Taylor & Slater > Langer & Hayden

[Bombertastic]

wow, way to harsh. The BNG may be a terribad coach, but he was a good and courageous opening batsman for Australia.

I'd say he'd have it all over Mark Waugh as the worst aussie to make to a 100 tests.

Mark Waugh had more luck than most and still managed to suck.

I can't remember too many match saving innings, but when the situation was pretty safe, he'd be good for tonking a century in placid conditions.

The Brown nosed gnome was just that. A suck, an average to poor batsman that got the luck of the draw, favorable decisions, mediocre attacks and flat wickets. Terrible player. Worse then M Waugh who at least had talent and an all round game. Even if he never made the most of it at Test level.

 

[Bombertastic]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You so stupid.

Which bit? The part about how lucky Langer was against umps. Or the part where he got hit in the head more times then a boxer because he was ordinary.

 

[Wallaby]

Nail hit hard. 2000 ashes in England was Slaters down fall. No-one was going too well and Slats only had a 70 odd in the first game and not much in the next three like everyone else. Was a bowlers series and conditions weren't good for most of it.

Except that of the other Batsmen - S waugh averaged 107, Mark waugh 86, martyn 76, Gilchrist 68, ponting 42, and Hayden 33. Slater was averaging 24 in the series when he was dropped.

 

[dan warna]

As a batsman BNG > Taylor. I remember taylor not being given out LBW when so far plumb the comment was it was missing leg and off, because it was half way up middle.

If you lower the bar to 75 tests, langer then > Brett Lee and Michael Slater as well.

Langer was a fantastic close in fielder as well, beat the pants of taylor as a professional slip because he was too fat to field anywhere else.

Yeah Mark Waugh had the full array of shots, cover drive to second slip, off drive to gully, and pull shot to fine leg. The guy was a flat track champion and a squib under pressure.

Langer took a lot of body hits but was a stand up guy. He didn't have the talent of others but was right there with S. Waugh taking the hits to cover for his deficiencies.

 

[Outshined]

Early candidate for worst and dumbest post of 2012.

As Bombertastic would say, nail hit hard.

The sheer idiocy is hard to comprehend. Cricket is a demanding enough sport to ensure that a batsman in the current top 30 all time run scorers would have a measure of talent and/or a fanatical work ethic.

Langer was far from a poor batsman.

 

[Bombertastic]

Except that of the other Batsmen - S waugh averaged 107, Mark waugh 86, martyn 76, Gilchrist 68, ponting 42, and Hayden 33. Slater was averaging 24 in the series when he was dropped.

Right you are. My memory without looking it up is a bit blurry after 10 years. Still, Hayden was going just as poorly as Slats. I don't contest dropping him. At the time I think that was when he tried to flush his pads down the toilet during that series. Safe to say he needed some time out.

 

[grizzlym]

Wouldn't mind one of Langer, Taylor, Hayden or Slater in the test side now.

 

[Bombertastic]

As Bombertastic would say, nail hit hard.

The sheer idiocy is hard to comprehend. Cricket is a demanding enough sport to ensure that a batsman in the current top 30 all time run scorers would have a measure of talent and/or a fanatical work ethic.

Langer was far from a poor batsman.

Just as opinion. Still makes me laugh when I think of the amount of times he never moved from a beamer. Like a deer caught in head lights. Terrible batsman. Great day when he retired.

Can't believe so many people here are so touchy about the brown nosed gnome.

 

[Outshined]

Just as opinion. Still makes me laugh when I think of the amount of times he never moved from a beamer. Like a deer caught in head lights. Terrible batsman. Great day when he retired.

Can't believe so many people here are so touchy about the brown nosed gnome.

You're right, it is just an opinion, but I think it's a highly uninformed and odd one given the success he had as an opener in combination with Hayden.

People are touchy because you're denigrating a quality player to an "average to poor suck" and a "terrible batsman". I'm not sure how you can call it a great day when he retired when we have sorely lacked batsman of his temperament in the times since.

But yes, he had a short ball weakness so he was shit. Just like Ricky Ponting is horrifically overrated because he plays away from his body early in the innings.

 

[thecatattack]

Just as opinion. Still makes me laugh when I think of the amount of times he never moved from a beamer. Like a deer caught in head lights. Terrible batsman. Great day when he retired.

Can't believe so many people here are so touchy about the brown nosed gnome.

Yeah and that's a really bad opinion.

 

[bullish23]

Whats your thoughts?
I am a firm believer that the opening pair of Taylor and Slater are far better the that of Langer and Hayden.

My thoughts: your so far wrong its not funny.

With their quick scoring rates Langer and Hayden redefined test cricket. Their averages are stronger and Hayden is imo probably Australia's greatest opener.

