Sachin Tendulkar vs Richard Hadlee

[subshakerz]

Thought Sachin would win this.

Me too, or it would be closer.

 

[Flem274*]

Thinking about Tendulkar's bowling makes me nostalgic for the days when every regular batsman in the world bowled something.

Perfecting the ODI min-max formula or the uber-motorway era killed this, but I want it back. That and the pinch hitter, even though it hardly ever worked.

I suppose the batsman who bowls random stuff was also killed by the army of 25th over of the JAMODI specialist bowlers who have risen up like Kedar Jadhav and Ish Sodhi just firing random stuff down with the intention to get caught on the boundary.

 

[subshakerz]

I know that asking for the summary of a consensus that doesn't exist is ridiculous, but...can someone give me the ELI5 on why Hadlee is generally one of 3 or 4 bowlers who gets elevated out of the rather larger pool of bowlers with similar-ish records?

As a biased K1W1 I've always loved the fact that he is, but never been entirely sure of the rationale. I can think of a few arguments against - took so many bags because teammates sucked, bowled in favourable NZ conditions, cashed in against historically weak Australian team etc

Both Hadlee and McGrath are slightly overrated on this board. They are presented as if they have flawless career records and well ahead of guys like Steyn and Imran but frankly that's only Marshall who is in a class of his own.

Hadlee outright had an average showing by his standards in WI and only one good series in the SC against a Gavaskar-less India to base his overseas credentials on. I am somewhat suspect about how he would do with a longer stint on flat pitches as it is reported he would often go in robo mode on them.

McGrath was also somewhat blunted in Pak and SL and not quite at his best against SA. Posters here make a big deal of him doing well on roads at home in the 2000s as if it's a clincher but then ignore that standard for Pak bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

If the point is he did well away, doesn't it equally say he underperformed at home?

If the point is NZ conditions weren't good for seam bowling, you'd need to look at other bowlers right?

Looking at other notable pace bowlers there over his career - Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Thomson and Kapil sucked. Imran, Botham, Willis, Walsh and Lillee were quality to varying degrees. Garner and Wasim were outstanding. Of course, none of them played more than 6 matches in NZ over that period so samplesizelol. Touring pacers averaged 31 and touring spinners 29 during that period. Draw your own conclusions as to how seam friendly NZ was.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

You shut your mouth. Tendulkar bowled critical match winning spells in two of India's greatest ever wins against Australia.

Fair enough

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

1. Bradman
2. Sobers
3. Imran
4. Hadlee
5. Hobbs
6. Marshall
7. Murali
8. Tendulkar
9. Miller
10. McGrath
11. Warne
12. Kallis
13. Steyn
14. Viv
15. Hutton

But Kallis over Steyn and Viv? Come on, man

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Top 10 I’ll go:
Bradman(or his superior counterpart Ellyse Perry)
Sobers
Imran
Hobbs
Hadlee
Marshall
Tendulkar
Mcgrath
Steyn
Viv

Will place Keith Miller above Steyn and below Mcgrath in this list

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Looking at other notable pace bowlers there over his career - Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Thomson and Kapil sucked. Imran, Botham, Willis, Walsh and Lillee were quality to varying degrees. Garner and Wasim were outstanding. Of course, none of them played more than 6 matches in NZ over that period so samplesizelol. Touring pacers averaged 31 and touring spinners 29 during that period. Draw your own conclusions as to how seam friendly NZ was.

Marshall played for three tests barely there, and even there his record isn’t close to sucking there.

 

[thierry henry]

Was 70s/80s NZ more "low and slow" rather than green and seamy? I still find that a bit hard to believe given the paucity of successful NZ spinners

 

[kyear2]

I know that asking for the summary of a consensus that doesn't exist is ridiculous, but...can someone give me the ELI5 on why Hadlee is generally one of 3 or 4 bowlers who gets elevated out of the rather larger pool of bowlers with similar-ish records?

