What's new

Aaron Finch : Is he a hack or not?

D

Donal Cozzie

ODI Debutant
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Runs
9,541
Post of the Week
4
Can the mods add a poll please?? Thanks.

Anyway "Finch is a hack" is not an uncommon view for people to have here, but he has had some excellent knocks during his career. He hit 109 with a SR of 85 versus the Saffers today, and has had a couple of other good innings at International level.

But, as many Aussie posters have pointed out, he has a woeful Sheffield Shield record, averaging under 20, despite his relatively successful spell with Yorkshire in the county championship this year.

Personally I think he's a decent limited overs player, but not Test level. Regardless he seems to work really hard and I wish him all the best.

So, is he a hack, a decent player or a limited overs specialist in your opinion??

And [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], if you could replace him who would you replace him with??
 
Technically yes and I think he's rubbish. One of those players for whom I have genuine dislike.

Not a good advertisement for cricket when you have guys like him playing at the top level.
 
Ordinary technique

But he does keep on scoring runs so it should not really matter in LOIs
 
Mamoon said:
Technically yes and I think he's rubbish. One of those players for whom I have genuine dislike.

Not a good advertisement for cricket when you have guys like him playing at the top level.
Click to expand...

But he's shown on several occasions that in limited overs he can do a job for for the Aussies, not to mention that a hack will generally not build an innings at a moderate SR like he did today
 
You can afford hit and miss players like him in ODIs, he should be nowhere near the Test side though.
 
When you look up a hack in the dictionary all you see is a picture of Finch.

Zero footwork. Just a not very smart cricketer who happens to be a strong bloke who hits the ball hard. Unable to rotate the strike

Probably a good enough bloke and I'm happy that he scored a century today but in the long term won't be good enough. Will only succeed on flatter wickets and even then I think other plays will do better. Does have a good habit of converting starts but I wonder if it's like Hughes in test matches - technique is so subpar that the only times he is good enough to make a start is when he's in the zone.

Against good pace attacks I often feel that he creates a lot of pressure by being unable to score at all early and needs to be carried by his opening partner a bit. Today Warner was capable of keeping the runrate going so Finch wasn't too pressured.

The most logical way to replace him would be to open with Watto.
 
I'd love to go back and check out his innings and see if I can confirm my theory that Finch needs either his opening partner or the number 3 to make a good start at a decent strike rate so Finch can make a decent innings.
 
Convict said:
When you look up a hack in the dictionary all you see is a picture of Finch.

Zero footwork. Just a not very smart cricketer who happens to be a strong bloke who hits the ball hard. Unable to rotate the strike

Probably a good enough bloke and I'm happy that he scored a century today but in the long term won't be good enough. Will only succeed on flatter wickets and even then I think other plays will do better. Does have a good habit of converting starts but I wonder if it's like Hughes in test matches - technique is so subpar that the only times he is good enough to make a start is when he's in the zone.

Against good pace attacks I often feel that he creates a lot of pressure by being unable to score at all early and needs to be carried by his opening partner a bit. Today Warner was capable of keeping the runrate going so Finch wasn't too pressured.

The most logical way to replace him would be to open with Watto.
Click to expand...

While I agree with all that you say, I do think Finch will become a mainstay in your LOI setup considering that ODI wickets are flat almost everywhere.
 
Finch scored century on an Australian pitch! He must be a great batsman!
 
Nikhil_cric said:
While I agree with all that you say, I do think Finch will become a mainstay in your LOI setup considering that ODI wickets are flat almost everywhere.
Click to expand...

Finch does have that magical ability to score a hundred whenever his spot might come into question
 