Taylor was only in the side for his final 2.5 years because a) he came from nsw and b) was captain. It was embarrassing his performances during that time, even more so considering hayden was plummeting shield attacks Bradmanesque year on year on year until he finally was given a chance at test level.

Slater i wouod rate the flukiest batsman i think i have ever seen.

 

[rickyp]

Just as opinion. Still makes me laugh when I think of the amount of times he never moved from a beamer. Like a deer caught in head lights. Terrible batsman. Great day when he retired.

Can't believe so many people here are so touchy about the brown nosed gnome.

Obvious troll. No one could genuinely have such little clue.

 

[Slax]

Just as opinion. Still makes me laugh when I think of the amount of times he never moved from a beamer. Like a deer caught in head lights. Terrible batsman. Great day when he retired.

Can't believe so many people here are so touchy about the brown nosed gnome.

just because you didn't like him still didn't make him a terrible batsman, was a much better batsman than Mark Waugh. Especially when you consider you are comparing an opener who has to face the new ball every innings to a middle order batsman who continually got starts and failed and his conversion rate of 50 to 100s was poor.

Langer Ave: 45.27 30 50s 23 100s
M. Waugh Ave: 41.81 47 50s 20 100s

Mark Waugh is simply the worst player to play 100 test and the most overrated player I've seen.

 

[djrossie16]

While I don't necessarily agree the OP has a point some of the bowlers of the 90s were excellent exponents of pace bowling. Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Waqar, Donald. That's pretty scary!
Hayden and Langer along with everyone in test cricket benefited when these guys retired. IMO there was a bit of a flat spot for quality pace bowlers in the 2000s.

 

[dan warna]

While I don't necessarily agree the OP has a point some of the bowlers of the 90s were excellent exponents of pace bowling. Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Waqar, Donald. That's pretty scary!
Hayden and Langer along with everyone in test cricket benefited when these guys retired. IMO there was a bit of a flat spot for quality pace bowlers in the 2000s.

mark waugh was consistently averagely bad from the 90s through to the noughties.

 

[Ash Grant]

My thoughts: your so far wrong its not funny.

With their quick scoring rates Langer and Hayden redefined test cricket. Their averages are stronger and Hayden is imo probably Australia's greatest opener.

Taylor was only in the side for his final 2.5 years because a) he came from nsw and b) was captain. It was embarrassing his performances during that time, even more so considering hayden was plummeting shield attacks Bradmanesque year on year on year until he finally was given a chance at test level.

Slater i wouod rate the flukiest batsman i think i have ever seen.

Langer had no clue late in his career. Well for most of it to be honest. His high scoring rate was due to hitting his way out of trouble. Seriously you call Slater "fluky". That's funny considering Langer WAS and STILL IS the flukiest batsman I have ever seen. Seriously had no idea. Granted some guts and determination helped him immensly but he was so lucky in every respect.

 

[dan warna]

Langer had no clue late in his career. Well for most of it to be honest. His high scoring rate was due to hitting his way out of trouble. Seriously you call Slater "fluky". That's funny considering Langer WAS and STILL IS the flukiest batsman I have ever seen. Seriously had no idea. Granted some guts and determination helped him immensly but he was so lucky in every respect.

100 tests at an average in the mid 40s, give he played consistently for a decade between 98 and 07. Fair enough he stayed a year or maybe two too long as his form dived in 05/06 as did many australian players who hung around a bit too long.

Still his failing form is better than offered by Hughes, Clarke, Haddin, Khawaja currently, and his failing form was better than most of slaters through out his career as well as taylors.

Don't hold any faith in him as a coach, but as a batsman, he was international quality.

Flukey or lucky? Mark Waugh, Slater, and Taylor.

Slater averaged 52 at home and 35 away. The guy was a souffle, and had more home town decisions than almost any other batsman going around.

If he wasn't taylor's mate, he'd have been dumped long ago for being a complete douche as well.

 

[SaintNicksDix]

Either way you look at it. Taylor and Slater faced GUNS from the majority of bowling lineups and succeded.
Langer and Hayden padded their stats for a number of years palying absolute hacks. And when they did face someone half decent (England of the mid/late 2000s) they sucked hard.

 

[Team DJ]

Either way you look at it. Taylor and Slater faced GUNS from the majority of bowling lineups and succeded.
Langer and Hayden padded their stats for a number of years palying absolute hacks. And when they did face someone half decent (England of the mid/late 2000s) they sucked hard.

The man makes a humdinger of a point.

BTW: Guys, Mark Waugh, superstar come on.

 

[dan warna]

Either way you look at it. Taylor and Slater faced GUNS from the majority of bowling lineups and succeded.
Langer and Hayden padded their stats for a number of years palying absolute hacks. And when they did face someone half decent (England of the mid/late 2000s) they sucked hard.

slater 35 away, and 52 average at home. Sounds like a souffle to me.

