Daniel Vettori vs Richard Hadlee (batting)

[pasag]

Eerily similar career batting stats:

Vettori - 88 matches, 2971 runs at 27.25

Hadlee - 86 matches, 3124 runs at 27.16

Who do people think is/was the superior batsman?

 

[Matt79]

Immediate reaction is to say Hadlee, but I'll have to have a better look and get back to you.

 

[chaminda_00]

Would go Haddlee due to fact he batted at 7 for lots of his career and was quite successful there.

Though he was a minnow basher and smashed the Lankans a fair bit. Runs against Windies attack counter that.

 

[Jakester1288]

Never seen Hadlee bat, but I have both in my Cricket Drafting team, and I will probably be batting Vettori higher, because I have actually seen him bat.

 

[Xuhaib]

Duh!

One was Fast medium the other is a left arm spinner so its an unfair comparison.

Would still go for Hadlee considering all this.

 

[Matt79]

Duh!

One was Fast medium the other is a left arm spinner so its an unfair comparison.

Would still go for Hadlee considering all this.

Gotta hate it when you realise you've replied without reading the question....

 

[Prince EWS]

My first reaction was to say Vettori, and pretty comfortably. It's often argued that players were picked too early and have had their overall career records suffer as a result - if lower order batting (which is all we're discussing here) was a specialist position then this would certainly be true of Vettori's career. He was picked as a specialist bowler as a teenager before his batting really developed and hence it's only fair to take into the second half of his career or so:

Before maiden Test hundred - 48 Tests, 1048 runs @ 18.02
From maiden Test hundred - 41 Tests; 1952 runs @ 37.53

However, upon closer inspection of Hadlee's career, a similar thing happened with him as well.

Before maiden Test hundred - 27 Tests; 912 runs @ 20.72
From maiden Test hundred - 59 Tests; 2212 @ 31.15

Hadlee made his runs in a harder era to do so and has, so far anyway, been a good lower order player for longer than Vettori has, which combined almost makes up for the 6 run or so average difference, but not quite IMO.

I'm predicting a large percentage of Hadlee votes as he definitely seems to have the reputation as the better batsman, batted higher than Vettori and from the little I've seen of him definitely looked more of a batsman than Vettori. However, Vettori's done a little more with his batting career for mine, or is at very least almost certain to do so fairly soon.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I didn't see too much of Sir Richard's test career, but even in his cricketing dotage he looked a far more fluent batsman than Vettori, who sometimes seems to complete quite substantial innings without ever hitting the ball in front of square.

Against that, in terms of natural ability, Vettori has probably made more of his talent. There have been times when it's not been too much of a stretch to say that he has been NZ's best (or most effective) bat. Vettori is essentially very hard to shift and the runs come however they come.

This may be a case where looking at their ODI records is instructive. Sir Richard played in a far slower scoring era, but still managed 21.61 @ 75.50, but Vettori's average plummets right down to 15.16 at a barely faster (78.83) SR. This suggests the former probably had a greater range of shots at his disposal with which to force the pace, as is required in the shortened form.

Hadlee for me then, but only just.

 

[Jamee999]

Vettori.

 

[Jigga988]

I didn't see too much of Sir Richard's test career, but even in his cricketing dotage he looked a far more fluent batsman than Vettori, who sometimes seems to complete quite substantial innings without ever hitting the ball in front of square.

Against that, in terms of natural ability, Vettori has probably made more of his talent. There have been times when it's not been too much of a stretch to say that he has been NZ's best (or most effective) bat. Vettori is essentially very hard to shift and the runs come however they come.

This may be a case where looking at their ODI records is instructive. Sir Richard played in a far slower scoring era, but still managed 21.61 @ 75.50, but Vettori's average plummets right down to 15.16 at a barely faster (78.83) SR. This suggests the former probably had a greater range of shots at his disposal with which to force the pace, as is required in the shortened form.

Hadlee for me then, but only just.

Yup true, Vetorri is quite limited in the shots he plays but is effective to be fair to him. Vetorri also had a lot of not outs, thus increasing his average. Vetorri also had a lot of over-attacking fields as he batted at 8 where as Hadlee bat at 7 for some of his career. Dont know how much not-outs Hadlee actually had but i am sure it was less than Vettori. So on that basis i would have to go Hadlee.

