Sachin Tendulkar vs Richard Hadlee

[subshakerz]

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.

My point is selective nitpicking. So Steyn's Aus and Eng records will be parsed and excused but Imran's will not, despite Imran never quite be smashed like Steyn was there.

Steyn was a proven success in SC and against the best side he faced, Hadlee was not, but Hadlee is considered to have an impreccable record.

You bring up Imran in India, who is often called poor, but I fail to see how that is really any worse than Ambrose and McGrath in Pak.

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

24.9 but I reject that raw average use anyways. Lumping all these records in that way is silly.

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. .

Yes, Marshall is just clear best by a small margin but not in a separate tier..

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....

Guarantee that if you look at flat pitches as percentage of career, Imran would be tops. But I argue we shouldn't use this flat pitch excuse regardless for anyone, or if we do, then mark up all accordingly.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

My point is selective nitpicking. So Steyn's Aus and Eng records will be parsed and excused but Imran's will not, despite Imran never quite be smashed like Steyn was there.

Steyn was a proven success in SC and against the best side he faced, Hadlee was not, but Hadlee is considered to have an impreccable record.

You bring up Imran in India, who is often called poor, but I fail to see how that is really any worse than Ambrose and McGrath in Pak.


24.9 but I reject that raw average use anyways. Lumping all these records in that way is silly.


Yes, Marshall is just clear best by a small margin but not in a separate tier..


Guarantee that if you look at flat pitches as percentage of career, Imran would be tops. But I argue we shouldn't use this flat pitch excuse regardless for anyone, or if we do, then mark up all accordingly.

Firstly Steyn bowled on much flatter pitches in Aus than Imran so contest wise his record is better, plus he had a much better SR and overall WPM(30 wickets in 6 matches, last match he barely bowled, plus performances in away wins). Secondly Imran has a good record in Eng, not Marshall level, but good, especially considering how bad his 1st tour there was. Thirdly Mcgrath in Pak is mediocre like Imran in Ind. I think overall Steyn performed well over a range of conditions, such as in Ind, Aus, decent in Eng, and some good matches in Pak and Bang and decent ones in NZ. So his away record is great. SL the only gap. And finally Hadlee’s record is a little short of Marshall and near impeccable not completely so, so I agree with you there

 

[subshakerz]

Firstly Steyn bowled on much flatter pitches in Aus than Imran so contest wise his record is better, plus he had a much better SR and overall WPM(30 wickets in 6 matches, last match he barely bowled, plus performances in away wins). Secondly Imran has a good record in Eng, not Marshall level, but good, especially considering how bad his 1st tour there was. Thirdly Mcgrath in Pak is mediocre like Imran in Ind. I think overall Steyn performed well over a range of conditions, such as in Ind, Aus, decent in Eng, and some good matches in Pak and Bang and decent ones in NZ. So his away record is great. SL the only gap. And finally Hadlee’s record is a little short of Marshall and near impeccable not completely so, so I agree with you there

My point wasn't to suggest IK was better than Steyn in those countries, but that aside from yourself, few do the parsing for IK's away record than for Steyn, as you can attest, and that makes their difference seem wider. It seems like a double standard because posters have already made up their minds where they want to place Steyn and Imran, same for where they want to place Hadlee and McGrath. Issue isn't the ranking, but selective criteria.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

My point wasn't to suggest IK was better than Steyn in those countries, but that aside from yourself, few do the parsing for IK's away record than for Steyn, as you can attest, and that makes their difference seem wider. It seems like a double standard because posters have already made up their minds where they want to place Steyn and Imran, same for where they want to place Hadlee and McGrath. Issue isn't the ranking, but selective criteria.

Fair enough

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I dont know how do you measure flat wickets. A flat wicket might have gotten worse as days progressed. This is such a gross generalization.