Ave 45 against the brits (who were weak for much of his career)
ave 34 in UK, 28 in india, 29 in NZ, 48 in pakistan, 50 in RSA (overall ave against the boks is 44), 29 against the windians.

Sounds like he failed over seas and failed against the strong sides and was basically a flat track bully who lived on home town decisions.

Tubs record is similar, favouring plundering Pakistan on and NZ, although more consistent than slats.

He only averaged more than 40 in one year in his last 5 seasons, and that was he plundered his 334 consisting of 1/3 of his runs for 98.

really slats and taylor batted reasonably well together, but by and large they were good ordinary batsman.

Taylor was an outstanding slip fielder and a reasonable captain. Slats was an average fielder with delusions of competence.

 

[Ash Grant]

slater 35 away, and 52 average at home. Sounds like a souffle to me.

Ave 45 against the brits (who were weak for much of his career)
ave 34 in UK, 28 in india, 29 in NZ, 48 in pakistan, 50 in RSA (overall ave against the boks is 44), 29 against the windians.

Sounds like he failed over seas and failed against the strong sides and was basically a flat track bully who lived on home town decisions.

Tubs record is similar, favouring plundering Pakistan on and NZ, although more consistent than slats.

He only averaged more than 40 in one year in his last 5 seasons, and that was he plundered his 334 consisting of 1/3 of his runs for 98.

really slats and taylor batted reasonably well together, but by and large they were good ordinary batsman.

Taylor was an outstanding slip fielder and a reasonable captain. Slats was an average fielder with delusions of competence.

Way to disect a career I guess. The thing about Slater was that he was his worst enemy. I don't think he was lucky with home town decisions. Not even close. What his problem was is that he beat himself up too much and more so when he toured.

Slater and Taylor definately faced much better bowlers in harder coinditions and Hayden although great carried Langer. Langer was an average batsman and made it to 100 tests be being the biggest suck and brown nose plus being the luckiest batsman I have ever seen. Both in shots coming off when he seemed to close his eyes and the multitude of decisions that wne this way.

 

[SouthSwans]

Alfie & Haydos any day of the week.

 

[dan warna]

I think hayden and langer complimented each other. I would rate them ahead of taylor and slats.

I would also say, that langer and hayden went with the s.waugh policy of destroying teams, crushing them.

One of the things that was synonymous with the taylor side was sloppy fielding, losing dead rubbers and 4th innings collapses.

Under S.waugh, we executed teams. (the boards were filled with Australia is too strong, australia is killing international cricket, I long for australia to fail etc). Me I loved the way s.waugh went about his captaincy.

Fielding sharpened discernibly under S.waugh.

I suspect because s.waugh more so than taylor suffered under the discipline and execution of the windians in the late 80s and early 90s and learned at borders feet.

Taylor was an average captain who inherited a great team and solid coaching and cruised.

S.waugh's team was far more brutal.

much of the criticism about 'weaker' teams was due to teh overwhelming strength and discipline of Australia which saw a lot of what we did copied overseas.

Rubbish leg spinners were selected because they were leg spinners, attacking opening batsman were selected because they wanted to emulate hayden, and Gilchrist was a very good wicketkeeper who, except for his last two years, a great batsman.

Our strength made other teams look bad. Test matches between no.2, no.3 and no.4 test sides were competitive and full of talent, they just looked shite against us.

Right now, England has an overwhelming side, consistently good middle order batsman and an effective attack. India is on the decline, much as Australia was in 05, with great batsman sliding slowly.

In that, I admire Hayden and Langer more than Slater and Taylor because in my opinion they were a great opening partnership, outstanding fielders and awesome team players.

Again that doesn't mean langer is a good coach, nor does it reduce the fact he will always be the BNG

 

[Ash Grant]

slater 35 away, and 52 average at home. Sounds like a souffle to me.

Ave 45 against the brits (who were weak for much of his career)
ave 34 in UK, 28 in india, 29 in NZ, 48 in pakistan, 50 in RSA (overall ave against the boks is 44), 29 against the windians.

Sounds like he failed over seas and failed against the strong sides and was basically a flat track bully who lived on home town decisions.

Tubs record is similar, favouring plundering Pakistan on and NZ, although more consistent than slats.

He only averaged more than 40 in one year in his last 5 seasons, and that was he plundered his 334 consisting of 1/3 of his runs for 98.

really slats and taylor batted reasonably well together, but by and large they were good ordinary batsman.

Taylor was an outstanding slip fielder and a reasonable captain. Slats was an average fielder with delusions of competence.

Oh and by the way. The BNG averaged only 30 in South Africa, India and Sri Lanka. Yet dined out in England, New Zealand and West Indies. Now that's souffle.

 

[dan warna]

Oh and by the way. The BNG averaged only 30 in South Africa, India and Sri Lanka. Yet dined out in England, New Zealand and West Indies. Now that's souffle.

that would still be better than Slats