no, ben. my memory is as fresh as ever. after all, i am only 34 and that is no ripe old age. the fact is, you are forming your opinion on precious little you have seen and trying to pass it off as fact. i cant allow that because you are building too many cases on faulty assumptions. also, i will not allow you to sidetrack this argument into comparing footwork of batsmen from different eras. now, unless you prove to me that helmets were not used regularly till 1987 like you claimed i reject all your arguments categorically.
Wearing helmets regulary means that everyone used helmets in every match they played and as I've stated many times before, not everyone used helmets in every match that they played.
I go from agreeing with you to completely disagreeing
Techniques have changed a little. Guys that learned their cricket in the 70s and before (including guys that were playing Test cricket in the 80s) had sightly different footwork. Some may say better footwork. They watched the ball and adjusted later. They often played the ball later. That is a result of the swinging ball, learning the game without helmets and no restrictions on bouncers. A case could be made that there was more craft and skill then.
Modern batsmen may look to have better footwork as they move earlier and get into position earlier but that gives little opportunity to adapt. Players today are far more leaden footed as they commit earlier.
I dont think it is better or worse, just different and the emphasis is on a different set of priorities.
It is no coincidence that batsmen get hit now far more frequently than before. Their techniques dont require that they watch the ball or play the ball late.
Eh, sorry, but I've seen enough dismissals from top-order batsman on replays to make me cringe and think, how in the hell did they make International cricket?
You are missing the point. You are suggesting that Waugh's Australia faced superior opposition in the subcontinent, yet you neglect to mention that they lost to that opposition as well. Lloyd's team had no such problems, they beat both Pakistan and India handily.
Yes, I am suggesting that, and if put in a similar situation as what Australia were in India 2001, the West Indies wouldn't of done any better.
Based on his performances against the West Indies in the 90s, even when he was fit, it's hard to see him 'tormenting' the far superior Lloyd's side of the 80s, unless the wicket is turning square like it was in the Border example.
None of those batsman faced a spin bowler, the quality of Shane Warne.
Well, I find it at least debatable to say that Bond/Akthar were better than Roberts, Croft, Holding or Garner at their best. Assuming they were in the same ballpark, can you imagine an Aussie side facing four bowlers of such quality, given that a single Akthar or Bond pose such problems?
It's like comparing Rahul Dravid and Virender Sehwag. Dravid's the better batsman but Sehwag's far more destructive when at his best.
Even so, have you seen Shoaib Akhtars and Shane Bond's records in Test Cricket against Australia? Have you seen Shaun Pollock's record? or Waqar Younis' record? Allan Donald's? They can be held in the same regard as Garner, Holding & Roberts. The latter names I mentioned played against Australia in the 1990's and Australia's batting in the 2000's is far superior to their side in the 90's. If they underperformed against Australia in the 1990's then they would've been decimated in the modern-era. What's to say that the West Indies would've done much better against a stronger Australian batting outfit?
Na, I think you overlook the fact that quality seamers have always got the better of Hayden, unless it's just English seamers.....
Aussie wickets are generally much easier to bat on than English.
What?! Lol.
He didn't play in an era of uncovered wickets, the covers go on within 1 minute of rain MAX. The overcast conditions only help swing if it's muggy, if it's cold (which it normally is over here then there would be little assistance.
Have you seen any substancial footage of cricket before 2001?
Your coments consistently point to the fact you haven't and that when in doubt Australian player >>> Player from any other country.
Barry Richards was the best opener of his time and I'm sure would've averaged 60 at test level. The fact he destroyed medium pacers means little- you can only bat against who is bowling. If he got out to medium pacers then that means something.
Gavaskar, like many openers fell to the quartet but so what? Hayden would probably not have got a run given he was so poor through his career against half-decent seam and Sunny averaged 70 IN the West Indies including 2 centuries when Michael Holding was bowling stupid pace (1976).
And BTW, In the 2001 series, Kumble didn't even play against Australia, but when he did- in 2004, Hayden only averaged 30.5.
You wouldn't believe how tough Day 1 of a test in the 70's-90's was. A completely different experience to opening on flatter pitches of the 00's with less demons.
There is still juice in the wicket, early on at the GABBA and the WACCA... Sides have been bowled out on the opening day of a Test Match at those venues for the last few years. Hell, remember the 2002/03 Ashes series at Brisbane, when Nassar Hussain decided to bowl first, because the pitch was a greentop? Hayden ended scored 300 runs in that game against a bowling attack comprising of Andy Caddick, Matthew Hoggard and Simon Jones.
I've seen plenty of footage of cricket prior to 2001 and the only real pitch that I've seen with real demons innit has been England vs West Indies 1998. Unless rain got onto the pitches, then there wasn't much to then and now.
Gavaskar scored all of his runs in the West Indies in his debut series in 1971, where the only two bowlers of note were Garry Sobers and Lance Gibbs and one of them had a bowling average of 34, in an era where there were plenty of teams with bowlers averaging in the 20s. You are merely trying to defend Richards bashing round medium pacers and then trying to justify that he would've averaged 60 in Test Cricket? That says allot about the bowlers then, doesn't it?
Wasim wasn't playing, and that Waqar was well past his best. If you have nothing besides that innings and his domestic record, then it just shows there's little proof that Hayden is good against quality pace.
146 off 128 balls against Wasim, Waqar & Shoaib
India's pace bowlers were pretty good when India last toured Australia, Hayden averaged 80 odd in that series?
This is pitiful. If the definition of helmets being in regular use is everyone wearing in them in every match then they've never being in regular use and never will be.
