All Time XI of different cricketers

[TumTum]

Cricket is a give and take game.

If a batsmen makes a great innings, you can easily say it was because the bowlers bowled poorly or the pitch was flat.

Pick ANY innings from ANY batsmen, and I will tell you why it wasn't all that great,

 

[King Pietersen]

No, that's just drivel. There is such a thing as a great innings, just because Hayden's runs against the likes of Harmison, Nel, Ntini and Zaheer have been dismissed by me doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a great innings. Heck Hayden's even played a few great innings, like his double hundred in India, just that it happened to be against good spin bowling, not seam, which has been my point all along.

You want an example of a great Test innings? VVS Laxman's 281 which was almost flawless, scored against McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz when they were near their best. They just couldn't bowl to the bloke out-side the off-stump, he was hammering them all around the ground, and was under immense pressure needing to score runs to give India a chance of winning the game. Ticks all the boxes for me, big score, good attack, pitch with something in it and in a pressure situation that eventually led to his side winning the game.

 

[TumTum]

Or you might say Laxman wasn't pressured at all. Heck when you are that down, when you come out in the middle, you just wanna play your shots and put on a good show.

You can find MANY innings where batsmen made centuries from a huge loosing cause. And most of the time, the bowlers didn't bowl well. Because they wanted the other guy on strike, so they gave freebies to the better batsmen.

 

[King Pietersen]

Laxman came in at 51/1 and within 60 runs being added he'd already lost Das and Tendulkar. He clearly wanted his side to win, so would have felt under tremendous pressure to score runs, against a very good Test attack on a pitch that was doing something. This stuff about just giving batsmen easy runs to get the other bloke on strike doesn't really make much sense either, as the guy that Laxman batted with the longest was Rahul Dravid. You don't want to feed Dravid the strike, and they didn't do that. Laxman was scoring fairly freely and playing beautifully, and the partnership scored at a RR of 3.80, that doesn't suggest to me that they were just feeding Dravid the strike. Amazed you're trying to dismiss one of the great innings' of the modern era, in an attempt to make Hayden look a better player than he quite obviously was.

 

[Howsie]

That was brillant KP and Dare. Thanks for giving me something to read for 30 minutes, some of the best cricket discussion I've read on here

Oval 05 - Ok innings on what was a pretty flat pitch against an attack that bowled very poorly at both Hayden and Langer. Harmison was dire after Lords, Hoggard bowled poorly with the first new ball and even Flintoff didn't bowl well until the 2nd new ball.

Something I did pick up on through that discussion about Hayden though, that he hasn't played a knock against quality seam bowling in testing conditions without chances (and you brang up the LBW decisions). Fielding and umpiring are part of the game, you make your own luck as far as I'm concerned. That first chance average crap that people go on about (especially on CW) really shits me tbh also. The text I quoted from the last page is something I really don't get either, who decides who bowled well and who didn't. It's not really something you can use in a proper arguement as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not having ago at you KP either btw, I'm just using that paragraph as an example.

 

[TumTum]

Dravid and Laxman survived a whole day.

Now can you seriously say they faced great bowling with a pitch that had something? Nobody (including 2 people) are that good and lucky to be able to manage that.

You arguments are very flawed, you make it sound as if Hayden's knocks were average because of the opposition, and not because of Hayden's great ability to make even the great bowling attack looks like they belong at school level.

 

[King Pietersen]

I agree that more often than not how well well someone bowled is a matter of opinion and can be subjective, but not in the case of that 2005 Oval Test. The fact that it took England over 50 overs to get the first breakthrough suggests to me that they didn't bowl well, and having watched the Test, and subsequently watched the highlights a number of times it holds true.

As for FCA, I don't agree with the theory entirely, but it's not complete drivel AFAIC. The only time I've used it in these discussions is the 2001 Melbourne Test, when Hayden was given incorrectly not out to 2 plumb lbw appeals to Hoggard before reaching 13. Not sure I agree with the premise of making your own luck either, it's just something that happens; and (although you didn't mention this) I also don't believe that luck evens itself out and you end up getting bad decisions to even the fortunate ones out.

Cheers as well btw Howsie, enjoying the fact that there's some proper discussion going on around here. Haven't seen much of it for a long time.

King Pietersen added 4 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...

Dravid and Laxman survived a whole day.