Not a big sample size but I think it confirms my theory

Code: 
Finch's scores of 50 or more

#  Opponent         Ground    Date        Finch     Opening Partner     Opening Partnership   Finch        Notes
1. Scotland (A)     Edinburgh  3 Sep 2013 148 (114) SE Marsh 151 (151)  246 (232)             148 (114)    Scotland 
2. England (H)      Melbourne 12 Jan 2014 121 (128) DA Warner 65 (72)   163 (167)              87 (95)
3. South Africa (H) Canberra  19 Nov 2014 109 (127) DA Warner 53 (50)   118 (120)              56 (73)     
4. England (H)      Perth     24 Jan 2014 108 (111) SE Marsh  15 (17)    46 (41)               30 (24)     
5. South Africa (N) Harare    27 Aug 2014 102 (116) PJ Hughes 51 (63)    92 (110)              34 (47)     Hughes was dominating the quicks
6. India (A)        Pune      13 Oct 2013  72  (79) PJ Hughes 47 (53)   110 (110)              60 (57)     That series
7. Zimbabwe (A)     Harare    25 Aug 2014  67  (79) BJ Haddin 46 (58)    98 (113)              47 (55)     M.Marsh and Maxwell put on 109 from 54 balls
8. South Africa (N) Harare     6 Sep 2014  54  (87) PJ Hughes 15 (16)    25 (25)                7 (9)      
9. India (A)        Jaipur    16 Oct 2013  50  (53) PJ Hughes 83 (103)   74 (92)               50 (53)     That series. Australia scored 360. India chased it down

Notably for an alleged big hitter on one of Finch's scores over 50 has had a sr over 100- and it was against Scotland.
In only two of his 9 scores above 50 was the opening partnership above 50 and in only three was the opening partnership below 90.

Finch is very rarely the dominant batsman in these partnerships.

Ergo - Finch is a very limited cricketer who needs his opening partner to carry him early. Even then his scoring abilities are limited so he doesn't end up with a strike rate over 100
 
Donal Cozzie said:
But he's shown on several occasions that in limited overs he can do a job for for the Aussies, not to mention that a hack will generally not build an innings at a moderate SR like he did today
Click to expand...

Even if he averages 50+ in all formats, he would still be a hack because he's the classical example of what a hack in cricket is.

In that case, he would be a quality hack.
 
Mamoon said:
Even if he averages 50+ in all formats, he would still be a hack because he's the classical example of what a hack in cricket is.

In that case, he would be a quality hack.
Click to expand...

Do you consider Sehwag a quality hack?

He failed in testing conditions.

Finch can also play as long as he's scoring but most likely he'll fail in difficult conditions.
 
When Warner came out , everybody called him a hack as well. He's the best test opener in the world at the moment.

We should probably wait a while before we call a verdict on him. But yeah...dat footwork...
 
Sehwag played proper cricketing shots. He failed in testing conditions because he wasn't good enough technically but he was far from being a hack.
 
Mamoon said:
Sehwag played proper cricketing shots. He failed in testing conditions because he wasn't good enough technically but he was far from being a hack.
Click to expand...

Was expecting that.

So does Finch.

But neither Sehwag nor Finch have proper technique. They rely purely on hand-eye coordination and their ability to hit big. Both have zero footwork.
 
The difference is that Sehwag played proper shots, Finch is a cross-batted slogger who is not good enough at Test level.

Sehwag is one of the greatest Test opener of the modern era and arguably the best ever Test batsman for subcontinental conditions.

You simply cannot equate Finch to him, who belongs in the category of Pollard, Levi, Ronchi etc.
 
Sehwag was a hack.
But he was also a world class player.

Finch isn't
 
Yes, Sehwag was a quality hack in conditions suited to him.

Finch has a lot to prove but going good in ODIs.
 
He's just trying to be Haydos but hasn't got anywhere near the technical ability. Will be a good player for Aus in the limited overs formats simply because the tracks all around the world are so flat in those format. He also like a genuinely good bloke so I wish him well in ODIs and T20s, but he shouldn't come near the Test side.
 
Convict said:
Not a big sample size but I think it confirms my theory

Code: 
Finch's scores of 50 or more

#  Opponent         Ground    Date        Finch     Opening Partner     Opening Partnership   Finch        Notes
1. Scotland (A)     Edinburgh  3 Sep 2013 148 (114) SE Marsh 151 (151)  246 (232)             148 (114)    Scotland 
2. England (H)      Melbourne 12 Jan 2014 121 (128) DA Warner 65 (72)   163 (167)              87 (95)
3. South Africa (H) Canberra  19 Nov 2014 109 (127) DA Warner 53 (50)   118 (120)              56 (73)     
4. England (H)      Perth     24 Jan 2014 108 (111) SE Marsh  15 (17)    46 (41)               30 (24)     
5. South Africa (N) Harare    27 Aug 2014 102 (116) PJ Hughes 51 (63)    92 (110)              34 (47)     Hughes was dominating the quicks
6. India (A)        Pune      13 Oct 2013  72  (79) PJ Hughes 47 (53)   110 (110)              60 (57)     That series
7. Zimbabwe (A)     Harare    25 Aug 2014  67  (79) BJ Haddin 46 (58)    98 (113)              47 (55)     M.Marsh and Maxwell put on 109 from 54 balls
8. South Africa (N) Harare     6 Sep 2014  54  (87) PJ Hughes 15 (16)    25 (25)                7 (9)      
9. India (A)        Jaipur    16 Oct 2013  50  (53) PJ Hughes 83 (103)   74 (92)               50 (53)     That series. Australia scored 360. India chased it down

