Sachin Tendulkar vs Richard Hadlee

[thierry henry]

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

It's a dishonest or disingenuous framing, if one marks a disparity in away records by placing the players in different categories, but ignores an equal disparity in home records by handwaving it as "they're both great anyway".

If 5 is significantly better than 3, surely 7 is significantly better than 5?

(But yes, this sort of pithy analysis vs the hard-boiled assumptions of those who've spent a much longer time thinking about these things is why the best I can offer in these threads is typically a drive-by bear-poking before returning to my cave)

 

[kyear2]

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.

If home is more helpful, then, like Steyn it should show up.

I don't know.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Except you are wrong. Except for Marshall, no pacer has a bulletproof record. We are all just picky in whose record we want to upgrade and downgrade because of lazy selective analysis. Each of their cases is much more debatable.

Hadlee never proved himself in the WI, and has not much in the SC for us to judge him.

McGrath is dodgy in Pak and SL and not great against SA.

Steyn had a high home/away disparity, was expensive in Aus, Eng, SL and UAE, which we all ignore.

Imran had a high home/away disparity too and high averages which we don't ignore.

Ambrose doesn't have much to judge in the SC, never played in India, and had major penetration issues outside Aus and Eng.

If I wanted to pick a bowler in the SC, I think McGrath, Hadlee and Ambrose have certain questionmarks. Steyn bizarrely gets credit for flat pitch era success despite playing at home on greentops while Imran doesnt despite playing on pancakes at home. Ambrose tore apart the best side in the world in Australia, Hadlee failed to do so in WI.

Point being, outside of Marshall, it isn't clear, we may have our preferences but it all comes down to selective criteria, but it really should be him as clear best and the rest.

 

[Xix2565]

Honestly don't get these sort of batter vs bowler comparisons. Unless the bowler is absolute trash or Bradman is involved, I'd pick them 10/10 times just for being more valuable to the team's success. Don't think a single great batter apart from Bradman has comparable value to any great bowler.

 

[shortpitched713]

You heard it here first, Shaun Pollock clearly seperates himself from Keith Miller as a cricketer.

He’s also apparently above Hadlee too.

Nah, Hadlee's in the top group with S. Pollock.

Also Miller I just threw in there because I know how immense his influence is as an all-rounder. But exactly how great he was as a bowler, to merit being in the list is debatable, and I can't say I've looked into it enough to say definitively on the bowling point alone whether we can say he did "enough" with the ball. Same reason I don't have Sobers in the list, even though I rate him tremendously as a batsman, as possibly the BBB.

Bowlers ( especially ace bowlers for their team ) win matches. Batsmen can't and don't, not on anywhere near as consistent a level ( barring Bradman ).

 

[shortpitched713]

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 have Hadlee, Pollock, and Imran as the 3 beasts of bowling all-rounders. Basically because they're more than just that. They were ace bowlers for their teams, who happened to be able to hold down a very important batting spot too ( Imran more so than the others ).

Hadlee is the best bowler of the 3 for an overall career, so that's why I think he is placed so highly. I think it's debatable between the 3, as to who brought more value with bowling and batting combined. On the other hand, I don't think it's debatable that Hadlee added more value than say a Botham.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

A player can have a good record at home for a bunch of reasons:

Era and strength of players faced
Easy conditions in general
Easy conditions for a subset of players, like bounce/swing/reverse.
How alien the conditions are to visitors, and how well their skillsets are suited/they adapt.
Dodginess of umpires.
Probably a bunch more things.

Or they can just be playing well.

Working out the extent to which differing factors are at play can be tricky. Away controls a lot of these factors.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I do too.

Yea but it’s not nice to meet you

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Except you are wrong. Except for Marshall, no pacer has a bulletproof record. We are all just picky in whose record we want to upgrade and downgrade because of lazy selective analysis. Each of their cases is much more debatable.

Hadlee never proved himself in the WI, and has not much in the SC for us to judge him.

McGrath is dodgy in Pak and SL and not great against SA.

Steyn had a high home/away disparity, was expensive in Aus, Eng, SL and UAE, which we all ignore.

Imran had a high home/away disparity too and high averages which we don't ignore.

Ambrose doesn't have much to judge in the SC, never played in India, and had major penetration issues outside Aus and Eng.

If I wanted to pick a bowler in the SC, I think McGrath, Hadlee and Ambrose have certain questionmarks. Steyn bizarrely gets credit for flat pitch era success despite playing at home on greentops while Imran doesnt despite playing on pancakes at home. Ambrose tore apart the best side in the world in Australia, Hadlee failed to do so in WI.

