Richard Hadlee vs Dale Steyn

[Prince EWS]

I mean comparing against contemporaries is pretty much one the best ways of rating players between different eras isn’t it?

How else (statistically) do we know that Grace was a great batsman?

I think "how hard was batting on average?" and "how many people excelled at it given that baseline?" are fundamentally different questions though. In determining who was an ATG you definitely need to factor in what a good score or average in the era was, but I don't think blindly assuming each era produces the same amount of special players is correct.

If the average score for top order bats is still ~34 but only 3 as opposed to 9 bats were much better than that, it probably just means there were less ATGs in that era

By the same token though, assuming "oh there were heaps of ATG bowlers in this era which means batting was harder" is also silly, and I think that argument is how we actually got to this argument. ATG bowlers are rare and as a batsman you will not be facing them very often, no matter which era you play in.

 

[Slifer]

Testing that claim out
80s
Marshall/Hadlee/Dev/Botham/Imran/Lawson played 1980-89
Holding and Garner till 87
Lillee and Willis till 84
90s
Ambrose/Walsh/Wasim/Waqar played 1990-1999
Donald 92-99
McGrath 93-99
McDermott 91-96
Pollock 95-99
00s
Ntini/Vaas/Flintoff/Zaheer Khan/Kallis/Martin played 2000-2009
Harmison 2002-09
Lee/Pollock/Hoggard till 2008
Gillespie 00-06
Steyn 04-09
Anderson 03-09
Akhtar/McGrath to 2007
10s
Anderson/Broad/Steyn/Southee/Sharma/Roach/Siddle
Boult/Starc/Philander/Yadav 2011-2019
Morkel till 2018
Wagner 2012-2019
Hazlewood 2014-2019
Rabada 2015-2019
Johnson/Harris till 2015

On paper 00s does look the weakest by a margin

90s also had Fraser, Gough, Bishop, DeVilliers, Caddick, Fleming, Reifel. Btw Walsh, Bruce Reid and Wasim also played significant portions in the 80s as well.

 

[Daemon]

I think "how hard was batting on average?" and "how many people excelled at it given that baseline?" are fundamentally different questions though. In determining who was an ATG you definitely need to factor in what a good score or average in the era was, but I don't think blindly assuming each era produces the same amount of special players is correct.

If the average score for top order bats is still ~34 but only 3 as opposed to 9 bats were much better than that, it probably just means there were less ATGs in that area.

By the same token though, assuming "oh there were heaps of ATG bowlers in this era which means batting was harder" is also silly, and I think that argument is how we actually got to this argument.

Yes fair

 

[cnerd123]

Steyn played in a tougher era for bowlers, but he was part of one of the strongest bowling attacks of that era, in a team that was pretty strong as well. I feel like those advantages negate the disadvantage he had. Hadlee's era was more bowler friendly, but he also carried the attack, and his team was often pretty weak and struggled a bit.

In terms of raw skill, Hadlee was more consistent from what I've read and what little I've seen. Steyn was more hot and cold. Some really destructive spells offset by passages of play where he'd look somewhat ineffective.

Both would compliment each other pretty well as part of the same attack.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In terms of raw skill, Hadlee was more consistent from what I've read and what little I've seen. Steyn was more hot and cold. Some really destructive spells offset by passages of play where he'd look somewhat ineffective.

Both would compliment each other pretty well as part of the same attack.

Steyn and Hadlee would do well in an attack together? That's a hot take

 

[Kirkut]

I'm least bothered about who's better but may give it to Hadlee here.

Excuse the annoying music in the video, those outswingers in India and that too a T20 game...

"Where are you now....where are you now?" that's what Rohit Sharma was saying to those outswingers.

 

[Nintendo]

Since the start of 2020 one of them is averaging 85 from 7 tests, while the other is averaging 24 from 8.

Since the start of 2020 Smith averages 47, marnus averages 70. Is marnus a better test bat than Smith?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

YJB

Nice burn

 

[TheJediBrah]

Since the start of 2020 Smith averages 47, marnus averages 70. Is marnus a better test bat than Smith?

