Smith V Hayden

[Richard]

FFS!

Never has

been more appropriate.

You don't like Dicko, WE GET IT. Move on. Noone wants to join in your baiting and whining and melting the **** off everyone involved.

Just wait until he gets banned and don't bother with him in the meantime, I would. I'd probably advise the use of ignore-lists too (which I exceptionally rarely do), I'm fairly sure quite a few have done so already.

Hopefully we'll have to wait less time than we did in the bond21 case.

 

[Precambrian]

Woot! Richard has a stalker in CW!!

 

[Mister Wright]

Disagree slightly with Hayden. He's a bit too intransigent at times. He strikes me as a player with enormous self-belief (I guess he'd need to be to have coped with the years from his debut until he established himself in the test side) but the down-side of this is that (as is the case now) he tries to impose his dominating game on the oppo even when the ball isn't quite coming out of the middle.

The one time I can remember him adjusting his usual game was in the Oval test of the 2005 Ashes when he knuckled down to a very un-Haydenlike ton and this heralded something of a second (well, third, probably, if not fourth) coming as a batsman after a disasterous run. Lessons there, big fella...

Smith is more prepared to grind out the runs, but did lose marks from me when he went to hide in the middle order during our 04/05 tour after Hoggard caused him no end of grief with the new ball.

Nah. The Hayden innings at the Oval was more Haydenlike than anything recently in his test career. That is how he always batted for QLD. Would almost be barely anything after the first hour and then would suddenly be close to 70 by lunch.

However, his game changed under Waugh when he was given the directive to be attacking and it has worked for him really well as it has given him an aura of fear amonst bowlers around the world. Hayden does have the ability to play excellent seam bowling, he did it for many years through the mid-late 90s. Hasn't had to do it as much at test level due to the state of the wickets, but I'm sure if he was faced with those wickets regularly you would see a much better Hayden.

Would not even have Smith in my top 10 openers in world cricket.

 

[Jono]

Would not even have Smith in my top 10 openers in world cricket.

That is a massive call.

Can't help but think its a case of the old Australian fan's theory of "if they did it against Australia in Australia, they're Godly, but if they've failed, I refuse to rate him."

Its a very common trait among Australian fans.

See Flintoff, Vaughan and Laxman as examples.

 

[Ikki]

Agreed. Non-sensical call IMO. Smith is one of the better openers right now.

 

[aussie]

That is a massive call.

Can't help but think its a case of the old Australian fan's theory of "if they did it against Australia in Australia, they're Godly, but if they've failed, I refuse to rate him."

Its a very common trait among Australian fans.

See Flintoff, Vaughan and Laxman as examples.

Although Mr.Wright was a bit harsh at the end of his post on Smith, the idea of making runs vs Australia in Australia as a benchmark to rate players circa 95-06/07 is pretty fair TBH.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Although Mr.Wright was a bit harsh at the end of his post on Smith, the idea of making runs in Australia in Australia as a benchmark to rate players circa 95-06/07 is pretty fair TBH.

As opposed to making them in that other Australia.

 

[aussie]

, i'll go edit before someone else views it..

 

[grapedo]

That is a massive call.

Can't help but think its a case of the old Australian fan's theory of "if they did it against Australia in Australia, they're Godly, but if they've failed, I refuse to rate him."

Its a very common trait among Australian fans.

See Flintoff, Vaughan and Laxman as examples.

strongly agree jono. And If Smith does welll this summer they will all say australia need a captain like him.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nah. The Hayden innings at the Oval was more Haydenlike than anything recently in his test career. That is how he always batted for QLD. Would almost be barely anything after the first hour and then would suddenly be close to 70 by lunch.

However, his game changed under Waugh when he was given the directive to be attacking and it has worked for him really well as it has given him an aura of fear amonst bowlers around the world. Hayden does have the ability to play excellent seam bowling, he did it for many years through the mid-late 90s. Hasn't had to do it as much at test level due to the state of the wickets, but I'm sure if he was faced with those wickets regularly you would see a much better Hayden.