Now can you seriously say they faced great bowling with a pitch that had something? Nobody (including 2 people) are that good and lucky to be able to manage that.

You arguments are very flawed, you make it sound as if Hayden's knocks were average because of the opposition, and not because of Hayden's great ability to make even the great bowling attack looks like they belong at school level.

Laxman did play a great innings. Australia couldn't actually bowl anything outside the off-stump to him, he was just creaming them all over the place, on a wicket that was doing something. The difference between the Laxman innings and any of the Hayden examples, is that McGrath, and at the time Gillespie were genuinely world class seam bowlers, especially McGrath. Hayden's never made runs against a world class seam bowler, on a track offering something to the bowlers. He's made runs against the likes of Donald and Pollock, but at the time he scored runs against them they were generally way past their best, and no longer top class bowlers, especially Donald.

Hayden smashing the likes of Harmison, Nel, Ntini and Zaheer around really isn't any testament to his all-time great status. He never made a great bowling attack look like they belonged at school level, that's my point.

 

[TumTum]

Well this is getting too subjective.

I recently watched Ponting's 156 at Old Trafford '05 (the one people say is his best innings). TBH it is one of his worst innings in terms of stroke play I have ever seen. Most of his runs were scored against Giles with massive gaps on the leg side. No quality at all, except the game situation which some people continuously refer to here.

TumTum added 3 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...

he was just creaming them all over the place, on a wicket that was doing something.

He is better than Bradman if that is the case :hpraise

 

[Fatal Shot]

Hayden is a flat track bully. He plays spin very well, bu I agree with KP, that he was never really tested with a very good pace attack on a pitch offering something for the bowlers.

 

[Howsie]

Nothing wrong with that. If someones actually watched that day's play (or in your case, watched replays of it) then I really don't have a problem with someone saying "that group of bowlers didn't bowl well to that batsmen on that day".

As for FCA, I don't agree with the theory entirely, but it's not complete drivel AFAIC. The only time I've used it in these discussions is the 2001 Melbourne Test, when Hayden was given incorrectly not out to 2 plumb lbw appeals to Hoggard before reaching 13. Not sure I agree with the premise of making your own luck either, it's just something that happens; and (although you didn't mention this) I also don't believe that luck evens itself out and you end up getting bad decisions to even the fortunate ones out.

I really don't know much about FCA, such as the theory and what not. But from what I have read of it in the past it's suppose to take away runs scored after being dropped in the field?

As for making your own luck, I look at it this way. If your Matthew Hayden for example, and part of your technique is to walk down the pitch to play fast bowling your going to create doubt in the umpires mind when it comes to giving you out LBW. Thus, creating your own luck if the umpire doesn't give you out when infact you should of been. You can also make your own luck in regards to how hard you hit a cricket ball IMO. If you have a short-leg in to a Virender Sehwag for example, is his mind going to be 100 percent on doing his job and catching the ball, or is he going to be thinking about being hit? Comparing that to when a Shiv Chanderpaul is at the crease a short leg may feel safer under the grill because he isn't likely to hurt him (or isn't as likely in his mind).

 

[War]

Oval 05 - Ok innings on what was a pretty flat pitch against an attack that bowled very poorly at both Hayden and Langer. Harmison was dire after Lords, Hoggard bowled poorly with the first new ball and even Flintoff didn't bowl well until the 2nd new ball.

My word i have question if you saw that test if you are going to call that pitch flat?. That pitch was a very balanced surface & had something for both batsmen & bowlers. Was the pitch flat when Flintoff/Hoggard swung out AUS in the their first innings? No.

Hoggard by no means didn't bowl poorly to Hayden early on. But rather Hayden adjusted his technique to counter th swinging ball back into his pads - which was the weakness Hoggard had exposed in the previous 4 tests.

Flintoff also bowled very well. Hayden just countered them for the first time in that series & thus saved his career.

Supertest? What Test was that? If it was the ICC World XI game, then it still wasn't a top class seam attack. Harmison, Flintoff and Kallis has to be one of the least penetrative seam attacks of all-time. Good spin attack, but I've never doubted Hayden against spin.

Harmison & especially Flintoff was the same ENG attack that had owned Hayden in the Ashes before right?. His hundred in the super test, proved that the Oval wasn't a fluke.

