The Greatest Allrounder Ever?

[shortpitched713]

New Zealand has a place in the top six for a guy who would average 27 in 85 matches?

Not so hard to believe if you've looked at the the records of some of the specialist bats who've played for New Zealand. Theres probably more than one example tbh, but I can't think of any off of the top of my head. Its also not so so hard to believe that his batting record would improve if he didn't have to worry about carrying New Zealand's bowling attack on his shoulders.

 

[Fiery]

Not so hard to believe if you've looked at the the records of some of the specialist bats who've played for New Zealand. Theres probably more than one example tbh, but I can't think of any off of the top of my head. Its also not so so hard to believe that his batting record would improve if he didn't have to worry about carrying New Zealand's bowling attack on his shoulders.

 

[Smudge]

Neither of those things is funnier than you suggesting Hadlee was not a good enough batsman to be an allrounder. He would have made the NZ test team as a specialist batsman if he wasn't a bowler.

Here was some of the jingoism I was talking about, Fiery. Just because John Wright thinks that, it doesn't mean it's so.

Hadlee openly admitted that he struggled against anything short.

 

[Fiery]

Here was some of the jingoism I was talking about, Fiery. Just because John Wright thinks that, it doesn't mean it's so.

Hadlee openly admitted that he struggled against anything short.

What batsman doesn't have a weakness? What's with this campaign you seem to have going on to discredit anything I say Voltman? Is it something I said or didn't say? Where did we go wrong?

 

[Beleg]

Where did we go wrong?

Awwwww...


*Ahem*

 

[Smudge]

But Fiery, how can we be lovers if we can't be friends - how can we start over when the fighting never ends?

 

[Fiery]

But Fiery, how can we be lovers if we can't be friends - how can we start over when the fighting never ends?

Thanks Voltman, now I've got that ****'n song stuck in my head

 

[shortpitched713]

Haha, I had replied to SS before I had actually read your post near the top of this page. That post sums up my feelings pretty well.

Anyway this pretty much disproves SS's argument. Debuted in the same match as the great man as well.

 

[Fiery]

Haha, I had replied to SS before I had actually read your post near the top of this page. That post sums up my feelings pretty well.

Anyway this pretty much disproves SS's argument. Debuted in the same match as the great man as well.

Nice evidence to support our case mate. Keep up the good work Here's another good example J.Crowe and he was hardly considered a mug with the bat. Even Jock Edwards played as a specialist batsman at one stage.

P.S: Lillian Thomson, maybe we can exist on the same planet? or would it still be too scary for you?

 

[Will Scarlet]

Sobers was the best then Botham - definitely ahead of Khan.

In the Hadlee debate, on the tour of ENG in 1983 Hadlee averaged more than 50 in the four or five test series, the highest in the team, and obviously took lots of wickets - except in the one game NZ won.

Hadlee could have averaged more with the bat than he achieved but I'm sure most of us were happy enough with his contribution with the ball.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nice evidence to support our case mate. Keep up the good work Here's another good example J.Crowe and he was hardly considered a mug with the bat. Even Jock Edwards played as a specialist batsman at one stage.

P.S: Lillian Thomson, maybe we can exist on the same planet? or would it still be too scary for you?

The fact that New Zealand didn't produce a single Test class batsman in 70's (maybe Glenn Turner) doesn't enhance Richard Hadlee's ability. Even with that appalling batting line-up he rarely batted above number 8. He developed his batting later in his career and became a useful number 7, but a Test class batsman he certainly wasn't and never looked like being.

 

[Fiery]

The fact that New Zealand didn't produce a single Test class batsman in 70's (maybe Glenn Turner) doesn't enhance Richard Hadlee's ability. Even with that appalling batting line-up he rarely batted above number 8. He developed his batting later in his career and became a useful number 7, but a Test class batsman he certainly wasn't and never looked like being.

How old are you Lillian? I probably watched every innings he played that was shown on TV and he was a joy to watch with the bat. Here's John Wright's summary of his batting wriiten in 1990 just before Hadlee retired:

"As a batter he times the ball better than anyone in the New Zealand team". "If Paddles hadn't been a bowler, he could've been a hell of a batsman, easily good enough to hold his place in the New Zealand team. He batted very well for Nottinghamshire, averaged 38 in county games and playing a number of fine one-day knocks. He can play two games, particularly against the spinners - he has a better defensive technique against the mediums than the slows - but the main thing about his batting is that lovely swing of the bat and the clean strikes, especially down the ground. He's a superb striker of a cricket ball. All of us clip it well now and then but he smacks it very crisply most of the time. He's great to watch because you never know what'll happen next. Because he really goes for it, he gives it a good nudge or misses it; he's seldom out playing a half and half sort of shot. Sometimes watching him you're thinking "Oh Paddles, why did you flash at that one?" His 99 against England in 1984 was a great innings to watch - it also won the game for us".

Sorry Lillian, but I refuse to accept anyone trying to tell me Sir Richard Hadlee was not a genuine allrounder or test class batsman.

