Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[Xix2565]

Yes they do. It wasn't the 2000s and again he didn't minnow bash against SL and get an couple of extra points


If you look at his career, most of his scoring coincided with the top end attacks of his opposition.


I don't see that scrutiny with Hadlee averaging 27 in WI against the top opposition of his time, or roughly 25 in England.

I don't see this scrutiny with Tendulkar averaging in the 40s in several countries to be pointed out as a weakness.

40 plus to me is the minimum you need to establish yourself there.

They don't because teams like India, Australia and England at times were close to minnows. He also like OS said didn't have to face his own side's attack to dent his runs.

I find that to be highly doubtful.

Hadlee at least has the added responsibility of being the best player and only ATG of his side and the biggest reason for their competitiveness. Viv was one cog in a great team. If anything Viv should be touching 70 given the disparity in talent between the WI and other teams at the time given his reputation.

I find that to be part of Tendulkar's weaknesses as far as comparisons go. But Tendulkar did also start as a ****ing teenager on a bad team.

I don't think 40+ is a decent mark without context.

 

[subshakerz]

They don't because teams like India, Australia and England at times were close to minnows. He also like OS said didn't have to face his own side's attack to dent his runs.

I find that to be highly doubtful.

I think you need to read more of Viv's context and the bowlers he bashed in his peak until 81. Lillee, peak Thommo, Indian spin quartet, Imran, Qadir, peak Botham, Willis, others. He averaged 70 plus against them. And of course WSC.

The weaker bowlers he faced coincided with his dip from his peak 81 onwards.

Hadlee at least has the added responsibility of being the only ATG of his side and the biggest reason for their competitiveness. Viv was one cog in a great team.

Yes but Hadlee has other bigger advantages like I mentioned, mainly pace friendly countries to make most of his record in.

If Hadlee was a batter and 80 percent of his great record was based in the SC, wouldn't we be reluctant to rate him that highly?

I find that to be part of Tendulkar's weaknesses as far as comparisons go. But Tendulkar did also start as a ****ing teenager on a bad team.

I don't think 40+ is a decent mark without context.

Viv is mostly 45+ with exception of Pak at 42. I don't consider that a weak record at all anymore than Tendulkar averaging 46 in SA. Very difficult for bats over a long career to have that consistency.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I’ll vote for Hadlee still, but Subz is completely on point about Viv’s batting. He didn’t bash any minnows and didn’t even play SL. He dominated Lillee/Thomson, Imran, Qadir, the Indian spin quartet, Botham(when he was averaging around 20)/Willis/Underwood, and was very good vs Hadlee too(averaged around 43ish). His record overall is ATG is both Aus and Eng, and he had pretty of fast pitches at home to contend with where he still averaged 50. Averaged 45 in India as well, and 42 in Pak(which is not awesome, but decent and fine given he proved himself in ATG tour there in 1980). And he barely played one series in NZ. Saying Viv can’t be rated as equally good as Hadlee in his primary disciple is wrong.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Plus Viv was amazing against Lillee in the WSC

 

[capt_Luffy]

I’ll vote for Hadlee still, but Subz is completely on point about Viv’s batting. He didn’t bash any minnows and didn’t even play SL. He dominated Lillee/Thomson, Imran, Qadir, the Indian spin quartet, Botham(when he was averaging around 20)/Willis/Underwood, and was very good vs Hadlee too(averaged around 43ish). His record overall is ATG is both Aus and Eng, and he had pretty of fast pitches at home to contend with where he still averaged 50. Averaged 45 in India as well, and 42 in Pak(which is not awesome, but decent and fine given he proved himself in ATG tour there in 1980). And he barely played one series in NZ. Saying Viv can’t be rated as equally good as Hadlee in his primary disciple is wrong.

Again, two things for me that prevents Viv to be an absolute top tier.

1) Outside of his peak, he was VERY inconsistent. On removing the year 1976 from his resume (which btw was one of the Greatest year by any batsman) his average drops to 45. That screams inconsistency to me.

2) Viv not playing against any minnows is very hyper inflated. Yes, he never played a team like early 2000s Bangladesh Or even SL of his time for that matter, but Australia, England and especially India, all had at times bowling attacks subpar for Test matches. It should be noted that he hardly cashed in on those, for better or worse. Also, never played against the best bowling of his era.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Except when Lillee comes up then suddenly it's a talking point. And it's not just about holes, it's a more fundamental point: his success was heavily concentrated in three pace friendly countries and he wasnt sufficiently proven outside that.

