Hayden is a flat track bully.

[Cupestar]

Come on. Really. Yes he made 380-something. Yes that was a remarkable achievement of endurance, but with all due respect to the Zimbabweans, was this really a quality bowling attack that he was up against? I struggle to see why this achievement in particular is praised so highly. It's not as though it's an earth-shattering achievement.

I would've been fooled into thinking that he made his runs against a top-tier test side who didn't have to worry about lack of funding for cricket at home or selection policies with quotas which ended up with Zimbabwe not having the best XI on the ground or the wages of approximately $50 a day...

I would say that the bowling attack was sub-par, and by that I mean below Pura cup level, on a WACA pitch which gave the bowlers nothing. Brett Lee could have made 380 if he was given the chance on that track.

This should not go down as one of the greatest test innings of all time. It's an indictment to how test cricket has deteriorated into a one-sided massacre. There are many, many innings which should be held in much higher esteem...Lara's 375, Sobers' 365*, Bradman's two triple tons being prime examples.

[utility]

And how many test triple centuries have been scored on dodgy pitches against top line bowlers?

[Wicked Lester]

Cupestar, you raise some reasonable points.

Listening to several former test batsmen speak recently I thought summed it up rather well.

They were in absolute agreement that Hayden's innings was a remarkable achievement and a magnificent effort - as it would have to be to remain focussed for that period of time.

They were not prepared to commit to it as one of the great test innings. As has been noted by a number of former players and commentators the highest scores do not necessarily represent innings played under extreme pressure or in difficult conditions.

So from my perspective Haydo is a worthy title holder - but I wont be showing the innings to the Martians when I'm trying to explain why test cricket is so great.

[Fall Out Boy]

The guy scored a double ton on the low, slow turners in India whilst scoring 549 runs in the 3 test series (that we didn't win) at an average of 109.8.

Flat track bully my arse.

[Wicked Lester]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
The guy scored a double ton on the low, slow turners in India whilst scoring 549 runs in the 3 test series (that we didn't win) at an average of 109.8.

Flat track bully my arse.

Quite right - and that might be the kind of innings to show the Martians!

[Stevo]

Originally posted by Cupestar
There are many, many innings which should be held in much higher esteem...Lara's 375, Sobers' 365*, Bradman's two triple tons being prime examples.

Like Utility said, Cupestar, massive scores are not made on cracked/green pitches against supreme bowling attacks.

Lara's 375 was made against the fearsome attack of Angus Fraser, Andy Caddick, and Phil Tufnell, on a docile Antigua pitch. Not to mention, in the same match a couple of Englishmen weighed in with big hundreds.

Similarly, Sobers' innings (in a massive partnership with Conrad Hunte) was made against a sub par Pakistani attack on another docile WI pitch.

[ImperialPurple]

He hasn't got the record for the "greatest innings ever in a Test match". That would be too subjective to try and pick that, and although there are many worthy contenders, at the end of the day it would just be opinion.

He has it for the "most runs scored in an innings". That's a totally objective thing. Start at "zero" and count to 380 - how many people left standing? One. Hayden.

It may not be the "best innings ever", but it is the "most runs scored". Black and white, no shades of grey and no ambiguity. Hayden has the record for the most runs scored in an innings in a Test match.

[guess_who]

Jajasuria scored a triple ton, that was huge, much better for mine. But consider how quickly Hayden scored his runs.

[Jars458]

I don't think anyone is saying it was the greatest innings of all time.

It was certainly quality though and in no way is he a flat track bully.

[ViperV10]

I think it was James Brayshaw that summed up Hayden's innings best when he said something along the lines of:

What I think makes this one of the greatest innings ever seen is that when you are against top line bowlers, as the Zimbabweans clearly aren't, these guys bowl to a plan and can put the ball where they want it. This tends to lead the batsman to know the ball will be in a precise position, and can adjust their focus for that. The Zimbabweans on the other hand don't know where the ball is going, and therefore neither does the batsman. :D

Hayden's innings was one of pure class, great concentration and even if the bowlers were slightly amiss.....it was one of the greatest efforts to bat for that long, and at that strike rate.

[llosis]

Originally posted by Cupestar
Hayden is a flat track bully.

Cupestar, you need to get a grip mate.

knockers like you have a habit of saying "brett lee could've scored a triple ton against an attack like that on a pitch like that..."

