Haddin's Ashes?

[Mr_Moogle]

Haddin has been the biggest surprise. He deserved to be dropped but he's come back a better player. Career best form at 36. Was happy to see the back of Wade but I never expected Haddin to bounce back so well. He's been pretty much perfect this series.

We need to start grooming a replacement though and preferably somebody who can actually keep. Having a decent bat in the middle order helps, but a poor gloveman costs wickets.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Gilly scored more runs in two less tests against South Africa... In South Africa

Smacked 200 didn't he? Was that the series where there were some nasty banners about one of his kids?

 

[The Jet]

I'd go for Mitch Johnson over Haddin. Ya can't win tests without claiming wickets.

 

[blackcat]

With all due respect to Warner, Clarke, Smith and Johno who have all been great...... will these Ashes be forever known as Haddin's Ashes?

485 runs averaging 80, including some game changing performances, 11 catches, brilliant keeping and no doubt some handsome sledging.

Join me in paying homage here......

i question Michael Clarke and the selectors for putting Katich out to pasture. Rogers was a good selection, but KAtich and David Hussey should have been playing also. I dont know where Warner would go, perhaps 6.

I am telling you, the new peptides and other adrogens, make playing til Tendulkar's age, even when you are not a little master, possible. 30 is the new 25. And 35 is still not retirement age. Think 39.

If one doubts me, see the American cyclist Chris Horner, he won La Vuelta 3 months ago at 40. No doubt a champion cyclist, but the first time he won a major stage race. Two decades ago, they went downhill at 28, rule of thumb. And that was not because they were overworked, and in a pre-professional era, there was not the rich rewards of staying in the game.

RussellEbertHandball

 

[blackcat]

best ever legside on-drive?

i reckon he has the best onside drive i have seen. pure joy to behold

 

[Sylvia Saint]

Gilly scored more runs in two less tests against South Africa... In South Africa

"South Africa... In South Africa' wasn't so hard in those days. Take nothing away from Gilly, I remember staying up to the early hours in that series purely to watch him bat... but I think Haddin's stunning consistency and grit with his side under duress ranks his recent efforts slightly higher.

 

[blackcat]

"South Africa... In South Africa' wasn't so hard in those days. Take nothing away from Gilly, I remember staying up to the early hours in that series purely to watch him bat... but I think Haddin's stunning consistency and grit with his side under duress ranks his recent efforts slightly higher.

canberra comets ftw

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

i question Michael Clarke and the selectors for putting Katich out to pasture. Rogers was a good selection, but KAtich and David Hussey should have been playing also. I dont know where Warner would go, perhaps 6.

I am telling you, the new peptides and other adrogens, make playing til Tendulkar's age, even when you are not a little master, possible. 30 is the new 25. And 35 is still not retirement age. Think 39.

If one doubts me, see the American cyclist Chris Horner, he won La Vuelta 3 months ago at 40. No doubt a champion cyclist, but the first time he won a major stage race. Two decades ago, they went downhill at 28, rule of thumb. And that was not because they were overworked, and in a pre-professional era, there was not the rich rewards of staying in the game.

RussellEbertHandball

Batsmen have always played at top level into their mid 30's and even 40's. WG Grace, Rohdes, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Hutton, Sobers, Lloyd, Richards Border etc. Spinners as well - Bob Holland debuted at 38. Fast bowlers usually give the game away by their early 30's.

Cricket for batsmen and spinners didn't become an overly athletic game until the 1990's when one day internationals became huge and the $$$ from TV monies world wide drove more athletic cricketers.

Michael Holding ran track for Jamaica - 400m - and retired at 33 in 1987 because his body had enough. Andy Roberts retired at 32, Malcolm Marshall at 33, Joel Garner at 35, Curtly Ambrose at 37 and Courtney Walsh at 39. Dennis Lillee retired at 34, McDermott started international cricket at 18 and gave it away at 31, Dizzy Gillespie finished international cricket at 31, McGrath at 37 and Brett Lee played his last test when he was 32, ODI at 35 and the money is so good at 37 he is still playing T20 cricket.

Cricket and Test cricket in particular is such a mental game, it is open for batsmen and spinners to hit their mental peak later in life a lot later than their physical peak.

But with T20 in particular the IPL offering $1mil+ for 8 weeks work the incentive is there to stick around for as long as possible whatever your speciality is. So the that incentive might be aided by chemical assistance.

