pre-tour article that summer where SA greats like Wessles and Proctor basically gave the Aussies no chance at all, really talked up Sa's bowlers including Donald and how he was in peak form, how brittle our batting was etc, it was ridiculous stuff. A few months later 5-1, take that!!!!!

 

[tooextracool]

If it was me, that the same team who had a dicky middle order was still putting up 400+ wouldn't have given me a lot of hope, no. Dread that the Waughs were due, maybe.

Would question any international player's attitude if they thought in such terms, let alone one such as Pollock. Personally, I'd be thinking if a run of the mill bowling attack consisting of Cairns/Vettori/half fit Nash/Martin etc could have Australia in positions such as 263/6, 267/5, 351 ao and well 381/7 (though this score should have been a lot less) then surely we could do a better job and actually finish off the tail?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Come on, that's omitting some pretty important info! The first Test was rain-affected and only close due to declaration after OZ were 200 runs up on first innings. The second was rain-affected and Australia had NZ in in even more trouble after putting up another huge score. NZ had the better of the 3rd Test but were absolutely in the ****ter in the first two.

Take the rain away and I'm reasonable comfortable in saying that the series would have been all over going into Perth.

Yeah, agree with this. There's no way Australia should have lost that series, rain was the only thing that kept NZ in it for the first two matches. Even in the third I remember Gilchrist and S.Waugh making a fist of it in the final innings (at one point Gilchrist had Fleming sporting men out on the boundary everywhere if I remember correctly). Didn't Waugh get run out off a ricochet from Vettori's hand onto the non-striker's stumps? At that point Australia shut up shop.

NZ put up a great effort in the last test, but if they'd have walked away with a win after their efforts in the first two tests I think Australia could have quite rightly been pretty pissed off.

 

[Sanz]

Alex Tudor was part of the bowling attack that played, hence his name was mentioned. No one denies that he wasnt ordinary, the point is that it was universally acknowledged at the time that Gough and Caddick were the 2nd best fast bowling pair going around in international cricket.

Okay how did Gough/Caddick pair performed in Ashes 2001 ?

Caddick :- 49.86
Gough :- 38.64,

Hayden's average in the series 33.42, Thorpe 11. (Agreed he played only one test). Hayden outperformed Slater in the series.

And lastly , Gough and Caddick 2nd best bowling pair , Acknowledged by who ? Once again you overstate an average English talent. Gough-Caddick better than Mcgrath - Gillespie, or Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib, Donald/Pollock etc ? Yeah Right we in India also used to believe that we had the best bowler in the world after Mcgrath. Doesn't mean that was right.

 

[robelinda]

Yeah, agree with this. There's no way Australia should have lost that series, rain was the only thing that kept NZ in it for the first two matches. Even in the third I remember Gilchrist and S.Waugh making a fist of it in the final innings (at one point Gilchrist had Fleming sporting men out on the boundary everywhere if I remember correctly). Didn't Waugh get run out off a ricochet from Vettori's hand onto the non-striker's stumps? At that point Australia shut up shop.

NZ put up a great effort in the last test, but if they'd have walked away with a win after their efforts in the first two tests I think Australia could have quite rightly been pretty pissed off.

Agree completely.

Yeah Waugh's run out was so lucky for NZ, but gee didnt Gilly just tee off that afternoon, amazing display, you really thought Aus were going after the big total but shut up shop near the end. NZ did bowl well to the top order but had answer to the lower order, which was a common theme for NZ in the 2000 test series and in the 2005 test series- Gilly was the main reason, he just decimated NZ. His batting in both those tours to NZ was special. Mightve been the 3rd test in 2000 Aus were 26/6 on day 1? Gilly and Martyn blazed us to safety. Was unreal those first few years of Gilly's test career, Aussie fans couldnt dream of Gilly playing so amazing in tough situations. What a bloody magnificent player.

 

[robelinda]

Okay how did Gough/Caddick pair performed in Ashes 2001 ?

Caddick :- 49.86
Gough :- 38.64,

Hayden's average in the series 33.42, Thorpe 11. (Agreed he played only one test). Hayden outperformed Slater in the series.

And lastly , Gough and Caddick 2nd best bowling pair , Acknowledged by who ? Once again you overstate an average English talent. Gough-Caddick better than Mcgrath - Gillespie, or Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib, Donald/Pollock etc ? Yeah Right we in India also used to believe that we had the best bowler in the world after Mcgrath. Doesn't mean that was right.

Yeah I agree with this. Gough and Caddick were nowhere near the 2nd best attack, more like 2nd last. Close to hopeless I'd say. Cant argue with those averages. They both had great series vs WI the previous summer and they did win in SL and Pak, so I guess they were performing above their usual standard, but could never sustain it.

 

[tooextracool]

Okay how did Gough/Caddick pair performed in Ashes 2001 ?

Caddick :- 49.86
Gough :- 38.64,

Hayden's average in the series 33.42, Thorpe 11. (Agreed he played only one test). Hayden outperformed Slater in the series..

Im really not sure what point you are trying to make here. Comparing Hayden's failures with Slater who was in his last test series really makes no sense, nor does doing better than him mean anything.

Regarding Gough and Caddick, there is no doubt that they underperformed, and that Australia played them well. But the bottom line is that they got the ball to swing and Hayden couldn't get to half a century.

And lastly , Gough and Caddick 2nd best bowling pair , Acknowledged by who ? Once again you overstate an average English talent. Gough-Caddick better than Mcgrath - Gillespie, or Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib, Donald/Pollock etc ? Yeah Right we in India also used to believe that we had the best bowler in the world after Mcgrath. Doesn't mean that was right.