If that were the case why the hell hasn't anyone in the history of test cricket ever made a score greater (in terms of runs) than Hayden's 380.

Accept it. He holds the record. It is an objective, quantifiable, verifiable acheivement. End of story.

Going to the next step and saying "Hayden is a flat track bully" makes you look like a utter tool with no understanding of the game or the achievement of the players who play at the highest level.

[Black Thunder]

Hayden is far from a flat track bully.

He is actually one of the only Australian batsmen to have quite a good technique.

The majority of them rely on having good eyes and timing the ball well.

Justin Langer - very strodgy technique but gets the job done.
Steve Waugh - very awkward technique but likewise gets the job done.
Darren Lehmann - very ordinary technique.
Adam Gilchrist - footwork all over the shop, bat goes everywhere.

the only three batsmen in the Australian team who have good techniques are Hayden, Ponting and Martyn (Martyn close to best technique in the world).

But good technique doesn't mean a thing - the ability to pick up the line and length of the ball quickly and hitting through the ball with good timing is the key.

Technique is simply a comfort thing, and although it helps, it is probably one of the things that a batsmen should worry least about unless there are obvious glaring problems.

Hayden's performances in India on wickets which are slow and low and offer nothing for batsmen were simply outstanding.

And has been mentioned Lara's 375 and Sobers 365 were both against rather ordinary attack.s

The thing most people, esepcially non cricket folk, don't realize, is that once a batsmen gets into the zone (usually the period just after they get a ton) it doens't matter if they're batting against Marshall, Garner and Holding, or Rooty Hill RSL Under 19's, the batsmen just has complete control of the bowling, and 9 times out of 10, they'll only get out through playing a silly shot.

Very rarely do you see a batsman who is 'in the zone' get outthough and outbowled by a bowler.

[Cupestar]

Originally posted by llosis
Cupestar, you need to get a grip mate.

knockers like you have a habit of saying "brett lee could've scored a triple ton against an attack like that on a pitch like that..."

If that were the case why the hell hasn't anyone in the history of test cricket ever made a score greater (in terms of runs) than Hayden's 380.

Accept it. He holds the record. It is an objective, quantifiable, verifiable acheivement. End of story.

Going to the next step and saying "Hayden is a flat track bully" makes you look like a utter tool with no understanding of the game or the achievement of the players who play at the highest level.

Mate, you need to relax.

Let me qualify that, yes, he holds the record for the highest score in a single innings in a test match.

Quantifiable? I wouldn't go quite so far. We're talking about opposition who struggle against the AIS academy XI. This is a team whose two best batsmen are currently playing Pura cup cricket, their best allrounder (Neil Johnson) is playing in South Africa, and Henry Olonga, one of their better quicks, has disappeared off the map. Slaughtering a team full of leftovers really devalues the 'achievement'.

When you say 'The Highest Level' I'm assuming you're referring to Test Cricket, which has really gone down the toilet in recent times.

Originally written by Darren Berry in the Age

Much has been said and written about Hayden, however not enough attention devoted to what his innings indirectly says about the state of Test cricket worldwide. In short it is awful.

The dominance of the Australians over the past decade and the decline of many other countries, combined with the introduction of Bangladesh to the Test arena, has quite simply made the game somewhat predictable.

Watching Hayden on Friday afternoon was like watching a school bully torment and then destroy the most timid youngster.

His innings will go down in history, but the way he humiliated the Zimbabweans is a sad reflection on what all cricket lovers hold so dear to their hearts.

Test cricket, now played by 10 nations, is unquestionably in a lot of trouble. Many cricket enthusiasts speak about the situation, but in a manner which suggest they hope it will go away; in a cautious tone, hoping that perhaps they are wrong.


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/11/1065676211563.html

(Full Article)

P.S.

Jayasuriya's 340 was made in a Colombo dustbowl where, in a quote from a book "Barely a ball reached stump height for the entire 5 days"

Hardly what you'd call am earth shattering innings either.

[Stevo]

Originally posted by Cupestar
Quantifiable? I wouldn't go quite so far. We're talking about opposition who struggle against the AIS academy XI. This is a team whose two best batsmen are currently playing Pura cup cricket, their best allrounder (Neil Johnson) is playing in South Africa, and Henry Olonga, one of their better quicks, has disappeared off the map. Slaughtering a team full of leftovers really devalues the 'achievement'.

