Fine.Richard said:No, Gilchrist and Hayden have opened in the same team (and only 1 batsman can face 1 ball, BTW) only since 2002; Gilchrist has played against some good bowling in the 1997-2001 period.
Because an average of 40 in ODI's is terrible isn't it?Richard said:Anyone with any cricketing clout whatsoever can tell Jayasuriya and Gilchrist are infinately better ODI batsmen than Hayden.
So you're now trying to tell us that when they open together bowlers bowl poorly to Hayden then well to Gilchrist in the course of the same over?Richard said:No, Gilchrist and Hayden have opened in the same team (and only 1 batsman can face 1 ball, BTW)
marc71178 said:So you're now trying to tell us that when they open together bowlers bowl poorly to Hayden then well to Gilchrist in the course of the same over?
i dont think so...King_Ponting said:hayden is not getting the credit he deserves, as he has shown on occasion after occasion that he is much more reliable than gilchrist who is largely hit or miss and very inconsistent.
err what?Richard said:Oh, it was a poor run indeed, but all it said was that he shouldn't have been batting three
It's certainly not impossible - but no, what I'm suggesting is that Gilchrist is less good at punishing poor bowling, and much better at punishing good bowling.marc71178 said:So you're now trying to tell us that when they open together bowlers bowl poorly to Hayden then well to Gilchrist in the course of the same over?
Indeed it is - and as we all know averages are not the be-all-and-end-all.marc71178 said:Because an average of 40 in ODI's is terrible isn't it?
It's certainly far better than either 36 or 32!
Now knock off the matches against the substandard teams.FaaipDeOiad said:Fine.
Hayden since 2002 - 89 innings 3,339 runs @ 42.27, 19 fifties, 4 centuries
Gilchrist since 2002 - 97 innings, 3,491 runs @ 37.54, 20 fifties, 5 centuries
Hayden, of course, is more reliable at punishing rubbish bowling.King_Ponting said:Thats stupid beyond belief. They are both left handers so there should be no reason why gilchrist gets the good balls and hayden gets rubbish..... I think hayden is not getting the credit he deserves, as he has shown on occasion after occasion that he is much more reliable than gilchrist who is largely hit or miss and very inconsistent.
can you list the sub standard teams richard.Richard said:Now knock off the matches against the substandard teams.
Canada, UAE, Netherlands, Namibia, Scotland, USA, Hong Kong, East Africa, Bangladesh, Kenya and the Zimbabweans after WC2003.Scallywag said:can you list the sub standard teams richard.
doubt it, the lower down the order he batted, the more likely he was to scratch around and waste valuable overs.Richard said:Maybe his average gets worse (not like his average at three is anything but flattering anyway) but his value to the team gets better.
yes because his phenomenal SR of 66 suggests that that he would have made a remarkable no 7. what a complete waste it would be to pick hussain at no 7 and have him score 40 runs in the last 10 overs in the death. and im sure an average of 14.57 albeit from 8 games at 6 proves otherwiseRichard said:No, but he had some of the tools to be a six or seven.
And he was better there, if he was going to play, than wasting the spot at three that should have gone to Hick.
It'd have been better than wasting a pivotal position.tooextracool said:yes because his phenomenal SR of 66 suggests that that he would have made a remarkable no 7. what a complete waste it would be to pick hussain at no 7 and have him score 40 runs in the last 10 overs in the death. and im sure an average of 14.57 albeit from 8 games at 6 proves otherwise