Notably for an alleged big hitter on one of Finch's scores over 50 has had a sr over 100- and it was against Scotland.
In only two of his 9 scores above 50 was the opening partnership above 50 and in only three was the opening partnership below 90.

Finch is very rarely the dominant batsman in these partnerships.

Ergo - Finch is a very limited cricketer who needs his opening partner to carry him early. Even then his scoring abilities are limited so he doesn't end up with a strike rate over 100
Click to expand...

Convict, I can't help but ask you, what's your database? It definitely isn't cricinfo..
 
'Hack' Finch would waltz into team Pakistan (ODI edition).

He's an exciting young player.
 
Sandeep said:
Sehwag was a hack? Ok..
Click to expand...

Hack is a description about technique and playing style.

It's normally a negative (because hacks generally fail at higher levels) but Sehwag was a world class player despite being a hack.
 
Convict said:
Hack is a description about technique and playing style.

It's normally a negative (because hacks generally fail at higher levels) but Sehwag was a world class player despite being a hack.
Click to expand...

I'd say Sehwag was a freak, not a hack!
 
Sehwag was a batsman with poor footwork. His shot selection and execution was outstanding.

Even if Finch scores 3 consecutive hundreds, I will not consider him a batsman because his approach to batting is not reminiscent of a batsman. He can be a quality hack but not a quality batsman.
 
Sehwag is a hack????

So, how old are you guys??

Somebody who can murder spinnner in even rank turners of SRL, has a 195 in Australia...I believe he averages 40 in australia....scored centuries in NZ in tough conditions in 2001/2002...is
 
no hes not.Top class test batsmen.I hope he opens in Test series vs us along with Maxwell,Marsh sr. etc
 
IgnitedMind said:
Sehwag is a hack????

So, how old are you guys??

Somebody who can murder spinnner in even rank turners of SRL, has a 195 in Australia...I believe he averages 40 in australia....scored centuries in NZ in tough conditions in 2001/2002...is
Click to expand...

A player with no footwork and little technique and succeeded due to his great reflexes and eye.

Though Sehwag was genuinely world class and probably the only hack to ever be in that category so I accept that it's extremely unfair to put him there.

Plus he could play far more than the agricultural leg side heave.
 
Just going to point out that Warner failed - so Finch spudded it up and got himself out due to not having someone to hold his hand
 
I vehemently refuse to consider him a batsman. He should be shown the door primarily on the principle of maintaining the spirit of cricket.
 
To answer the OP yes he is still a hack. But he'll cane some minnows this World Cup oh yes he will.
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Can the mods add a poll please?? Thanks.

Anyway "Finch is a hack" is not an uncommon view for people to have here, but he has had some excellent knocks during his career. He hit 109 with a SR of 85 versus the Saffers today, and has had a couple of other good innings at International level.

But, as many Aussie posters have pointed out, he has a woeful Sheffield Shield record, averaging under 20, despite his relatively successful spell with Yorkshire in the county championship this year.

Personally I think he's a decent limited overs player, but not Test level. Regardless he seems to work really hard and I wish him all the best.

So, is he a hack, a decent player or a limited overs specialist in your opinion??

And [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], if you could replace him who would you replace him with??
Click to expand...

43 posts for this?? He's a hack.
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Can the mods add a poll please?? Thanks.

Anyway "Finch is a hack" is not an uncommon view for people to have here, but he has had some excellent knocks during his career. He hit 109 with a SR of 85 versus the Saffers today, and has had a couple of other good innings at International level.

