Imran Khan vs Richard Hadlee

[Jumno]

I dont know why people using captaincy to assess the value of a player.

1. Its hard to evaluate
2. Its unfair, because only 10% gets the chance

Style, stardom, attitude.. Etc are better qualifications

In this case, I feel yes Hadlee is the better bowler, however Imran make the team purely as a batsman and is an ATG pace bowler too.

For me, it gives Imran a slight edge.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's funny, but while the 80s were ongoing, I don't think it would be weird to say Imran surpassed the very best bowlers of the Era in Hadlee and Marshall just on his bowling alone. Obviously, he declined as a bowler (and picked up his batting quality), towards the tail end of the decade.

But these 3 players, I think were very obviously the most high value players of the 80s.

The English media's love affair with peak Botham as an "all-rounder", really skewed this fundamental value proposition, namely that bowlers should be first compared to one another on bowling first, before getting anything like batting into the equation. And for this reason we were busy comparing the wrong players in the Era, and being impressed by the wrong things.

 

[Coronis]

It's funny, but while the 80s were ongoing, I don't think it would be weird to say Imran surpassed the very best bowlers of the Era in Hadlee and Marshall just on his bowling alone. Obviously, he declined as a bowler (and picked up his batting quality), towards the tail end of the decade.

But these 3 players, I think were very obviously the most high value players of the 80s.

The English media's love affair with peak Botham as an "all-rounder", really skewed this fundamental value proposition, namely that bowlers should be first compared to one another on bowling first, before getting anything like batting into the equation. And for this reason we were busy comparing the wrong players in the Era, and being impressed by the wrong things.

Is that really to do with Botham? He was arguably the best bowler in the world for 3 or 4 years there

 

[subshakerz]

Is that really to do with Botham? He was arguably the best bowler in the world for 3 or 4 years there

Nah, Lillee.

 

[shortpitched713]

Is that really to do with Botham? He was arguably the best bowler in the world for 3 or 4 years there

Sure he showed great performance, at his early peak, but the fascination with him continued even when it was clear he wasn't that quality of a bowler. No point in the fascination of comparing him and Kapil and Imran, when the much better bowlers to be compared and celebrated should have been Hadlee and Marshal and Imran.

 

[Coronis]

Nah, Lillee.

Key word arguably.

 

[howitzer]

Key word arguably.

Nah, or Lillee?

 

[Coronis]

Nah, or Lillee?

I think if anyone is saying Botham wasn’t in the argument for best bowler in the world in his first 4-5 years they’re being completely disingenuous.

 

[howitzer]

I think if anyone is saying Botham wasn’t in the argument for best bowler in the world in his first 4-5 years they’re being completely disingenuous.

Was just taking the mick out of the grammatical structure of your post tbh.