The general consensus then was that Akram/Waqar were well past it at this point, both of them had torrid tours to England where they were comfortably outperformed by Caddick/Gough.
Donald, as I mentioned earlier could barely string 2 games together at this point and when he did play it was quite obvious that he was half the bowler he used to be.
Gough and Caddick were at the time in the prime of their careers and I definitely remember a lot of experts putting them right after Mcgrath/Gillespie.
Was Srinath believed to be the best bowler in the world after McGrath?

 

[Flem274*]

Although overcast conditions is the key for swing to occur.

If a bowlers seam is not upright he is unlikely to maximise even swing even on a overcast day. So seam position certainly does play a part.

Pitches that have alot of grass. Aid in keeping the ball to swinging longer (coventional swing).

The reason a ball hoops around under batting friendly skies is because the bowler has an upright seam (with the new ball mainly). There is nothing random about that.

I'm not talking about seam position. Stop shifting the goalposts. I was correcting you lumping seam/swing conditions in the same basket, when swing is quite capable of occurring without a seaming pitch.

On swing under batting friendly skies: Bowling technique certainly helps and good seam position is a fantastic attribute for a bowler on a flat deck (Southee at Napier the example on the top of my head), but it doesn't account for every instance. All sorts of factors come into play, and sometimes swing just happens.

Based on what i hope is your new found understanding of what the ball does on seaming pitches. Do you understand now why in the 2001/02 series with no swing bowlers capable of exposing Hayden's then technical faults in the SA line-up bowling on flat pitches, where smoked by Hayden. Then how swing bowlers in overcast condtions in Ashes 01 & Ashes 05 did?.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, agree with this. There's no way Australia should have lost that series, rain was the only thing that kept NZ in it for the first two matches. Even in the third I remember Gilchrist and S.Waugh making a fist of it in the final innings (at one point Gilchrist had Fleming sporting men out on the boundary everywhere if I remember correctly). Didn't Waugh get run out off a ricochet from Vettori's hand onto the non-striker's stumps? At that point Australia shut up shop.

The elder Waugh was lucky to survive that long in the first place given that he should have been given caught behind while he was still in the infantile stage of his innings. There were some dubious decisions on that final day that kept Australia in the game, if you can say that the weather turned the tide in favor of the Kiwis then their definitely didnt have the rub of the green in the 3rd test.

 

[vcs]

Hayden was the key there, boy did he impose himself. Langer too obviously, but apart from the HObart test that summer it was Hayden all the way just laying into the Saffers, and wasnt it a beautiful sight!!!!!!!!!

Wish I could find the pre-tour article that summer where SA greats like Wessles and Proctor basically gave the Aussies no chance at all, really talked up Sa's bowlers including Donald and how he was in peak form, how brittle our batting was etc, it was ridiculous stuff. A few months later 5-1, take that!!!!!

Seems to happen every bloody time before SA play Australia, they never learn, do they?

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not talking about seam position. Stop shifting the goalposts. I was correcting you lumping seam/swing conditions in the same basket, when swing is quite capable of occurring without a seaming pitch.

On swing under batting friendly skies: Bowling technique certainly helps and good seam position is a fantastic attribute for a bowler on a flat deck (Southee at Napier the example on the top of my head), but it doesn't account for every instance. All sorts of factors come into play, and sometimes swing just happens.

Think his point is that a grassy pitch is more likely to keep the ball new and therefore encourage it to swing longer. I think this does have some merit because we do see in the subcontinent as well as in Australia where abrasive pitches take the sheen off the ball quite quickly.

 

[Top_Cat]

The elder Waugh was lucky to survive that long in the first place given that he should have been given caught behind while he was still in the infantile stage of his innings. There were some dubious decisions on that final day that kept Australia in the game, if you can say that the weather turned the tide in favor of the Kiwis then their definitely didnt have the rub of the green in the 3rd test.

Yep, justice was done.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, it'd have been robbery if NZ had won that series. Though I distinctly remember McGrath bowling a couple of feet outside offstump in the last over when the sporting declaration gave NZ a chance of winning the first Test.

 

[vic_orthdox]

McGrath didn't have a great series, from memory, as New Zealand left him, and left him, the blocked him and then left him. It made him bowl a little straighter than he'd like, and they were able to work him away.

Just checked, yeah, went at >60 per wicket for the series.

 

[robelinda]

McGrath didn't have a great series, from memory, as New Zealand left him, and left him, the blocked him and then left him. It made him bowl a little straighter than he'd like, and they were able to work him away.

Just checked, yeah, went at >60 per wicket for the series.

If only South Africa bothered to pay attention. Probably made McGrath a better bowler to be honest in the long run.

 

[Sanz]

Im really not sure what point you are trying to make here. Comparing Hayden's failures with Slater who was in his last test series really makes no sense, nor does doing better than him mean anything.

Regarding Gough and Caddick, there is no doubt that they underperformed, and that Australia played them well. But the bottom line is that they got the ball to swing and Hayden couldn't get to half a century.

Hayden did get a half Century 5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 23-27, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Gough never got him out in the series, Caddick did get him out twice in 5 tests although that proves nothing.

 

[robelinda]

Ball only swung in one test that series, the 3rd test. Very low scoring test. Hayden's failures were odd that series, Ponting too in the first 3 tests after he was in prime form in the one dayers prior to the tests.

 

[TT Boy]

Seems to happen every bloody time before SA play Australia, they never learn, do they?

Indeed.

'We protect our backyard strongly' - Nielsen | Cricket News | Australia v South Africa 2008-09 | Cricinfo.com