Of course it's quantifiable. We can count each of the 380 runs Hayden made, can we not?

You are combining the purely objective (Hayden having the record for most runs scored in a Test innings) with the more subjective (Hayden having the greatest Test innings ever?).

[llosis]

Originally posted by Stevo
Of course it's quantifiable. We can count each of the 380 runs Hayden made, can we not?

You are combining the purely objective (Hayden having the record for most runs scored in a Test innings) with the more subjective (Hayden having the greatest Test innings ever?).

Exactly.

The issue of the opposition is irrelevant when it comes to the fact that Hayden has scored the highest innings in test cricket. That is fact.

Does it make it the greatest? That's for us to debate. But I would contend that because it is the highest ever score in test cricket (ie it has surpassed in total runs any and all other test innings over 126 years of test cricket history) is a great innings (although not necessarily the greatest).

All this talk of the track and the quality of the opposition is foolish. Do you think there's never been useless opposition before? In the 1950's the NZ test team lost something like 26 tests in a row. When you look at the records for low team totals the Kiwis from this era dominate. Why? Because they were crap just like we perceive Bangladesh (who almost beat the Paki's and gave the Poms a good run recently) and Zimbabwe (who almost beat the Windies last week) to be. It's a fact of test cricket.*

So too are flat tracks. In fact today we see more results in tests than you used to 30+ years ago. They too are a fact of life in world cricket. But because these elements in cricket do exist we can't put an asterisk next to every world record that someone achieves because of this or that. Those external factors are always around and impossible to fully gauge. If you want to debate HOW great someone's knock or bowling spell was then fine - those things come into play (as they always have - not just in todays cricket). But you can't let them cloud factual achievements / world records like Hayden's 380. By the pure fact no-one else has done it - it is by definition great.


*having said that I don't think the Banglas should have been admitted to test cricket when they were but that's another issue

[Stevo]

Originally posted by llosis
By the pure fact no-one else has done it - it is by definition great.

There are many things that no one has done before, but if someone did such a thing I wouldn't call it a great achievement. ;)

[scmods]

Originally posted by Cupestar
Quantifiable? I wouldn't go quite so far. Then you obviously don't know what the word quantifiable means.

So Brett Lee could have scored 380 in that match? Personally I doubt it. But so what? Brett Lee "could have" scored 380, Justin Langer "could have" scored 380, Ricky Ponting "could have" scored 380, Steve Waugh "could have" scored 380, Damien Martyn "could have" scored 380, Adam Gilchrist "could have" scored 380.

Brian Lara "could have" scored 380 against Zimbabwe, Michael Vaughan "could have" scored 380, Sachin Tendulkar "could have" scored 380.

Fact is, none of them did.

[Adrian Shelton]

If Sir Gary hadn't got declared on (365* of 3/790) that knock could have been anything, probably same with the princes 501. A 6-something could have been on given an hour or so more.

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Cupestar
Come on. Really. Yes he made 380-something. Yes that was a remarkable achievement of endurance, but with all due respect to the Zimbabweans, was this really a quality bowling attack that he was up against? I struggle to see why this achievement in particular is praised so highly. It's not as though it's an earth-shattering achievement.

I would've been fooled into thinking that he made his runs against a top-tier test side who didn't have to worry about lack of funding for cricket at home or selection policies with quotas which ended up with Zimbabwe not having the best XI on the ground or the wages of approximately $50 a day...

I would say that the bowling attack was sub-par, and by that I mean below Pura cup level, on a WACA pitch which gave the bowlers nothing. Brett Lee could have made 380 if he was given the chance on that track.

This should not go down as one of the greatest test innings of all time. It's an indictment to how test cricket has deteriorated into a one-sided massacre. There are many, many innings which should be held in much higher esteem...Lara's 375, Sobers' 365*, Bradman's two triple tons being prime examples.

You seem to accuse others of making too big a thing about this one innings, when you yourself make a ridiculous statement that could only be based solely on the same innings.

Thsst fool.

[skipper kelly]

A bit off the subject, but a point I have to make.

Throughout the history of Test Cricket there have always been minnows playing and plenty of averages have been boosted by playing against these newly developing cricketing countries. The almighty one included.

It wasnt so long ago that Sri Lanka were the chopping block of world cricket. Now a century is recognised as a quality against the likes of Murali and co.