But, as many Aussie posters have pointed out, he has a woeful Sheffield Shield record, averaging under 20, despite his relatively successful spell with Yorkshire in the county championship this year.

Personally I think he's a decent limited overs player, but not Test level. Regardless he seems to work really hard and I wish him all the best.

So, is he a hack, a decent player or a limited overs specialist in your opinion??

And [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], if you could replace him who would you replace him with??
Click to expand...

43 posts for this?? He's a hack.
 
He did pretty well in the MCC centenary match. Hard to call it a fluke when he keeps coming up with innings like these.
 
I'm sure a few years ago we would have been saying the same thing about David Warner. Then he piled up the runs in FC cricket, burst into the Test side and today stands as one of the gun Test cricketers in the world - 9 centuries and 13 fifties in 60 innings, average 47.

That path is open to Finch if he is good enough. He might not be, but I wouldn't trash him as a hack just because of the way he bats. At the end of the day, the ultimate hack Virender Sehwag fluked his way to 8,000 Test runs and Finch and Warner are 10 times better than Sehwag.
 
Last edited:
He's a hack and I somewhat agree with Mamoon that I don't like watching him bat. No class what so ever.
 
Saqs said:
He did pretty well in the MCC centenary match. Hard to call it a fluke when he keeps coming up with innings like these.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

He's not a world beater by any means but as Convict has also said he always comes up with a good innings whenever his spot is in doubt.

And I laugh at people who want him to quit because his batting is ugly. Who cares how he bats as long as he scores runs?? I'd take the hackiest hack of all time if he could score regular runs
 
What's with your obsession with a hack Australian? Don't you have enough in Ireland? :baelish
 
Really? Then unleash them on us in the World Cup.

The 2007 fluke will not be repeated boy, even if we play 11 Amins. :baelish
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Can the mods add a poll please?? Thanks.

Anyway "Finch is a hack" is not an uncommon view for people to have here, but he has had some excellent knocks during his career. He hit 109 with a SR of 85 versus the Saffers today, and has had a couple of other good innings at International level.

But, as many Aussie posters have pointed out, he has a woeful Sheffield Shield record, averaging under 20, despite his relatively successful spell with Yorkshire in the county championship this year.

Personally I think he's a decent limited overs player, but not Test level. Regardless he seems to work really hard and I wish him all the best.

So, is he a hack, a decent player or a limited overs specialist in your opinion??

And [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], if you could replace him who would you replace him with??
Click to expand...

Define 'hack'.
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Exactly.

He's not a world beater by any means but as Convict has also said he always comes up with a good innings whenever his spot is in doubt.

And I laugh at people who want him to quit because his batting is ugly. Who cares how he bats as long as he scores runs?? I'd take the hackiest hack of all time if he could score regular runs
Click to expand...

Looking ugly isn't what gets one called a hack. Graeme Smith is the ugliest bat of all time, no one calls him a hack, or Fawad Alam, or Chanderpaul.
 
Mamoon said:
The difference is that Sehwag played proper shots, Finch is a cross-batted slogger who is not good enough at Test level.

Sehwag is one of the greatest Test opener of the modern era and arguably the best ever Test batsman for subcontinental conditions.

You simply cannot equate Finch to him, who belongs in the category of Pollard, Levi, Ronchi etc.
Click to expand...

I could show you an entire montage of cross-batted slogs and ugly swipes from Sehwag....Finch is the most over-rated player in history, but can we stay away from this 'proper shots' rubbish? Finch plays plenty of proper shots and Sehwag played plenty of slogs as well.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
I could show you an entire montage of cross-batted slogs and ugly swipes from Sehwag....Finch is the most over-rated player in history, but can we stay away from this 'proper shots' rubbish? Finch plays plenty of proper shots and Sehwag played plenty of slogs as well.
Click to expand...

You can do the same for any batsman, but they are also capable of playing proper cricketing shots.

Finch is not, which is why he's a hack unlike Sehwag.

If we talk about hack shots only, then Lara has played more hack shots than anyone in history but he was also capable of playing real cricketing shots so does that make Lara a hack? No.
 
People also call Rohit Sharma a hack. I know a lot of Indians who do.

Call him what you want, but if a man can outscore an entire team in ODIs, and only performs once in a blue moon (but when he does, he scores double hundreds) - I would like to have these hacks in the Pak side.
 
