Cricket's great all-rounders

[Red]

I think you're maybe taking it a bit far saying that Hadlee would bat 4 or 5 in Test cricket. Maybe if NZ had a truly horrendous line-up.

Why? It’s just a speculative opinion, but clearly if you can make a ton against Holding, Roberts and Garner you can bat at test level. If he bowled less and concentrated on batting more you don’t think he would’ve capably batted top six?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why? It’s just a speculative opinion, but clearly if you can make a ton against Holding, Roberts and Garner you can bat at test level. If he bowled less and concentrated on batting more you don’t think he would’ve capably batted top six?

Sure but you could say that about almost anyone. "If they concentrated more on x then they could be y". It's kind of a meaningless statement.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Well since Hadlee had a better average than experienced specialist test batsmen such as John Parker, Jeff Crowe, Ken Rutherford, and Trevor Franklin I'm sure he'd be fine in the top 6. The 1st 3 even captained NZ.

 

[Red]

Sure but you could say that about almost anyone. "If they concentrated more on x then they could be y". It's kind of a meaningless statement.

No. You couldn’t say it about “almost anyone”. There’s plenty of test cricketers who you know wouldn’t make it as top six test batsmen even if they focussed on it. You’re smart enough to realise that aren’t you? It’s not a meaningless statement at all.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No. You couldn’t say it about “almost anyone”. There’s plenty of test cricketers who you know wouldn’t make it as top six test batsmen even if they focussed on it. You’re smart enough to realise that aren’t you? It’s not a meaningless statement at all.

It's pretty meaningless. Most people would be better at a lot of things if they focused more on it. If your point was that Hadlee had more natural batting ability than, say, Chris Martin then sure I'm not disagreeing with it. I just don't get the point of it.

You could absolutely say the same about most bowlers who could bat a bit. And you don't need to be so sensitive every time someone has a minor issue with something you say. There's enough people on here who need to be given special treatment because they can't handle it as it is.

 

[trundler]

No it isn't. You know what he means

 

[Red]

It's pretty meaningless. Most people would be better at a lot of things if they focused more on it. If your point was that Hadlee had more natural batting ability than, say, Chris Martin then sure I'm not disagreeing with it. I just don't get the point of it.

You could absolutely say the same about most bowlers who could bat a bit. And you don't need to be so sensitive every time someone has a minor issue with something you say. There's enough people on here who need to be given special treatment because they can't handle it as it is.

I'm not sensitive to anything you say, at all. Your modus operandi here is deliberately obtuse comments designed to troll. I dont mind that, but I couldn't care less what you say tbh.

It's not meaningless at all though, in the context of a thread about great all-rounders, to suggest and speculate and converse on whether Hadlee (who spent the majority of his career at 7 or 8, quite successfully) was good enough to bat at 4/5/6. When you look at the more successful guys at #8 thru history you could say a lot of them would probably make runs in the top six, but wonder how consistent they would be. Guys like Vettori, Warne, Vaas, Pollock, Marshall and Akram could all probably prop into a top six during their careers, and make some runs, but I dunno how consistently. I personally think, however, that Hadlee was a better bat that all those guys and effectively had the game to bat top 6 (without a bowling workload) and average 40+ during his career. That was my point, and I think you understood that perfectly, but I've spelt it out for you thoroughly.

If you're just gonna say something stupidly obtuse along the lines of "that's meaningless" don't bother, but I'm actually happy to discuss if you want. Whatever.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wow lol really don't get the big deal I'm not attacking you or your comment at all, I just don't get it. Don't get all the drama either.

Still disagree completely that Hadlee is for some reason a special case but of course you're entitled to your opinion.

Also still think that any statement along the lines of "if someone did x then they would be y" is effectively meaningless

 

[Red]

They're no drama beyond the one you're clearly trying to make.

I don't think Hadlee is necessarily a "special case" either. I think the same of Kapil and perhaps a few other guys who spent the majority of their careers at 7/8. But not all of them. That's my point.

And my statement wasn't "if someone did x then they would be y". My statement was "Hadlee...could have easily batted at 4/5/6 for NZ..." and my comment wasn't along the lines of "if anyone did anything they'd get better at it". It was intended to be that Hadlee had the game to bat top 6 and could've done so easily with less a bowling load and more emphasis on batting. But I know you understand this and the obtuseness displayed is just part of the schtick you have on here. Well done.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They're no drama beyond the one you're clearly trying to make.

Lol wtf

I disagreed with what you said. You blew up about it. Get over it. This was a 2 or 3 post conversation at most, no one wants to see any more. How about we agree to disagree and dispense with the 500 word overly dramatic essay responses.

 

[Flem274*]

i reckon vettori was the better bat anyway. he certainly had to do more work.

 

[Red]

This joint baffles me. I’m literally discussing the issue at hand with you on a text based forum and stating my case before suddenly being accused of “blowing up” about something (I literally have no idea how you see this) and being asked to not respond in such detail/length (attempting to provide some clarity), and to stop being overly dramatic, and your response is liked by a mod.

ok, whatever.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This joint baffles me. I’m literally discussing the issue at hand with you on a text based forum and stating my case before suddenly being accused of “blowing up” about something (I literally have no idea how you see this) and being asked to not respond in such detail/length (attempting to provide some clarity), and to stop being overly dramatic, and your response is liked by a mod.

ok, whatever.

I dunno man, people tend to see things from their own point of view and rarely do they see themselves as being "at fault". From my POV it was pretty cut and dry that you overreacted and then made things personal when it was a very minor disagreement at most.

Fwiw I will be more tactful abound you in the future if you'd prefer, it's not my goal to genuinely upset people (too much)

 

[Red]

I wouldn’t prefer, nor expect, you to be more tactful around me. You also haven’t upset me in any way.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

It's an interesting question, who is worse? The user throwing the rancid fly riddled bait out there, or the person who swallows it whole

 

[Starfighter]

dispense with the 500 word overly dramatic essay responses.

Leave those to me instead.

 

[Coronis]

Mike Procter the GOAT allrounder.

 

[_00_deathscar]

So, can we get back to discussing who is the world's best allrounder and why you think it's Ravi Jadeja?

 

[stephen]

So, can we get back to discussing who is the world's best allrounder and why you think it's Ravi Jadeja?

Certainly Jadeja is the best at getting injuries. I'd never even heard of hamstring concussion until he pulled it off.

 

[honestbharani]

Certainly Jadeja is the best at getting injuries. I'd never even heard of hamstring concussion until he pulled it off.

Is also best at winning matches for his side even with a hamstring concussion. Clearly leagues above anyone else as a player, as a winner and as a human.