And a question.

Why is it that people are saying that test cricket is on the decline because Australia are dominating? Was Test cricket on the decline when the Windies were totally dominant?

I dont believe so and I dont believe it is now. The run rates and results rates are unparalleled in crickets history.

[Bronx Bomber]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Flat track bully my arse.

COULDNT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF :)

[EagleBlue]

All this thread does is bring me back to a famous Bradman quote along the lines of

"Cricket must be the only game in the world where you are judged on your technique and quality rather than who gets the best score as in golf or football"

[goaldrush]

Why are there so many ppl writing off the Aussie Cricketers?

[D DOG @]

what is this crap?
Heath streak, Andy blignaut are quality bowlers who took wickets in the world cup, against england in a test match and against stacks of other test playing countries. They arent a bowling side like australia i'll give u that but they arent a flop over. Mathew Haydens 380 was a fluke but its because he is a good batsman that he had the patience to stay out thre for so long 2 days batting by himself. He has made 150's, 100's, 50's and other notable scores. Brett lee couldnt make 380 if he had to hit them off a tee! he has made a couple of test 50's , agianst sides like bangladesh he made 20's and 30's and on the world rankings Zimbabwe is ranked 5th in the world compared to the bangledesh side who is ranked 12th. Brett lee is a great bowler, but u know he couldnt have made 380 runs against zimbabwe.
He cant even score runs against bangledesh.:mad:

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by skipper kelly

Why is it that people are saying that test cricket is on the decline because Australia are dominating? Was Test cricket on the decline when the Windies were totally dominant?

Because they're complete tossers who have no idea.

Record crowds and more test match results than ever before. Cricket is as popular as it has ever been.

[Cupestar]

Originally posted by bunsen burner

Record crowds and more test match results than ever before.

More results? That's because the ICC stipulates that every team must play every other side twice every 5 years. REsults are easy to come by when you consider the disparity of so many contests.

Depends on how you look at crowds as well. Australia vs. England had great crowds. The SCG was a sellout for the first 3 days. That's 120000 already.

Australia vs Zimbabwe, 2nd test, which was a much better contest than the one-sided first test, had only 18,000 odd people for the entire 5 days. Record LOW for a test match at the SCG.

Test cricket is alive and well. :rolleyes:

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Cupestar
More results? That's because the ICC stipulates that every team must play every other side twice every 5 years. REsults are easy to come by when you consider the disparity of so many contests.

I was referring to the fact that there aren't as many drawn matches these days.

Faster run rates = matches that don't end in a draw = more exciting cricket = higher interest = bigger crowds.


Australia vs Zimbabwe, 2nd test, which was a much better contest than the one-sided first test, had only 18,000 odd people for the entire 5 days. Record LOW for a test match at the SCG.
Why would you use this series as a benchmark? You're trying to compare something that exists now that didn't exist in the past, and then make judgement???????????

The series was a complete mis-match, but for the game to grow, these series must be held. Zimbabwe won't be dunces forever.


Test cricket is alive and well. :rolleyes: The joke is squarely on you champ.

[Cupestar]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I was referring to the fact that there aren't as many drawn matches these days.

Faster run rates = matches that don't end in a draw = more exciting cricket = higher interest = bigger crowds.



What do you think of:

Faster run rates (by vastly superior teams against extremely ordinary bowlers) = matches that don't end in a draw (more 3 days after one side gets a big score and skittles the other side for nothing) = more boring cricket (Hayden vs Zimbabwe was hardly an epic battle, a bit like David and Goliath except David got his head kicked in) = lower interest = diminished crowds (Sydney was a classic example. People saw the slaughter in Perth, and the silence at the SCG was deafening)

[observer]

Originally posted by Cupestar
More results? That's because the ICC stipulates that every team must play every other side twice every 5 years. REsults are easy to come by when you consider the disparity of so many contests.

Depends on how you look at crowds as well. Australia vs. England had great crowds. The SCG was a sellout for the first 3 days. That's 120000 already.

Australia vs Zimbabwe, 2nd test, which was a much better contest than the one-sided first test, had only 18,000 odd people for the entire 5 days. Record LOW for a test match at the SCG.

Test cricket is alive and well. :rolleyes:

Could it be because the test match series against Zimbabwe was played in October you idiot.

You are a lunatic Cupestar