Point being, outside of Marshall, it isn't clear, we may have our preferences but it all comes down to selective criteria, but it really should be him as clear best and the rest.

Nah Steyn was great on flat tracks in India vs probably one of the best Asian batting lineups ever. Further in Australia, his average was better in context in the era(would get revised to 25ish), and further when you add a WPM of 5 and an amazing SR, he is one of the best bowlers to tour there. He was decentish Eng cause he outperformed Broad/Anderson to a great extent, and turned up when needed for a famous away win. And you adjust to home pitches. So I won’t compare for example Steyn’s record in Pakistan to Imran’s in Pak. I’ll compare their respective home records. For example the same Imran who was god level in Pak didn’t do as well in India. But Marshall is the best ever.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And Steyn still averaged sub 25 away from home. People act as if he is an HTB

 

[OverratedSanity]

Marshall is probably the best but he's certainly not in his own tier like some people on CW say. The batting lineups he faced were significantly worse than the ones McGrath and especially Steyn bowled to in the 2000s. It's something that is acknowledged for batsmen all the time (that 80s batsmen had it harder) but very rarely for bowlers for some reason.

 

[capt_Luffy]

McGrath by far played a huge chunk of his career in one of the worst eras for bowlers in home pitches that were batting heaven....

 

[kyear2]

Except you are wrong. Except for Marshall, no pacer has a bulletproof record. We are all just picky in whose record we want to upgrade and downgrade because of lazy selective analysis. Each of their cases is much more debatable.

Hadlee never proved himself in the WI, and has not much in the SC for us to judge him.

McGrath is dodgy in Pak and SL and not great against SA.

Steyn had a high home/away disparity, was expensive in Aus, Eng, SL and UAE, which we all ignore.

Imran had a high home/away disparity too and high averages which we don't ignore.

Ambrose doesn't have much to judge in the SC, never played in India, and had major penetration issues outside Aus and Eng.

If I wanted to pick a bowler in the SC, I think McGrath, Hadlee and Ambrose have certain questionmarks. Steyn bizarrely gets credit for flat pitch era success despite playing at home on greentops while Imran doesnt despite playing on pancakes at home. Ambrose tore apart the best side in the world in Australia, Hadlee failed to do so in WI.

Point being, outside of Marshall, it isn't clear, we may have our preferences but it all comes down to selective criteria, but it really should be him as clear best and the rest.

I've never argued against anything you've said.. and raised some of the same points re Hadlee. I also said I think Pigeon is a bit better than Paddles, but have always said I think Maco had separated himself a little from both.

That doesn't mean I think they're a little better and a bit more rounded than my best group of Steyn, two spinners and Ambrose, which in turn has slightly better credentials than the next group of Imran, Donald, Lillee that concludes the top 10.

But all of that aside, your post is exactly why I have Marshall at no 3 in my top 7 / 10 player ratings which you still disagree with. If you're no. 1 all time and have to a certain degree separated yourself from the pack, why aren't you top 3?

If I had to pick 3 players from anytime in history to start a team Marshall is going to be included, not sure if he still isn't if I only get 2.

That aside, and back to your substantive point, that's why it's so hard to pick a perfect ATG attack, I think Marshall is a lock, for those who have McGrath at 1, then he slots in, but he's so very similar to Hadlee and loses out so badly with the bat, his position is tenuous, or you could just use both (as they are both in my top 7) but would Hadlee be as good with the old ball as say a Steyn or Imran.

But excellent post, and I'll stop rambling.

 

[kyear2]

Nah, Hadlee's in the top group with S. Pollock.

Also Miller I just threw in there because I know how immense his influence is as an all-rounder. But exactly how great he was as a bowler, to merit being in the list is debatable, and I can't say I've looked into it enough to say definitively on the bowling point alone whether we can say he did "enough" with the ball. Same reason I don't have Sobers in the list, even though I rate him tremendously as a batsman, as possibly the BBB.

Bowlers ( especially ace bowlers for their team ) win matches. Batsmen can't and don't, not on anywhere near as consistent a level ( barring Bradman ).

You've basically decided that bowlers and bowling all rounders are more important and nothing else matters and that's so very ridiculous that it borders on lunacy, especially when you have Pollock in a top 3.

Yes bowlers are slightly more impactful, you still runs to win.

 

[kyear2]

Honestly don't get these sort of batter vs bowler comparisons. Unless the bowler is absolute trash or Bradman is involved, I'd pick them 10/10 times just for being more valuable to the team's success. Don't think a single great batter apart from Bradman has comparable value to any great bowler.

While I agree that bowlers are more important to team success, in another thread I think I said the same thing, you can't have a great or dominant team without a great fast bowler, just isn't possible. But don't think that invalidates the importance of batsmen...