 

[Sanz]

Sir Hadlee, easily.

 

[zaremba]

Hadlee.

I feel that Hadlee underachieved with the bat, Vettori has overachieved spectacularly.

 

[Smudge]

Vettori, comfortably for mine. Hadlee always had more natural timing and ability with the blade, but Vettori has eked out a quite remarkable record, particularly in the last few years.

Hadlee was the first to admit that if the ball was up, he'd have a lash, but if it was short, he was in some difficulty (see the video "From Cloth Cap To Helmet", probably not available from all good video-sellers, seeing as there aren't any left). Add to the fact that, from the late 1970s to early 1980s, Hadlee had the benefit of coming in after the likes of Crowe, Turner, Howarth, Wright, Edgar, Coney et al... whereas Vettori (more often than not in the last 2-3 seasons) has often been left in the position of righting a teetering ship and has done nothing short of a brilliant job in his own unorthodox style.

So... superior batsman? I rank that on the output rather than the potential, so Vettori gets it for mine.

 

[zaremba]

Vettori, comfortably for mine. Hadlee always had more natural timing and ability with the blade, but Vettori has eked out a quite remarkable record, particularly in the last few years.

Hadlee was the first to admit that if the ball was up, he'd have a lash, but if it was short, he was in some difficulty (see the video "From Cloth Cap To Helmet", probably not available from all good video-sellers, seeing as there aren't any left). Add to the fact that, from the late 1970s to early 1980s, Hadlee had the benefit of coming in after the likes of Crowe, Turner, Howarth, Wright, Edgar, Coney et al... whereas Vettori (more often than not in the last 2-3 seasons) has often been left in the position of righting a teetering ship and has done nothing short of a brilliant job in his own unorthodox style.

So... superior batsman? I rank that on the output rather than the potential, so Vettori gets it for mine.

Fair enough.

In Hadlee's favour he averaged (IIRC) an extremely impressive 38 throughout his long career for Notts. This in the days when (a) Trent Bridge was an extremely testing pitch to bat on (for reasons not unconnected with his own, and Clive Rice's, bowling) and (b) most counties had 2 overseas players and there were a lot of very fine fast bowlers around on the circuit.

 

[Smudge]

I think, really, this is one that can go either way so, like you, I'll say "fair enough' to those who go for Hadlee. It all depends what you'd want in a team and what the batting card looked like above Hadlee/Vettori in a mythical team.

 

[GIMH]

Fair enough.

In Hadlee's favour he averaged (IIRC) an extremely impressive 38 throughout his long career for Notts. This in the days when (a) Trent Bridge was an extremely testing pitch to bat on (for reasons not unconnected with his own, and Clive Rice's, bowling) and (b) most counties had 2 overseas players and there were a lot of very fine fast bowlers around on the circuit.

'Not unconnected to' is a diplomatic way of putting it based on everything I have read about that wicket

 

[thierry henry]

I don't know why people always say Vettori has "made the most of his limited batting talent"

I certainly wouldn't call him pretty but he is obviously very talented. He often appears more decisive with his shot selection than a lot of our top order batsmen. He seems to have a very good eye, and whilst his technique is not a thing of beauty he is actually, imo, a very natural see-er (if you get what I mean) and hitter of a cricket ball.

There seems to be this perception of Vettori as a doughty battler with the bat, when really he is a very aggressive and forthright batsman, albeit with technical limitations.

 

[Richard]

'Not unconnected to' is a diplomatic way of putting it based on everything I have read about that wicket

You bowl high-class seam, you earn the right to have home conditions prepped to suit you perfectly. Hadlee and Rice is one of the best examples of this.

As for Vettori and Hadlee, interesting question. Never really thought all that much about Hadlee as batsman, as he was clearly a much better bowler than batsman, but the 3 strokes I've seen Hadlee play looked much better than the 3 worst I've ever seen Vettori play so I'll vote for Hadlee methinks.

 

[Burgey]

Hadlee the better ball striker by plenty; Vettori the more dogged and consistent performer IMO.

Would go with Vettori on batting alone for the most part, but if you needed a quick-fire 50-odd, then it'd be Paddles.

 

[Zinzan]

For those of you who haven't seen much of Hadlee with the bat; heres one of his better innings, his last test match at Lords just after receiving his knighthood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PSkv96rF4I