Maybe?

 

[Starfighter]

that venturer is an idiot. events in the game dictate how you play.

Aside from the fact that still favours Hadlee > Steyn, I think it's debatable whether it makes a significant difference. Is a player going to bat or bowl in a way that makes them significantly less effective because their teammates are gash?

And you use of 'direct competitors' exposes your argument. Anderson playing against India has no direct influence on what Steyn is doing against Australia at the same time. They're not competing. Yet you're not sticking with head to head or team composition when you're talking about Steyn's contemporaries, because there's not getting around the argument that Steyn played in a stronger bowling team.

I mean comparing against contemporaries is pretty much one the best ways of rating players between different eras isn’t it?
How else (statistically) do we know that Grace was a great batsman?

If you try to understand the point, then you will see the answer. If a second player had emerged that scored like Grace, would it have made Grace any less great? Of course not, they would both still be miles ahead of the very large number of other batsmen.

If you have four batsmen averaging over 50 and three bowlers averaging under 23 in your team, it doesn't make any one player any less great, or any less great than a batsman and bowler being the lone members of their team meeting those benchmarks. The former team will win a heck of a lot more though.

Cricketers aren't graded on a curve. Quality is quality, independent of quantity.

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think bowlers being 'worse' happened in a vacuum. I think many 00s bowlers would be looked on more fondly if they were fortunate to be born in 1960.

"Bowlers just got worse" is such a cricket fan argument. Bowlers were pushed out in the 00s. Some were still insanely good enough to be atgs.

Also if youre an atg in an era of few atg bowlers then you do get credit. Being special is how these things work.

Which bowlers were being pushed out in the 00s that compare with, say, Croft and Daniel? Sounds like broader version of the 'but Australia were leaving out Andy Bichel' argument. And a whole bunch of bowlers averaging 29 can push out one averaging 32 without being any better than their average would suggest. This argument suggests that England in 2005 is comparable to 80s WI because Anderson and Sidebottom were being omitted.

How hard is to to understand that quality is at least somewhat absolute, which means yes you can have more great players at a given moment than another?

 

[Flem274*]

I've skim read the thread. I'll give a less snarky reply. I'll start with the assertion your team mates or the opposition have no effect on ATGs performances.

Menn GcLath is an ATG, his team concedes 500 off 150 overs. He's probs a bit tired.

In which scenario is he more likely to take 5/50 in his second innings? In one scenario his side is shot out for 180 in 50 overs, in the other his side make 400 from 120 overs. Pragmatically, it's pretty clear IMO which situation favours him taking 5/50 more.

To return to the "there were less ATG bowlers in Steyn's era" argument, we can get circular here. In the 80s there were a severe lack of 50+ averaging batsmen. Viv, Gavaskar, Chappell in the early part, Border, Miandad...running out of players here. You could just as easily say Hadlee, Marshall etc aren't as good as they look because there were few ATG batsmen.

This is why how you go in your own era is so important. Relative era quality is hard to quantify and cricket is always in a state of flux. DRS and some actual semi-professional umpiring have recently brought fingerspin back into the seriously low averages game once we got rid of Sachin.

I do know Steyn and McGrath (especially McGrath) outperformed their peers by a long way in an era stacked with batsmen who had at least some proper quality to average 50. Hadlee was a superb spearhead in a limited bowling attack backed up by a class keeper and a good batting line up for the era he played in, but he was only in the top echelon of bowlers rather than clearly ahead.

While it's very close, and Hadlee is the more valuable cricketer overall because he averaged 27 with the stick to boot, I think Steyn's bowling career was better.

 

[harsh.ag]

If you try to understand the point, then you will see the answer. If a second player had emerged that scored like Grace, would it have made Grace any less great? Of course not, they would both still be miles ahead of the very large number of other batsmen.

If you have four batsmen averaging over 50 and three bowlers averaging under 23 in your team, it doesn't make any one player any less great, or any less great than a batsman and bowler being the lone members of their team meeting those benchmarks. The former team will win a heck of a lot more though.