 

[Ikki]

How old are you Lillian? I probably watched every innings he played that was shown on TV and he was a joy to watch with the bat. Here's John Wright's summary of his batting wriiten in 1990 just before Hadlee retired:

"As a batter he times the ball better than anyone in the New Zealand team". "If Paddles hadn't been a bowler, he could've been a hell of a batsman, easily good enough to hold his place in the New Zealand team. He batted very well for Nottinghamshire, averaged 38 in county games and playing a number of fine one-day knocks. He can play two games, particularly against the spinners - he has a better defensive technique against the mediums than the slows - but the main thing about his batting is that lovely swing of the bat and the clean strikes, especially down the ground. He's a superb striker of a cricket ball. All of us clip it well now and then but he smacks it very crisply most of the time. He's great to watch because you never know what'll happen next. Because he really goes for it, he gives it a good nudge or misses it; he's seldom out playing a half and half sort of shot. Sometimes watching him you're thinking "Oh Paddles, why did you flash at that one?" His 99 against England in 1984 was a great innings to watch - it also won the game for us".

Sorry Lillian, but I refuse to accept anyone trying to tell me Sir Richard Hadlee was not a genuine allrounder or test class batsman.

Not all test batsmen are great batsmen. Just that he was better than some of his contemporaries doesn't mean he would have been able to get into a side on his batting alone.

 

[Fiery]

Not all test batsmen are great batsmen. Just that he was better than some of his contemporaries doesn't mean he would have been able to get into a side on his batting alone.

? Come again

 

[steds]

New Zealand has a place in the top six for a guy who would average 27 in 85 matches?

If not, England will have him for our ODI team.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How old are you Lillian? I probably watched every innings he played that was shown on TV and he was a joy to watch with the bat. Here's John Wright's summary of his batting wriiten in 1990 just before Hadlee retired:

"As a batter he times the ball better than anyone in the New Zealand team". "If Paddles hadn't been a bowler, he could've been a hell of a batsman, easily good enough to hold his place in the New Zealand team. He batted very well for Nottinghamshire, averaged 38 in county games and playing a number of fine one-day knocks. He can play two games, particularly against the spinners - he has a better defensive technique against the mediums than the slows - but the main thing about his batting is that lovely swing of the bat and the clean strikes, especially down the ground. He's a superb striker of a cricket ball. All of us clip it well now and then but he smacks it very crisply most of the time. He's great to watch because you never know what'll happen next. Because he really goes for it, he gives it a good nudge or misses it; he's seldom out playing a half and half sort of shot. Sometimes watching him you're thinking "Oh Paddles, why did you flash at that one?" His 99 against England in 1984 was a great innings to watch - it also won the game for us".

Sorry Lillian, but I refuse to accept anyone trying to tell me Sir Richard Hadlee was not a genuine allrounder or test class batsman.

I saw him batting at Lord's in 1978 when New Zealand were bowled out for 60. Geoff Howarth was the last batsman in and refused singles and tried so hard to keep Hadlee off the strike that he ended up running him out trying to steal a single when the ball barely travelled off the wicket. I've seen footage of him hitting Dennis Lillee and a powerful Australian attack all over the place around the same time. The fact that he could bat on his day doesn't make him a Test class batsman. Lance Cairns could hit similarly on his day, but his days were even fewer and further between.
He just wasn't a Test class batsman.

 

[Ikki]

? Come again

I mean to say is that you will find test players which are technically 'test batsmen' that average low but that is usually because they're either a wicketkeeper or a bowler. You stated that based on his batting alone Hadlee would get into a side for it. His test average is 27 - not the hallmark of a great test batsman if you get what I mean. I thought this was elementary knowledge, not so I guess.

 

[shortpitched713]

Two examples of specialist batsmen were given from around the same period as Hadlee that had lower Test averages than him. In addition it would make sense to assume that Hadlee's Test batting would improve considering he didn't have to worry about being the leading bowler of his side. For these reasons it wouldn't be so inconcievable that he could be a specialist bat for New Zealand in that era.

 

[Fiery]

He just wasn't a Test class batsman.

and you roll your eyes at me like the meer suggestion that Hadlee could bat is ridiculous. Not only are you ignorant but you're rude

 

[silentstriker]

Sobers was the best then Botham - definitely ahead of Khan.

In the Hadlee debate, on the tour of ENG in 1983 Hadlee averaged more than 50 in the four or five test series, the highest in the team, and obviously took lots of wickets - except in the one game NZ won.

Hadlee could have averaged more with the bat than he achieved but I'm sure most of us were happy enough with his contribution with the ball.

Why would you say that? Miller & Khan were both better than Botham.

In the eighties:

Batting:

Botham > Imran > Dev > Hadlee

Bowling:

Hadlee > Imran > Botham > Dev

Overall (as players):

Imran > Hadlee > Botham > Dev

Overall (as "all rounders"):

Imran > Botham > Dev > Hadlee