The irony is it's your side that is mindlessly reading averages from Hadlee's spreadsheet to give him a good star.


Viv has more dominant series against top attacks than virtually any other bat.

And his leaner years are balanced by a disproportionately awesome peak. It all balances out with a record that is good to great everywhere just like Tendulkar.

My eyes glazed through reading this, nothing of value was conveyed because I know all this already.

You asked "based on what" Hadlee can be rated higher than Viv and I gave you valid reasons why people may not rank Viv's record that highly because it's far from the perfect record. Disagree if you want, don't feign ignorance on what these reasons are.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Viv got to avoid Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Bishop, Roberts, Croft,

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Again, two things for me that prevents Viv to be an absolute top tier.

1) Outside of his peak, he was VERY inconsistent. On removing the year 1976 from his resume (which btw was one of the Greatest year by any batsman) his average drops to 45. That screams inconsistency to me.

2) Viv not playing against any minnows is very hyper inflated. Yes, he never played a team like early 2000s Bangladesh Or even SL of his time for that matter, but Australia, England and especially India, all had at times bowling attacks subpar for Test matches. It should be noted that he hardly cashed in on those, for better or worse. Also, never played against the best bowling of his era.

England didn’t. And I don’t think he played a subpar Indian attack. In 1988 also, he has treacherous pitches to contend and a Narendra Hirwani who had just run through WI. But then on a crumbling Delhi pitch, he delivered one of the most sublime 4th innings knocks seen in the SC. For the 1976 part, firstly you also need to see that there are few precedents for the kind of scoring in a year(Viv nearly scored a fifth of his runs in that year), and given the quality of bowling faced and rate of scoring, there are mo precedents. From 77-81, Viv was easily the best bat in the world, but from 77-79 he played little cricket outside WSC(where he was best or 2nd best at worst), and WSC standard was much higher than outside so no doubt he would’ve dominated outside as well in that period. 82 and 83 he was sub par yes. But from 1984-88, he was the best bat in the world averaging 50 @an SR of 70. His decline began in 89, but if he had a Zim/Ban or even played SL, he would’ve averaged 40ish in decline not 35.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, two things for me that prevents Viv to be an absolute top tier.

1) Outside of his peak, he was VERY inconsistent. On removing the year 1976 from his resume (which btw was one of the Greatest year by any batsman) his average drops to 45. That screams inconsistency to me.

Again, inconsistency is only an issue if it impacts his overall record like it did with Lara, which it didn't. Otherwise you are balancing top end ATG achievements that no other bat has with lesser returns.

Besides, the inconsistency is overplayed. He has five series in Australia, one ATG, one great, one good, one below par and one poor. He has three series in India, two great, one below par. He has three series in Pak, one ATG, one below par and one poor. He has five series in England, one ATG, two great, one good and one below par. He was consistent.

2) Viv not playing against any minnows is very hyper inflated. Yes, he never played a team like early 2000s Bangladesh Or even SL of his time for that matter, but Australia, England and especially India, all had at times bowling attacks subpar for Test matches. It should be noted that he hardly cashed in on those, for better or worse. Also, never played against the best bowling of his era.

Let's be frank, many posters here just are down on him having a 50 average. A couple of points more from SL would have granted him a few more shallow votes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

England didn’t. And I don’t think he played a subpar Indian attack. In 1988 also, he has treacherous pitches to contend and a Narendra Hirwani who had just run through WI. But then on a crumbling Delhi pitch, he delivered one of the most sublime 4th innings knocks seen in the SC. For the 1976 part, firstly you also need to see that there are few precedents for the kind of scoring in a year(Viv nearly scored a fifth of his runs in that year), and given the quality of bowling faced and rate of scoring, there are mo precedents. From 77-81, Viv was easily the best bat in the world, but from 77-79 he played little cricket outside WSC(where he was best or 2nd best at worst), and WSC standard was much higher than outside so no doubt he would’ve dominated outside as well in that period. 82 and 83 he was sub par yes. But from 1984-88, he was the best bat in the world averaging 50 @an SR of 70. His decline began in 89, but if he had a Zim/Ban or even played SL, he would’ve averaged 40ish in decline not 35.

He also had a pretty mid Indian attack in 1983. As I said, not huge minnows, but saying he never faced easy bowling is hugely ignorant.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

He also had a pretty mid Indian attack in 1983. As I said, not huge minnows, but saying he never faced easy bowling is hugely ignorant.