Cricketers aren't graded on a curve. Quality is quality, independent of quantity.

Would Bradman be treated the same way he is if Hammond also averaged 99?

 

[_00_deathscar]

Steyn played in a tougher era for bowlers, but he was part of one of the strongest bowling attacks of that era, in a team that was pretty strong as well. I feel like those advantages negate the disadvantage he had. Hadlee's era was more bowler friendly, but he also carried the attack, and his team was often pretty weak and struggled a bit.

In terms of raw skill, Hadlee was more consistent from what I've read and what little I've seen. Steyn was more hot and cold. Some really destructive spells offset by passages of play where he'd look somewhat ineffective.

Both would compliment each other pretty well as part of the same attack.

Yea but no one considers Philander an ATG. Rabada may yet get there, but we don't know. Pollock is (or a level below or whatever you want to debate), but latter years Pollock wasn't. Ntini isn't, though he was decent.

The fact that we only consider Steyn to not only be ATG, but a level above all else before him for country and one of the top ~3-7 (10 at a very big push) bowlers of all time speaks volumes.

 

[Starfighter]

Yea but no one considers Philander an ATG. Rabada may yet get there, but we don't know. Pollock is (or a level below or whatever you want to debate), but latter years Pollock wasn't. Ntini isn't, though he was decent.

The fact that we only consider Steyn to not only be ATG, but a level above all else before him for country and one of the top ~3-7 (10 at a very big push) bowlers of all time speaks volumes.

Is he really a 'level above' Donald and Pollock, rather than 'somewhat' better? Let's not go crazy here. That's not even considering Proctor.

Also don't see how Fatlander not being a 'real' ATG, Pollock being over the hill and Ntini being decent has anything to do with it.

Would Bradman be treated the same way he is if Hammond also averaged 99?

Less singular hero worship? Maybe. Can only imagine how ridiculous the rivalry between two massive outliers would be though, that's give something to talk about. If another Bradman had emerged I've sure there would be all sorts of comparative arguments. The other thing here is Bradman is special because he's an outlier, Steyn is not an outlier.

 

[Chrish]

Steyn played in a tougher era for bowlers, but he was part of one of the strongest bowling attacks of that era, in a team that was pretty strong as well. I feel like those advantages negate the disadvantage he had. Hadlee's era was more bowler friendly, but he also carried the attack, and his team was often pretty weak and struggled a bit.

But because he was carrying the attack, captain would be always willing to accommodate his requests for field changes, how many slip fielders to get, how much he wants to bowl and when he wants to bowl etc. I would even go as far as to have influence on pitch preparation like what India does for Ashwin. I have read here how NZ used to prepare wickets tailor-made for Hadlee.

And I don’t know about NZ being a weak team. They may not be as well-rounded as today, but they were far from being weak especially at home.

 

[Slifer]

But because he was carrying the attack, captain would be always willing to accommodate his requests for field changes, how many slip fielders to get, how much he wants to bowl and when he wants to bowl etc. I would even go as far as to have influence on pitch preparation like what India does for Ashwin. I have read here how NZ used to prepare wickets tailor-made for Hadlee.

And I don’t know about NZ being a weak team. They may not be as well-rounded as today, but they were far from being weak especially at home.

Yeah but Hadlee was just as devastating away from home. Surely teams like India and Australia weren't preparing wickets tailor-made for Hadlee. The man was just a stud plain and simple. One of the very few non-West Indian cricketers i have no problems gushing over !!!

 

[OverratedSanity]

NZ were not a weak team at all. They were arguably one of the better teams of that decade after WI.

 

[TheJediBrah]

NZ were not a weak team at all. They were arguably one of the better teams of that decade after WI.

Really? First time I've heard this. Everyone always goes on about how Hadlee played in such a weak team.

 

[ataraxia]

Really? First time I've heard this. Everyone always goes on about how Hadlee played in such a weak team.

Strongest NZ team before the current one. But really without Hadlee it would be pretty meh.