 

[OverratedSanity]

My point wasn't to suggest IK was better than Steyn in those countries, but that aside from yourself, few do the parsing for IK's away record than for Steyn, as you can attest, and that makes their difference seem wider. It seems like a double standard because posters have already made up their minds where they want to place Steyn and Imran, same for where they want to place Hadlee and McGrath. Issue isn't the ranking, but selective criteria.

I have integrity and have argued repeatedly that both their away records are amazing.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I have integrity and have argued repeatedly that both their away records are amazing.

You’re a good bloke

 

[subshakerz]

I have integrity and have argued repeatedly that both their away records are amazing.

Credit to you, I remember that now.

 

[Coronis]

I have integrity

I have learnt to always trust any words that a person says after this.

 

[subshakerz]

I dont know how do you measure flat wickets. A flat wicket might have gotten worse as days progressed. This is such a gross generalization.

I don't think there is a statistical way to. We can just make general observations that pitches are flat but it gets murky when we say that particular dead pitches are more dead than others.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

I think these kind of comparisons threads for bowler v batsman are the things that are loony, actually. I've done my honest best to rank based on pure value (not so much longevity), and that just so happens to exclude every single batsman. No one else is being honest about the fact that the very top bowlers are necessarily going to carry more value than the very top batsmen ( barring Bradman ).

That doesn't mean that you don't need batsmen, or that runs don't matter. It just comes down to the way Test cricket teams are constructed, and the need for 11 players and the math between bowlers and bats it leads to. Heck, I explain as much in my reply to your exact same objections to this list, the last time I posted it before.

You need specialist batsmen, because simply put every batting contribution is welcome, and matters on a team ( to a point, 11 and probably 10 in practice tend to be a bit of tail-end fluff, not really substance). Bowling on the other hand, hits limited returns, as after 5 (maybe 6) bowlers you simply don't need any more bowling, barring some really weird scenarios, and using too many bowling options is counter-productive to just increasing utilization of your very best bowling resources. There's a reason that CW drafts tend to be a rush for all of the best bowlers ( and especially bowling all-rounders ), and then everyone else. That is simply where the conventional wisdom shows a disproportionate amount of the top end value is. Don't hate the players, hate the game (actually don't hate Test cricket, it is awesome).

 

[subshakerz]

I think these kind of comparisons threads for bowler v batsman are the things that are loony, actually. I've done my honest best to rank based on pure value (not so much longevity), and that just so happens to exclude every single batsman. No one else is being honest about the fact that the very top bowlers are necessarily going to carry more value than the very top batsmen ( barring Bradman ).

That doesn't mean that you don't need batsmen, or that runs don't matter. It just comes down to the way Test cricket teams are constructed, and the need for 11 players and the math between bowlers and bats it leads to. Heck, I explain as much in my reply to your exact same objections to this list, the last time I posted it before.

They are kinda loony but I love them. We get to debate our merits for greatness of cricketers.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

Preach brother.

 

[Xix2565]

I dont know how do you measure flat wickets. A flat wicket might have gotten worse as days progressed. This is such a gross generalization.

Averages vs the global standard would be a start. Or checking for when overall batting average was above a certain number in a period and so on. I mean we could tell this with the 2000s era, so it's clearly not that difficult to find out.

 

[ma1978]

When you’re dealing with players of this quality, it comes down to style and inconic moments and Hadlee had both in spades.

 

[Coronis]

When you’re dealing with players of this quality, it comes down to style

Jesus christ

 

[ma1978]

Jesus christ

god forbid we actually enjoy the cricket

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

When you’re dealing with players of this quality, it comes down to style and inconic moments and Hadlee had both in spades.

So did Tendulkar. Him vs Steyn is the most iconic rivalry apart from Richards vs Lillee

 

[Coronis]

god forbid we actually enjoy the cricket

Just because you like watching one player more doesn’t make them better.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If anything if it comes down to style, thats the one area where Sachin would beat Hadlee handily. Hadlee was a boring corridor bowler.