Perhaps but not minnows on the level of Bang or SL from his time

 

[Xix2565]

I think you need to read more of Viv's context and the bowlers he bashed in his peak until 81. Lillee, peak Thommo, Indian spin quartet, Imran, Qadir, peak Botham, Willis, others. He averaged 70 plus against them. And of course WSC.

The weaker bowlers he faced coincided with his dip from his peak 81 onwards.


Yes but Hadlee has other bigger advantages like I mentioned, mainly pace friendly countries to make most of his record in.

If Hadlee was a batter and 80 percent of his great record was based in the SC, wouldn't we be reluctant to rate him that highly?


Viv is mostly 45+ with exception of Pak at 42. I don't consider that a weak record at all anymore than Tendulkar averaging 46 in SA. Very difficult for bats over a long career to have that consistency.

I don't think that justifies what happens in the rest of his career. If he did so well vs these players (assuming of course that this was in a totally even contest), why is he not averaging well over 70 as a whole?

So he wasn't that great, got it.

Again, Hadlee was the biggest reason NZ even had a competitive side. He was largely their whole bowling attack, Viv had an ATG bowling lineup to win games, while batting in a strong lineup. Like ffs come on, Viv was clearly in an easier situation all things accounted for and didn't do as well to be considered over Hadlee.

It's not great though, which was my whole point. His whole career doesn't put him over Hadlee.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Again, inconsistency is only an issue if it impacts his overall record like it did with Lara, which it didn't. Otherwise you are balancing top end ATG achievements that no other bat has with lesser returns.

Besides, the inconsistency is overplayed. He has five series in Australia, one ATG, one great, one good, one below par and one poor. He has three series in India, two great, one below par. He has three series in Pak, one ATG, one below par and one poor. He has five series in England, one ATG, two great, one good and one below par. He was consistent.


Let's be frank, many posters here just are down on him having a 50 average. A couple of points more from SL would have granted him a few more shallow votes.

Again, I don't think Viv was hugely more consistent than Lara. It's a valid critic. And doesn't Haynes have a better average at home than Viv? Home runs are also important, you know. And again, it's also true that him not playing easy bowling is highly exaggerated. Maybe not early on, or in his peak; but he surely did.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Perhaps but not minnows on the level of Bang or SL from his time

I agree, but there are people who very much emphasizes on Viv NEVER playing an easy attack, which is just not true.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Viv was more attacking than Haynes, plus I mean a lot of people say that the home pitches in WI were pretty fast during Viv’s time. So averaging 50 on them having had brilliant series vs Imran(1988) and Hadlee et al. So still it’s a brilliant record at home

 

[OverratedSanity]

If we're counting WSC, what about the large sample of FC matches that Viv played against the WI ATG bowlers where he averaged <40

 

[Xix2565]

Again, this is just overrating batters vs bowlers in Tests, let alone bowling ARs.

Viv was more attacking than Haynes, plus I mean a lot of people say that the home pitches in WI were pretty fast during Viv’s time. So averaging 50 on them having had brilliant series vs Imran(1988) and Hadlee et al.

So? Not everyone had a good bowling lineup to take full advantage. There's a reason why WI dominated, they had no peers as far as their bowlers were concerned for large parts of their careers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Viv was more attacking than Haynes, plus I mean a lot of people say that the home pitches in WI were pretty fast during Viv’s time. So averaging 50 on them having had brilliant series vs Imran(1988) and Hadlee et al.

Viv was more attacking than Haynes doesn't really explains anything. And again, he had some excellent home series like India 76 or Pak 88 but his overall home record isn't ATG. Also, WI also had plenty of flat tracks and spin friendly wickets during Viv's times, as far as I read.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

If we're counting WSC, what about the large sample of FC matches that Viv played against the WI ATG bowlers where he averaged <40

WSC at the time was much better than the standard of cricket outside. The best players were playing in that. Also Viv averaged 43 and 45+ a lot of Marshall, Garner at al in County Cricket

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Viv was more attacking than Haynes doesn't really explains anything. And again, he had some excellent home series like India 76 or Pak 88 but his overall home record isn't ATG. Also, WI also had plenty of flat tracks and spin friendly wickets during Viv's times, as far as I read.

Not ATG, but a brilliant record. As far I’ve read the pitches were pretty fast. And on some of those spin friendly wickets Viv dominated the Indian quartet and Qadir