Bradman speaks for himself, Sobers is also top tier while being a decent support bowler and elite slip fielder, Tendulkar was just consistent everywhere though he would lose our to any of the top tier pacers in my opinion, so.....
Ambrose v Tendulkar would be an interesting one to test your hypothesis as you would have a top tier bat vs a lower 2nd tier bowler, see what the community thinks.

 

[kyear2]

A player can have a good record at home for a bunch of reasons:

Era and strength of players faced
Easy conditions in general
Easy conditions for a subset of players, like bounce/swing/reverse.
How alien the conditions are to visitors, and how well their skillsets are suited/they adapt.
Dodginess of umpires.
Probably a bunch more things.

Or they can just be playing well.

Working out the extent to which differing factors are at play can be tricky. Away controls a lot of these factors.

All of this....

 

[kyear2]

Marshall is probably the best but he's certainly not in his own tier like some people on CW say. The batting lineups he faced were significantly worse than the ones McGrath and especially Steyn bowled to in the 2000s. It's something that is acknowledged for batsmen all the time (that 80s batsmen had it harder) but very rarely for bowlers for some reason.

I've never said he was in his own tier, I've always maintained him, McGrath and Hadlee were to a certain degree, just think that there's a clear distinction between 1, 2 and 3 within that tier. .

As for the batting lineups faced, I would disagree to a certain extent. The 80's had good batsmen that were under constant duress, hence the averages, but there were plenty of quality players Border, Sunny, Miandad, Viv et all. McGrath's performances didn't alter much between the 90's and 2000's for a couple reasons, his style is less pitch dependent once he gets a little bounce and carry, and the batsmen didn't improve, the quality of the bowlers decreased when the greats retired.

I love Steyn, he's literally right behind these guys for me, but he did have helpful home conditions and was less effective outside of them, not critically, but noticably and again with the paucity of quality pacers there was some inflation of batting records.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Socerer 01]

Marshall is probably the best but he's certainly not in his own tier like some people on CW say. The batting lineups he faced were significantly worse than the ones McGrath and especially Steyn bowled to in the 2000s. It's something that is acknowledged for batsmen all the time (that 80s batsmen had it harder) but very rarely for bowlers for some reason.

ive pointed this out several times and it always gets ignored in the face of nostalgia wanking so common on this board

 

[Coronis]

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.

Unlike in Hadlee’s case most people have disparities in no. of Home/Away matches. But, assuming they were equal..

You’re playing a large percentage of your matches at home, these are your conditions that you’ve developed on, you should be putting in better performances on them. This is why people tend to put more stock on away performances. If you do have a similar home/away record it indicates you’re very adaptable to different conditions and opponents. Of course, there are also factors such as friendliness/flatness of home pitches. e.g Generally you expect an Australian batsman to have a much better home record than a South African batsman.

If you have two batsmen for example, one who averages 60 at home and 40 away, one who averages 50 at home and 50 away, all other things being equal, do you want the batsman who is dominant half the time and average the other half, or the one who is consistently great the whole time?

If you’re part of a weaker team, having a record like this may be more beneficial - your team isn’t great and most often you will lose but at home you can pull out a win based on your ridiculous performances ala Murali, but especially since we’re talking ATG players and teams, we’re looking for the best team in all conditions. We also generally presume (outside of country specific squads) that tests will be evenly divided between different countries generally.

 

[Xix2565]

While I agree that bowlers are more important to team success, in another thread I think I said the same thing, you can't have a great or dominant team without a great fast bowler, just isn't possible. But don't think that invalidates the importance of batsmen...

Bradman speaks for himself, Sobers is also top tier while being a decent support bowler and elite slip fielder, Tendulkar was just consistent everywhere though he would lose our to any of the top tier pacers in my opinion, so.....
Ambrose v Tendulkar would be an interesting one to test your hypothesis as you would have a top tier bat vs a lower 2nd tier bowler, see what the community thinks.

I mean batting does matter, but bowling has such a massive influence overall that great bowlers are just worth more than great batters. Especially if you pick hypothetical lineups with only 4 bowlers. They take wickets (necessary to win), generally force batters on the back foot more than the batters can do the same to bowlers (because they have more control over the ball's trajectory than the batters) and thus affect the way runs are scored by causing batters to take greater risk and thus increase their chances of getting out.

Bradman is the only one who stands out because of how far apart he was from the mean. Sobers with his allround ability does stand out a bit, but even then for all his versatility and workload wasn't as good a bowler as a few allrounders who you can put ahead of him. A bowler averaging closer to 20 is always going to be money in the bank in a way that those types of allrounders aren't.