But I would look at what happens to a players performance as he ages. Viv Richards played until he was 39. He played 121 tests the last 50 as captain which have a lot of added pressure and can affect your batting. He got to 4,000 runs at an average of 60 in 46 tests. He scored the next 4,500 in 75 tests at an average of just over 40 to end his career with an average of 50.23. He scored his 20th test 100 in his 82nd test aged 34. In his next 39 tests he only scored 3 more 100's. To me that is a natural decline of a great player unaided by any chemical assistance but playing to 39 years of age. See his cummulative test batting performance at

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...template=results;type=batting;view=cumulative

His one day performances follows a similar pattern. He hit his peak in test cricket in 1982 when he scored his 4,000 runs and was 29. In ODI's he hit his peak between 1985-86 when his average was between 55 and 56 and he was 33-34. His performance declined over the next 5 years but he still ended up with a great average of 47.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...template=results;type=batting;view=cumulative

I use Richards as an example because I have studied his performance for years and know his rise and decline very well.


Jacques Kallis' figures are interesting to study. He debuted boxing day 1995 as a 20 year old. He first hit an average of 50 in late 2002 as a 27 year old. He got back up to an average of 50 boxing day 2003 when 28. That was his 73rd test had scored 5,153 runs and 13 x 100's. His average has never been below 50 for the next decade and retired in the boxing day test in Durban last week. He has played another 93 tests in that decade and hit another 8,100 runs and hit another 32 test 100's in that decade.

I don't see a Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire like performance of guys doing so much better after 33-35 than during their peak physical years of 26-30 in Test cricket. I don't watch/study ODI's and T20's at the highest international level closely enough to see if there are any batsmen doing a Bonds or McGwire in those forms of the game.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...template=results;type=batting;view=cumulative

 

[The_Reaper]

"South Africa... In South Africa' wasn't so hard in those days. Take nothing away from Gilly, I remember staying up to the early hours in that series purely to watch him bat... but I think Haddin's stunning consistency and grit with his side under duress ranks his recent efforts slightly higher.

They still had Pollock and Donald and were clearly the second best team.

During our reign at the top only South Africa and then India away from home were good opposition. That South African team playing today would probably be ranked number 2 in the world.

That series was probably the high point of our great team.

 

[western royboy]

They still had Pollock and Donald and were clearly the second best team.

During our reign at the top only South Africa and then India away from home were good opposition. That South African team playing today would probably be ranked number 2 in the world.

That series was probably the high point of our great team.

Agree with that being the high point of that team, I think Pollock was injured and Donald broke down and didn't bowl too many overs - I think the attack was something like Donald, Ntini, Nel, Kallis and Boje and I think the last 4 all went for 100+. Watching Martyn and Gilchrist bat together was pure bliss and I had the fortune to watch them do it live in Wellington a few years later - the perfect combination, sublime techique and timing combined with brutal simplicity.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

I could have sworn Donald was retired by then.. anyway, my point wasn't so much to downgrade Gilchrist's efforts over there, just that I think Haddin's series just gone tops it still. To come out with your side at 5/not many in 5 consecutive test matches and to come out and blast the ball every single time without a failure is nothing short of amazing.

 

[western royboy]

I could have sworn Donald was retired by then.. anyway, my point wasn't so much to downgrade Gilchrist's efforts over there, just that I think Haddin's series just gone tops it still. To come out with your side at 5/not many in 5 consecutive test matches and to come out and blast the ball every single time without a failure is nothing short of amazing.

I'd be hard presssed to put Haddin ahead of Gilchrist ever - but in the context of importance of contributions - dictated by the fact we still have issues of consistency with our top six - you have a solid point. Gilchrist changed the course of many matches / series, Haddin did so here as well and to have him mentioned in the same category is a feather in his cap - brcause there will only ever be one Gilchrist in my book.

 

[JP Sauce]

I'd go for Mitch Johnson over Haddin. Ya can't win tests without claiming wickets.

You actually can win tests without claiming wickets. You definitely can't win tests without scoring runs though.

(I agree that Mitch was MOTS, just.)

 

[weekend at bernies]

I have never been a Haddin fan and was glad when he got dropped..

But he has proven me wrong, his series was fantastic. Player of the Series in my opinion.

How good is it to have a keeper who can actually keep!!

 

[Phone]

I could have sworn Donald was retired by then..

he was basically retired at that point....

 

[Doss]

best ever legside on-drive?

i reckon he has the best onside drive i have seen. pure joy to behold

Agree, one of the best I've seen.