Mamoon said:
You can do the same for any batsman, but they are also capable of playing proper cricketing shots.

Finch is not, which is why he's a hack unlike Sehwag.

If we talk about hack shots only, then Lara has played more hack shots than anyone in history but he was also capable of playing real cricketing shots so does that make Lara a hack? No.
Click to expand...

What's a hack shot?

I don't think cross-batted shots are considered hack-shots.

Nothing about Lara made you think he was playing hack shots.
 
Difficult to explain how a hack shot differs from a cross batted hit but you can spot a batsman hacking when you see one.

The reason I picked on Lara was that he was one of those batsmen that looked magnificent when in form but pretty terrible when he was going through a rut. An out of form Lara was prone to playing hack, reckless shots a bit like Pietersen.

The image I have of a hack in my mind is pretty much like Finch.
 
So basically someone like Imran Nazir.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Define 'hack'.
Click to expand...

In my view, a hack is someone who has little to no technique or footwork, and relies solely on throwing his arms about for runs. Awais Zia is a prime example.

Finch might have little footwork or technique, but he performs and scores runs on a regular enough basis. IMO hack is someone who cant even score many runs and for that reason I wouldnt class finch as one.

Maybe thats me misunderstanding the term bit thats my view. Someone who does pretty well as regularly as Finch does in ODI's doesnt deserve to be called a "hack", as it implies he has no skill, which I dont think is true.
 
^ I am sure you could have picked on some Irish batsman as a 'prime example' rather than on a Pakistani one. Know your place Minnow.
 
Definite hack but at least when he flukes out a score it will be with a high strike rate.
 
BlackThunder said:
Definite hack but at least when he flukes out a score it will be with a high strike rate.
Click to expand...

Interesting only one of his 20+ scores has come at a strike rate over 100- the century against Scotland.

Just isn't as good as other players
 
cars112 said:
I'm sure a few years ago we would have been saying the same thing about David Warner. Then he piled up the runs in FC cricket, burst into the Test side and today stands as one of the gun Test cricketers in the world - 9 centuries and 13 fifties in 60 innings, average 47.

That path is open to Finch if he is good enough. He might not be, but I wouldn't trash him as a hack just because of the way he bats. At the end of the day, the ultimate hack Virender Sehwag fluked his way to 8,000 Test runs and Finch and Warner are 10 times better than Sehwag.
Click to expand...

yeah right :))
 
Hack gets a ton on WC debut against the old enemy.

TAKE THAT [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] !! :))
 
Still think he's a hack. Sickening mickey mouse type batting.
 
He would walk in every team barring SA atm. So much for being a hack? :) Runs are important, no matter if you score it with the flip side of the bat. I appreciate every player who scores good runs for his team. So excellent job Finch!
 
sunnykhan said:
He would walk in every team barring SA atm. So much for being a hack? :) Runs are important, no matter if you score it with the flip side of the bat. I appreciate every player who scores good runs for his team. So excellent job Finch!
Click to expand...

wont get into indian team.Rohit is miles better than him,and though Dhawan is out of form he's still better
 
desi_launda said:
wont get into indian team.Rohit is miles better than him,and though Dhawan is out of form he's still better
Click to expand...

Sorry but Dhawan is not better than him IMO. Plus, an out of form batsman cannot be better than an in-form batsman :).
 
Changes nothing. Hack had a good day.

Some woeful looking shots.
 
I would rather have a hack who scores an ugly but highly efficient 100 than a technically correct batsman who can't even get it up to 10. :shafiq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ball Blazer
Not just a coach – Could Hanif Malik be Pakistan’s secret weapon for T20I glory?
Replies
7
Views
800
anakwalajinn
anakwalajinn
BouncerGuy
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Beau Webster - A new Australian allrounder
Replies
25
Views
847
Ball Blazer
Ball Blazer
Buffet
James Anderson's Test XI of players he played with or against
Replies
32
Views
2K
Romali_rotti
Romali_rotti
Major
Kudos to South Africa for not pretending to be wholesome with Pakistan team
Replies
47
Views
1K
Cpt. Rishwat
Cpt. Rishwat
Savak
Why did Gary Kirsten not hold a single white ball camp in Pakistan or spend time at the NCA?
2
Replies
119
Views
5K
Rana
Rana
Back
Top