Would not even have Smith in my top 10 openers in world cricket.

I'm not Hayden hater at all. Obviously you've seen a lot more of him in domestic stuff, but he's almost always looked to get on with things whenever he's played for Oz, so I assumed that was his natural game.

It's usually the swing bowlers who seem to have caused him more problems than bowlers who rely more on seam movement too. That's not to say he can't play it (as some posters on here would have us believe), rather just to note a tic in his technique.

& I think regular CW readers will have deduced I'm not a Fat Gray fan, but that is a sizeable call to have ten openers above him. Current form I'd have Sehwag ahead of him & that'd be about it.

 

[Uppercut]

Although Mr.Wright was a bit harsh at the end of his post on Smith, the idea of making runs vs Australia in Australia as a benchmark to rate players circa 95-06/07 is pretty fair TBH.

As opposed to using matches against all 8 test-standard sides, home and away, which is ridiculously unfair. Obviously.

 

[GIMH]

That is a massive call.

Can't help but think its a case of the old Australian fan's theory of "if they did it against Australia in Australia, they're Godly, but if they've failed, I refuse to rate him."

Its a very common trait among Australian fans.

See Flintoff, Vaughan and Laxman as examples.

Flintoff didn't do anything in Australia though

 

[Richard]

I thiiiink - might be wrong - that that was the point.

Flintoff was traduced - wrongly, as the two of us in combo pointed-out a few months back - after his failure in 2006/07. Vaughan was lauded - wrongly - in 2002/03.

Laxman, well, he's a bit different, because the truth is he has performed against other teams, and damn well at that. Since his breakthrough date of March 2001, he averages 40 against England, 51 against New Zealand, 53 against Pakistan, 41 against Sri Lanka and 63 against West Indies. The only team he's come close to failing conclusively against is South Africa, against whom he averages "only" 36. Curiously, he averaged just 23 against Test-standard Zimbabwe teams (ie, excluding the joke series in 2005/06) too, though all these games were in Zimbabwe and none at home. His average against Australia, incidentally, is 63 - better than everyone else, miles away from being the only team he's had success against. Not like he's been a subcontinent bully either, averaging 56 in West Indies, 45 in England and 49 in Oceana.

Always irks me when people say Laxman has only performed against Australia, because it's so completely wrong. Laxman is an excellent batsman and it's no surprise he's scored runs just about everywhere, even if plenty (though far from all) of those have been on similarly flat surfaces.

 

[Precambrian]

That is a massive call.

Can't help but think its a case of the old Australian fan's theory of "if they did it against Australia in Australia, they're Godly, but if they've failed, I refuse to rate him."

Its a very common trait among Australian fans.

See Flintoff, Vaughan and Laxman as examples.

Well, doing against the best bowling attack during it's time, adds a lot to a player's repute. And runs in Australia definitely shows adaptability and resilience.

 

[Precambrian]

I thiiiink - might be wrong - that that was the point.

Flintoff was traduced - wrongly, as the two of us in combo pointed-out a few months back - after his failure in 2006/07. Vaughan was lauded - wrongly - in 2002/03.

Laxman, well, he's a bit different, because the truth is he has performed against other teams, and damn well at that. Since his breakthrough date of March 2001, he averages 40 against England, 51 against New Zealand, 53 against Pakistan, 41 against Sri Lanka and 63 against West Indies. The only team he's come close to failing conclusively against is South Africa, against whom he averages "only" 36. Curiously, he averaged just 23 against Test-standard Zimbabwe teams (ie, excluding the joke series in 2005/06) too, though all these games were in Zimbabwe and none at home. His average against Australia, incidentally, is 63 - better than everyone else, miles away from being the only team he's had success against. Not like he's been a subcontinent bully either, averaging 56 in West Indies, 45 in England and 49 in Oceana.