SA 05/06 - South Africa bowled poorly in the 2nd innings of the Durban Test, and Ntini and Nel have never been world class seam bowlers. Good Test bowlers, but they're not world class seamers. Then at Melbourne the attack wasn't great either. Pollock past his best, and only capable of performing like a world class seamer on a real green, seaming deck; Ntini was never a world class seamer, same with Nel and Kallis.

Firstly you are seriously mischaracterizing how excellent Ntini & Nel where in this period. Ntini in 2005/06 was at the peak of his career, bowling superbly come on...Same goes for Nel

What would be better to say is that Hayden scored hundreds againts them at their peaks. But Ntini & Nel fell off in the years after those 6 tests in 2005/06. They by no means poor bowled when Hayden faced then in those 6 tests & if he didn't adjust his technique - he would have failed because the majority of the 6 pitches where bowler friendly.

That South African attack in 2005/06 was definately better than other SA attacks Hayden faced in 2001/02 & 2008/09

MCG and SCG Indian hundreds- Zaheer Khan and RP Singh were the seamers at the MCG, and they bowled poorly first up, both going at basically 4 an over. Neither have been top class seam bowlers either.

No they bowled poor because Hayden & Jaques dominated them in the first session when the conditions where at is best for bowling. They where alot of close calls early on especially when they where bowling to Jaques - but Hayden just stood as firm as a rock. Further proving he has counquered his demons of the past.

Zaheer Khan may not been top class but he is VERY good bowler when the ball is swinging. Check out vs ENG 07 & in SA 06/07.

The MCG pitch wasn't really flat either. When AUS bowled IIRC IND didn't even score over 200, that was one of the most balanced (having something for the bowlers & batsmen) MCG wicket i have seen in alll my 15 years of watching cricket from Australia.

Then at the SCG, their best seamer Zaheer didn't play, and the 2 seam bowlers were RP Singh and Ishant Sharma. That is not a top class seam attack.

You don't need to stress on the attack being "top-class" because Hayden technical flaws was exposed in the past by average seamers too who could "swing the ball back into his pads". For example Kyle Mills vs NZ 2004 & Ashes 2001 when Gough/Caddick where bowling crap & being dominated by all the AUS batsmen. They still managed to trouble Hayden & prevent him for scoring a hundred.

RP Singh in the 2007/08 period who in very good bowling form & was very dangerous in seamer friendly conditions. I'm sure you haven't forgotten how excellent both bowled 6 months earlier in ENG 2007, when the ball was moving around prodigiously.

Plus you forgot how much Sharma had troubled Ponting in the series. Hayden was not troubled by him.

 

[stereotype]

I agree that more often than not how well well someone bowled is a matter of opinion and can be subjective, but not in the case of that 2005 Oval Test. The fact that it took England over 50 overs to get the first breakthrough suggests to me that they didn't bowl well, and having watched the Test, and subsequently watched the highlights a number of times it holds true.

As for FCA, I don't agree with the theory entirely, but it's not complete drivel AFAIC. The only time I've used it in these discussions is the 2001 Melbourne Test, when Hayden was given incorrectly not out to 2 plumb lbw appeals to Hoggard before reaching 13. Not sure I agree with the premise of making your own luck either, it's just something that happens; and (although you didn't mention this) I also don't believe that luck evens itself out and you end up getting bad decisions to even the fortunate ones out.

Cheers as well btw Howsie, enjoying the fact that there's some proper discussion going on around here. Haven't seen much of it for a long time.

Hayden always batted a significant way down the pitch thus nullifying many LBW decisions and rightfully so, you can thank WG Grace for that. Of course you make your own luck. Everyone needs luck it is just better players don't need as much as others but just because you get it doesn't make you quality or not.

And does it occur that good batting induces poor bowling, that tends to be the way it happens. You are not giving enough credit to the batsman and WAY too much credit to the bowlers.


And who are the best fast bowlers of the decade besides McGrath and Gillespie?

Flintoff, Ntini, Pollock, Vaas, Ahktar, Steyn?

It is funny but if I look at his performances in matches just against these guys he still nearly averages 50 (49 actually). That is 39 matches so a decent sample size.

And he still averages 55 at home against the best bowlers the world had to offer! And nearly half of those centuries were against South Africa who had one of the best pace attacks consistently throughout the decade. Flintoff at his peak pretty much won England the Ashes himself as well and he picked him off for two hundreds at the peak of his power.

But you go and nit pick through them and find reasons why that record ain't so great.