As a biased K1W1 I've always loved the fact that he is, but never been entirely sure of the rationale. I can think of a few arguments against - took so many bags because teammates sucked, bowled in favourable NZ conditions, cashed in against historically weak Australian team etc

I personally don't think the pool is that large tbh, statistically and anecdotally there are divides. While he did play a disproportionate amount of his tests in 3 countries, he was equally good and away. Not an extensive SC record but proved himself in India (as he gorged vs SL). While I don't believe he was quite as good as the two above him, I think he did more than enough to separate him from those below. There's less holes in his record, he wasn't expensive, collected big hauls, and carried a nation on his back.

Those below have more discernable holes, less flattering records in varying conditions, less consistency. The 3 at the top and possibly the two after have more bullet proof records, not showing disparities between home and away and not withering against the biggest challenges. If you can accomplish both, you deserve be in a separate category. Plus he could do it all, was accurate, could swing the ball and could go all day if required.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall played for three tests barely there, and even there his record isn’t close to sucking there.

Was also injured. Well hurt....

 

[kyear2]

Was 70s/80s NZ more "low and slow" rather than green and seamy? I still find that a bit hard to believe given the paucity of successful NZ spinners

New Zealand pitches were very helpful from everything I've seen and read about them. There seems to be other factors that inhibited touring teams. The really weird part of than none of the WI triumvirate did well there.

 

[ashley bach]

NZ has certainly lacked it's share of great cricketers but it was a privilege to of been able to witness Paddles entire career.

 

[thierry henry]

I realise certain things have become established orthodoxies over decades of discussion here, but I still struggle with how similar home/away records is inherently better than much better home/much worse away. It's like asking me to accept that 5 + 5 is inherently higher than 7 + 3.

 

[kyear2]

Good question. Does anyone know?

Anyone?

 

[thierry henry]

New Zealand pitches were very helpful from everything I've seen and read about them. There seems to be other factors that inhibited touring teams. The really weird part of than none of the WI triumvirate did well there.

Maybe Hadlee was just a (relatively) mediocre home bowler then

 

[kyear2]

I realise certain things have become established orthodoxies over decades of discussion here, but I still struggle with how similar home/away records is inherently better than much better home/much worse away. It's like asking me to accept that 5 + 5 is inherently higher than 7 + 3.

How about being great home and away, rather than being great at home and lackluster away, think that is the better framing.

In those days of helpful umpires and adopting favorable conditions at home, it makes it difficult to ascertain what is your true ability. Even for modern times as a South African fast bowler and you struggle away from friendly / helpful confines, are you skilled or numbers boosted by circumstance.

Whats the point of being great at home and mod away, it means you lack the ability to adapt and dominate in foreign conditions.

The great ones adapt and a bowler who can travel will always be the ultimate asset.

Anyways, head is pounding and should probably put down the phone.

 

[kyear2]

Maybe Hadlee was just a (relatively) mediocre home bowler then

22 with no support is bad? I don't see how?

 

[kyear2]

Both Hadlee and McGrath are slightly overrated on this board. They are presented as if they have flawless career records and well ahead of guys like Steyn and Imran but frankly that's only Marshall who is in a class of his own.

Hadlee outright had an average showing by his standards in WI and only one good series in the SC against a Gavaskar-less India to base his overseas credentials on. I am somewhat suspect about how he would do with a longer stint on flat pitches as it is reported he would often go in robo mode on them.

McGrath was also somewhat blunted in Pak and SL and not quite at his best against SA. Posters here make a big deal of him doing well on roads at home in the 2000s as if it's a clincher but then ignore that standard for Pak bowlers.

Will never argue against that.

But honestly when you look at the record, the consistency, the dominance, the skill set, no minnows, the competition for wickets, the team and personal success, he really was.

 

[thierry henry]

22 with no support is bad? I don't see how?

If we're comparing 22 home/22 away to a bowler with a similar career average but a bigger home/away disparity (the suggestion being that this is typical and one the reasons Hadlee is better than these bowlers), then the latter bowler is going to have a better home average than Hadlee. Any low-20s bowler with a typical home/away disparity is going to have a better home record than Hadlee. I'm questioning why that isn't a factor that goes against Hadlee in these comparisons.