 

[western royboy]

i question Michael Clarke and the selectors for putting Katich out to pasture. Rogers was a good selection, but KAtich and David Hussey should have been playing also. I dont know where Warner would go, perhaps 6.

I am telling you, the new peptides and other adrogens, make playing til Tendulkar's age, even when you are not a little master, possible. 30 is the new 25. And 35 is still not retirement age. Think 39.

If one doubts me, see the American cyclist Chris Horner, he won La Vuelta 3 months ago at 40. No doubt a champion cyclist, but the first time he won a major stage race. Two decades ago, they went downhill at 28, rule of thumb. And that was not because they were overworked, and in a pre-professional era, there was not the rich rewards of staying in the game.

RussellEbertHandball

I think from a cricket point of view - the use of the above is unlikely the reason we have seen a change in the age of players. Fundamentally the game changed 20 years ago in terms of professionalism and also how it is taught at grassroots level and the flow on effects are what you see today. Technique is often overlooked now in batsman instead of talent. Bowlers are now managed instead of flogged. Call it simplistic but its fact, Mike Hussey debuted at 30 wasn't ready at 25 - cricket and batting in particular takes a long time to master - talent will get you into the systems - whether you can hang in there long enough to make it all the way will be the key. Many second rate players will make more from the game in coming years than greats of the past. You can look at balls bowled as a guide - but the training loads for bowlers would not be a patch on what they were then. I faced Marshall when he was 37 - still pretty sharp!

 

[bungwahl]

Definitely will not be remembered as "Haddins Ashes". Brilliant series by an excellent player and would have taken out MOS in just about any other series, but still eclipsed by Johnson.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Haddin set it up - we batted first 4 of the 5 tests and everytime Haddin rescued the team and put the runs on the board to give the bowlers a target - but it was Johnson who won the Ashes by shaking up and getting out the English top order.

In the Melbourne Test where he wrapped up England's batting on the morning of day 2, after they made a solid but slow start on day 1, one of the commentators on ABC Radio, went thru his spells where he had run through the batting line up and separated them from the rest of his overs. Those spells produced 18 wickets for 39 runs. That is series winning stuff there, but he continued on for the other 3 English innings in the series.

 

[matty p]

It was Johnson's Ashes, but Haddin was obviously great too.

 

[Power Raid]

Haddin and Johnson really lifted under the new coaching environment. Both of whom were on the outer for a while.

Watson's dummy spit and restlessness was much publicised.

I just wonder if hussey would still be in the side if our change of coach happened sooner?

 

[Phone]

Haddin and Johnson really lifted under the new coaching environment. Both of whom were on the outer for a while.

Did you not see MJ v SL/SA?

 

[blackcat]

I think from a cricket point of view - the use of the above is unlikely the reason we have seen a change in the age of players. Fundamentally the game changed 20 years ago in terms of professionalism and also how it is taught at grassroots level and the flow on effects are what you see today. Technique is often overlooked now in batsman instead of talent. Bowlers are now managed instead of flogged. Call it simplistic but its fact, Mike Hussey debuted at 30 wasn't ready at 25 - cricket and batting in particular takes a long time to master - talent will get you into the systems - whether you can hang in there long enough to make it all the way will be the key. Many second rate players will make more from the game in coming years than greats of the past. You can look at balls bowled as a guide - but the training loads for bowlers would not be a patch on what they were then. I faced Marshall when he was 37 - still pretty sharp!

but it is one of the reasons.

and another self-fulfilling prophesy, or, more accurately, a barrier to entry. If the current domestic crop and test players are rolling around to mid to late 30s, and players debuting in their late late twenties, this means the opportunities to develop the younger players are now more few.

btw, facing malcolm marshall, that is pretty cool.

'respect

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

but it is one of the reasons.

and another self-fulfilling prophesy, or, more accurately, a barrier to entry. If the current domestic crop and test players are rolling around to mid to late 30s, and players debuting in their late late twenties, this means the opportunities to develop the younger players are now more few.

btw, facing malcolm marshall, that is pretty cool.

'respect

England faced this problem in the late 1960's to 1980's when blokes stayed playing county cricket until they were 40ish because it was the only place in the world you could work full time as a cricketer

 

[blackcat]

England faced this problem in the late 1960's to 1980's when blokes stayed playing county cricket until they were 40ish because it was the only place in the world you could work full time as a cricketer

holland?