Always irks me when people say Laxman has only performed against Australia, because it's so completely wrong. Laxman is an excellent batsman and it's no surprise he's scored runs just about everywhere, even if plenty (though far from all) of those have been on similarly flat surfaces.

AWTA> But his exceptional performance against Aus obv qualifies him as an Aussie bully.

The guy loved challenges. If the bolwing attack is weak, he just looks WTF, and often gifted away wickets. Ala Vishy.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm not Hayden hater at all. Obviously you've seen a lot more of him in domestic stuff, but he's almost always looked to get on with things whenever he's played for Oz, so I assumed that was his natural game.

It's usually the swing bowlers who seem to have caused him more problems than bowlers who rely more on seam movement too. That's not to say he can't play it (as some posters on here would have us believe), rather just to note a tic in his technique.

& I think regular CW readers will have deduced I'm not a Fat Gray fan, but that is a sizeable call to have ten openers above him. Current form I'd have Sehwag ahead of him & that'd be about it.

Yep, when he was picked in 2001, he was definitely given the license to go after the bowling a bit more which built upon the success he had with QLD for years as their OD opener so if all you've seen of him is his international batting, can easily see why you'd have that perception.

But, as Wright said, the knock at The Oval was more like Hayden in the 90's. Without a rock-solid technique, he wouldn't have survived on some of the Brisbane decks served up in the throughout that period. Seriously, they used to zip everywhere and Hayden was the standout batsman for QLD for many years while so many came and went. Used to be a very cautious player and one of the most salient criticisms of Hayden in the early days was his inability to pierce the field when the bowling was tight. Wasn't really rated as terribly talented early on and I think you'll find he wasn't invited to go to the Academy mainly because he wasn't rated as one of the outstanding batsmen of his generation (Martyn, Blewett, Langer, Hussy, etc. were all rated higher). It's why he wasn't even in the ODI side for about 6 years (1994 - ~2000)

I personally only noticed a change in his game (hitting over-the-top, etc.) when he started to form that great partnership with Jimmy Maher for QLD. His comeback to the Aussie side was built on his success there and he was picked in the ODI side coming in at 3 for a short tour to NZ. I remember he spanked a 50 in his comeback match and that was the foot in the door. I distinctly remember it being noted by so many people how he'd remodelled his game almost entirely. All he had to do was wait for Slater to implode and he'd get another go in the Test side, especially since he'd had pretty close to his best season for QLD (I think). Rest is history but, as you said, his attacking batting came at the cost of his defensive technique against swing a little. Considering his record in both forms of the game, I'd say he'd consider it a fair trade-off.

This is why I've tried not to ever write him off. Is an incredibly determined bugger and, as far as the crap he's had to go through, being criminally under-rated by so many for so long, etc. he's a bit of a Frank Grimes type, has had to struggle for everything he's got. Even taking all the above, stuff like fighting his way back into the ODI side in his mid-30's is unheard of, especially in Australia. Thats why I can't help but feel his current form trough is only temporary and he'll be back for sure, if only to shove it up the knockers one more time before going out on his terms. Hayden is one of the very few top-class cricketers who can honestly say he's had to earn it every step of the way.

EDIT: As for the question at hand, Hayden for mine but Smith seems to be closing the gap. Don't think he'll end up being rated quite as good overall, though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Id take Hayden but thats purely based on the fact that he is better.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm getting in and saying my bit before I cameback later and this thread has 367 pages without anything being said.

What's your bit?

Oh, and I'll check out that avatar today...I've been busy

 

[Son Of Coco]

[

I want two good looking men for my new avatar

Ok Craig...here you go:

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/data/media/3/ugly-men.jpg

Don't thank me now, it was my pleasure!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Averaged more than that TBH and some people commented on how it might well have been a tactic to channel all Australian gobbing-off onto himself and remove it from the rest of his team.

If so, an inspired tactic, even if his own game wasn't up to performing off his own bat.

Because it so obviously worked, and you're obviously going to go "gee that blokes talks a lot, we'll forget about the rest". What was Nel's tactic? To share the load and bowl crap?