The great 1980s all rounders

[aussie tragic]

Just a thought, but if all this utter crap sprouted about Dev being a much better bowler than his record because he had weak support bowlers was true....

...wouldn't that make Hadlee the best bowler in World cricket ever, so 3x better bowler than Dev rather than just twice as good?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Seriously, the dumbness of saying Miller wasn't an ATG bowler staggers me.

Every time someone brings up wickets-per-match as if it's a relevant measure of a bowler's ability my opinion of them is automatically downgraded

 

[rtramdas]

Just a thought, but if all this utter crap sprouted about Dev being a much better bowler than his record because he had weak support bowlers was true....

...wouldn't that make Hadlee the best bowler in World cricket ever, so 3x better bowler than Dev rather than just twice as good?

felt a bit strange about bolded statement because what all I said has been based on the experience of watching cricket for several years.Any way it is easy to dismiss as 'crap' than providing counter arguments. On a side note, the performance of current Indian bowling unit is a perfect practical example. Bumrah -21 avg:, Shami 29, Ishant 33.5, Jadeja 23.5 forms a strong bowling unit for sure. Wonder what would have been the average of Jadeja in the ongoing series had he bowled along with 3 other bowlers each having 38.8 average coming into this series instead of the other mentioned 3. These are lesser conducive conditions for spinners and I am sure Jadeja would have averaged far worse than the current 42 in the on going series.

Now coming to Hadlee .... yes , statistically he should be one of the elite contenders for GOAT because just like Kapil he too had a weak support bowling unit though his work load was far lesser.On the contrary I rate Roberts a level or 2 below than his average of 25.61 suggests , because despite bowling only 11135 balls & being one among a very strong bowling unit
he averaged only 25.61. Wonder what would have been , if he belonged to a very weak bowling unit...

My one problem with Hadlee is that he has been a strong supporter of making ball tampering legal.Has more than once made public statements w.r.t that. Perhaps me, but this makes me doubt a bit about his credentials . If he is a saint, then why he comes up for this case??

 

[Starfighter]

Why do I seem to remember someone breathlessly labouring a similarly bullshit point about a year ago?

 

[the big bambino]

Every time someone brings up wickets-per-match as if it's a relevant measure of a bowler's ability my opinion of them is automatically downgraded

Its because Miller's average is too good to explain away, even for the the most one eyed jingoist wanting to prove a "point". So wpm right?

 

[kyear2]

An all rounder is only as great as his primary skill which gets him into the team. In that regard to me that makes Hadlee the greatest of the 4. I will also add through that Botham was arguably the most well rounded of the bunch, he won matches with the bat, ball and was superb in the cordon. That being said, he never did it against the very best and his career had two very different halves.

I think it must be said though that there are three types of all rounders and it may not be fair to compare them.

The batting all rounders of which none of these fits the bill. Legitimate top order batsman who can capably fill the role of 5th bowler.

Next up we have the golden child of the CW community, the bowling all rounder. They should be be opening / front line bowlers who are capable of contributing with the bat in the lower order.

Finally, the jack of all trades. The genuine all rounders who are neither legitimate top order batsman or Frontline bowlers, but can combine both disciplines good enough to contribute to the team. Miller and Botham probably best fits this description (neither was suited as to carry the load as one of the 4 main bowlers as the man) or had the batting averages as ATG batsmen. They both though added further value with their skill in the slips.

Back to topic, Hadlee was the the sole ATG for a team who punched above it's weight and he performed well at home and abroad at that same level. He didn't have different halves to his career and his batting average of 27, though the lowest of the Fab 4 was more than good enough for this role. He didn't cheat, he didn't rely on home assistance, didn't wilt against the very best of his time and he proved going it alone wasn't a detriment. For me he wasn't the very best bowler ever, but he was close and the best all rounder the '80's had to offer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

An all rounder is only as great as his primary skill which gets him into the team. In that regard to me that makes Hadlee the greatest of the 4.

couldn't disagree more. As far as I'm concerned Hadlee only just scrapes in with the "all-rounder" tag. Once in a life-time bowler though, of course.

 

[aussie tragic]

Finally, the jack of all trades. The genuine all rounders who are neither legitimate top order batsman or Frontline bowlers, but can combine both disciplines good enough to contribute to the team. Miller and Botham probably best fits this description (neither was suited as to carry the load as one of the 4 main bowlers as the man) or had the batting averages as ATG batsmen. They both though added further value with their skill in the slips.

Botham and Miller could have held a batting spot or bowler spot. Also to say that Botham could not carry the load as one of 4 main bowlers is ridiculous.

Fastest to 100 wkts
Botham (19), Hadlee (25), Dev (25), Imran (26)

Fastest to 200 wkts
Botham (41), Hadlee (44), Imran (45), Dev (50)

Fastest to 300 wkts
Hadlee (61), Imran (68), Botham (72), Dev (83)

So Botham is only 4 tests slower than Imran to 300 wkts, so pretty sure that means he would hold a top 4 bowler spot

 

[h_hurricane]

Just a thought, but if all this utter crap sprouted about Dev being a much better bowler than his record because he had weak support bowlers was true....

...wouldn't that make Hadlee the best bowler in World cricket ever, so 3x better bowler than Dev rather than just twice as good?

Hadlee being an ATG with ball alone was good enough to get through the top order on a ridiculously consistent basis, Kapil wasn't. Obviously weak support hurts a lesser bowler more than a better bowler. With better support, 1/60 all of a sudden becomes 4/80 or 5/90. Of course, this cannot happen match after match.

If Kapil was playing with someone like Bumrah at the other end, he would be averaging better than he was, probably around 26-27. James Anderson level, but not quite Walsh level. You could see the improvement in Shami's or Ishant's record ever since Bumrah started playing. Kapil was easily a better bowler than both hence he would have benefited from good support from the other end. Honestly, this could be said about any good to very good bowler in history. Heath Streak is another example.

 

[h_hurricane]

Botham and Miller could have held a batting spot or bowler spot. Also to say that Botham could not carry the load as one of 4 main bowlers is ridiculous.

Fastest to 100 wkts
Botham (19), Hadlee (25), Dev (25), Imran (26)

Fastest to 200 wkts
Botham (41), Hadlee (44), Imran (45), Dev (50)

Fastest to 300 wkts
Hadlee (61), Imran (68), Botham (72), Dev (83)

So Botham is only 4 tests slower than Imran to 300 wkts, so pretty sure that means he would hold a top 4 bowler spot

Botham was about 26 tests slower to Hadlee to 383 wickets. Also ignoring the ridiculous difference in their averages(not peak averages, but end of the career averages).This is picking someone's best period to make him look better than he was

2 reason I think Botham would be a misfit in an ATG team. 2nd reason holds true for Kapil as well.

1. ****ed his pants when up against the best. Expect him to do so against another ATG team as well.
2. In an ATG team, Botham would come to bat only after the likes of Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Glichrist etc. Also, he would be picking the ball only after Marshall, Hadlee or Mcgrath are done with their spells. A clear excess to the requirements.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hadlee being an ATG with ball alone was good enough to get through the top order on a ridiculously consistent basis, Kapil wasn't. Obviously weak support hurts a lesser bowler more than a better bowler. With better support, 1/60 all of a sudden becomes 4/80 or 5/90. Of course, this cannot happen match after match.

If Kapil was playing with someone like Bumrah at the other end, he would be averaging better than he was, probably around 26-27. James Anderson level, but not quite Walsh level. You could see the improvement in Shami's or Ishant's record ever since Bumrah started playing. Kapil was easily a better bowler than both hence he would have benefited from good support from the other end. Honestly, this could be said about any good to very good bowler in history. Heath Streak is another example.

This is all very theoretical, and tbh I don't put much stock in it as a theory, though I can definitely understand the logic behind it.

 

[Coronis]

As all rounders i.e consistently contributing to their team with the bat or ball.

Imran
Botham
Kapil
Hadlee

As players imo:

Imran
Hadlee
Botham
Kapil

 

[kyear2]

Botham and Miller could have held a batting spot or bowler spot. Also to say that Botham could not carry the load as one of 4 main bowlers is ridiculous.

Fastest to 100 wkts
Botham (19), Hadlee (25), Dev (25), Imran (26)

Fastest to 200 wkts
Botham (41), Hadlee (44), Imran (45), Dev (50)

Fastest to 300 wkts
Hadlee (61), Imran (68), Botham (72), Dev (83)

So Botham is only 4 tests slower than Imran to 300 wkts, so pretty sure that means he would hold a top 4 bowler spot

What I was trying to say was that for the purpose of these discussions, but was obviously poorly articulated. Batting all rounder, ATG batsman, good 5th bowler. Bowling all rounder, ATG bowler, good lower order batsman. Genuine all rounder, wouldn't be seen as either ATG batsman or ATG bowler but good enough at both to make the team. Botham is not an ATG bowler, period. Miller was closer average wise, but he was used as a shock bowler in shorter spells and primarily only with the new ball. In an ATG perspective, he is a 5th bowler and wasn't good enough (despite Monk's insistence) to be a top 6 batsman.

We are talking about the greatest all rounder from the Eighty's. If you want to call Botham a legitimate bowling allrounder, he is already dismissed in a direct comparison with Hadlee and even Imran. He is only even in the discussion when seen as a genuine all-rounder IMHO. And nite we haven't even touched his Stark decline it miserable performances vs the WI

 

[aussie tragic]

When did this become you must be an ATG batsman or ATG bowler to be the best 1980's allrounder thread?

 

[h_hurricane]

This is all very theoretical, and tbh I don't put much stock in it as a theory, though I can definitely understand the logic behind it.

It is all theory, but the benefit of getting a chance to bowl at tail enders can't be under estimated. You put in the hard yards as the lone quality bowler in the team and then wait for mercy from the opposition to declare at 500/5. On the other hand, you could bowl out the opposition for 450 even on flat pitches with good support, making a stark difference to your bowling averages. I am not saying this would happen frequently, but even if this happens 10-15% in Kapil's case, his average would be 2-3 runs lower. He is not the lone example here, the likes of Streak, Srinath, Vaas(on tour) would have suffered similarly.

 

[h_hurricane]

When did this become you must be an ATG batsman or ATG bowler to be the best 1980's allrounder thread?

You need not be, but being an ATG in one discipline gives you a pretty good head start over the others.

 

[kyear2]

When did this become you must be an ATG batsman or ATG bowler to be the best 1980's allrounder thread?

First if all, the first post where you replied to me I was defining how I categorize all rounders. Wasn't specific to the conversation, but more general in nature. When it comes to all rounders I cited Miller and Botham as two all rounders that fit into more genuine all rounders than either clear cut batting or bowling. As bowlers they were not Hadlee or Imran imho. As batsmen they were not Hammond, Sobers, Kallis etc. They performed in both disciplines about the same, which was good but not absolute great.

But since you disagree how would you categorize Botham?

Secondly, in my original post I gave very specific reasons why I rated Hadlee over everyone else. Which you chose to ignore. Botham had a great start to his career while the big boys were off in WSC and overall the back half of his career was nothing to write home about. Sir Ian was neither a absolutely great batsman or bowler in my mind and he also failed miserably vs the best team of his time. Those among another's are reasons I don't think Botham was not the best all rounder of the '80's.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is all theory, but the benefit of getting a chance to bowl at tail enders can't be under estimated. You put in the hard yards as the lone quality bowler in the team and then wait for mercy from the opposition to declare at 500/5. On the other hand, you could bowl out the opposition for 450 even on flat pitches with good support, making a stark difference to your bowling averages. I am not saying this would happen frequently, but even if this happens 10-15% in Kapil's case, his average would be 2-3 runs lower. He is not the lone example here, the likes of Streak, Srinath, Vaas(on tour) would have suffered similarly.

As I said, I understand the logic, but I don't think it actually holds up in practice. Put Heath Streak or Chaminda Vaas in the 80s Windies or 00s Aus side and I doubt they average much better than they did. Even saying they'd average, say, 2 runs less is being generous IMO.

but at this stage we are just stating our opinions I guess

 

[Burgey]

couldn't disagree more. As far as I'm concerned Hadlee only just scrapes in with the "all-rounder" tag. Once in a life-time bowler though, of course.

He was a Kiwi Mitchell Johnson with the cue. Devastating on his day but for the most part no more than a very useful slogger. He got to bat a spot or two higher than Johnson primarily because NZ didn't have a surfeit of top quality batsmen. As you say, though, wonderful bowler.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He was a Kiwi Mitchell Johnson with the cue. Devastating on his day but for the most part no more than a very useful slogger.

Just about the only metric where one would ever compare Mitchell Johnson with Richard Hadlee