Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[Bolo.]

Yes we can. We do it for Lillee and Ambrose to an extent. And Hadlee wasn't succeeding everywhere, that's the point, he didn't play enough for us to know.


You are not going into the actual context.

WI is not extremely good, it is below par and Hadlee himself was actually disappointed after that series. Again it's just one series but it was the ultimate challenge for Hadlee so should be given more importance.

Ind/Pak is three series, one which was good, the others early career.

SL is a minnow.

It's a pretty imbalanced record with him reaping it in pace friendly countries and not being sufficiently tested outside.


Marshall, McGrath, Steyn, Imran were all way more tested across different countries in multiple series.

Viv played in WI, Aus, Eng, Ind and Pak with multiple series in all of these countries. Far better tested too.

Decent samples across all countries don't exist. Sachin played 200. Toured more evenly than pretty much anyone else. Played in an era with less teams than now. Still only played 4 in Zim. Succceding in limited samples is the best you can hope for. Only Marshall did this better. Bigger samples across more countries would be better. But being better in small samples is much better than being meh in larger ones.

Hadlee's performances in the WI, considering the pitches and opposition, were still very good. He have been disappointed with very good because the series was in the middle of a decade where pretty much every series was stellar.

I think you can make a a pretty decent case for a couple of other bowlers being better away using more reasonable ways of assessing. But not on this country by country basis that you are constantly going to.

In their limited outings in the SC:
Lillee failed.
Ambrose demonstrated an ability to get cheap wickets, but not the ability to pick up loads. Hadlee got lots of cheap wickets.

Three different cases. I don't think we can say Lillee and Ambrose proved any shortcomings given the number of games, but Hadlee definitely proved himself a success.

 

[capt_Luffy]

They were mixed just like any other batsman. Who does this level of nitpicking?

And that's something many people seems to disagree....

 

[capt_Luffy]

Question, do you believe it is wrong to suggest Viv and Hadlee are equally good in primary disciplines?

No, I don't think so; but many things used to rank Viv in the absolute top tier aren't things I give the most importance to for modern bats (aka, SR, peer ratings and peak).

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

No, I don't think so; but many things used to rank Viv in the absolute top tier aren't things I give the most importance to for modern bats (aka, SR, peer ratings and peak).

I understand your pov dude and we have argued plenty about that . I wanted to understand Xix’s view.

 

[subshakerz]

Decent samples across all countries don't exist. Sachin played 200. Toured more evenly than pretty much anyone else. Played in an era with less teams than now. Still only played 4 in Zim. Succceding in limited samples is the best you can hope for. Only Marshall did this better. Bigger samples across more countries would be better. But being better in small samples is much better than being meh in larger ones.

Except Marshall, McGrath, Imran and Steyn all have more representative sample sizes to make a better assessment of them outside their comfort zone countries. Viv too has a big sample size everywhere except NZ.

Hadlee's performances in the WI, considering the pitches and opposition, were still very good. He have been disappointed with very good because the series was in the middle of a decade where pretty much every series was stellar.

It wasn't even a good series. Hadlee was disappointed with himself afterward for not being threatening enough and below his own worldclass standards.

I think you can make a a pretty decent case for a couple of other bowlers being better away using more reasonable ways of assessing. But not on this country by country basis that you are constantly going to.

Except it's not checklist. 69 of 86 tests are in his choice countries and outside of that, it's basically that one India 88 series to build his case.

In their limited outings in the SC:
Lillee failed.
Ambrose demonstrated an ability to get cheap wickets, but not the ability to pick up loads. Hadlee got lots of cheap wickets.

Three different cases. I don't think we can say Lillee and Ambrose proved any shortcomings given the number of games, but Hadlee definitely proved himself a success.

Hadlee is better than Lillee and Ambrose by virtue of that single India series in 88. Otherwise SL is irrelevant and he had two poor series in India and Pak prior.

 

[subshakerz]

No, I don't think so; but many things used to rank Viv in the absolute top tier aren't things I give the most importance to for modern bats (aka, SR, peer ratings and peak).

Yup those are the thing I give Viv that level for.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Except Marshall, McGrath, Imran and Steyn all have more representative sample sizes to make a better assessment of them outside their comfort zone countries. Viv too has a big sample size everywhere except NZ.


It wasn't even a good series. Hadlee was disappointed with himself afterward for not being threatening enough and below his own worldclass standards.


Except it's not checklist. 69 of 86 tests are in his choice countries and outside of that, it's basically that one India 88 series to build his case.


Hadlee is better than Lillee and Ambrose by virtue of that single India series in 88. Otherwise SL is irrelevant and he had two poor series in India and Pak prior.

I mean, Viv also have only one great series in Pak and India and was poor in his in NZ.

 

[Xix2565]

Hadlee had it far easier at home. Hadlee's problem is how little he did outside Aus, NZ and Eng.

Like you are making a big deal of Viv not facing his own attack yet have nothing to say for a below par series by Hadlee in WI which should be seen as an actual blemish.

I don't see it as an issue given that NZ didn't play as much as WI. They both played close to the same amount of games at home, but the WI got more games vs everyone else compared to NZ. Can't penalize for that.

Hadlee played the best team in their home and averaged 27, that's fine in my books. Far more consistent than Viv.

Question, do you believe it is wrong to suggest Viv and Hadlee are equally good in primary disciplines?

Yes, because they are not at equivalent ranks in their primary disciplines. Hadlee can be conceivably rated as first among the greatest bowlers ever, let alone ARs, while Viv has a far harder case.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, Viv also have only one great series in Pak and India and was poor in his in NZ.

No he has two great series in India.

In Pak, it was a near ATG series.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I don't see it as an issue given that NZ didn't play as much as WI. They both played close to the same amount of games at home, but the WI got more games vs everyone else compared to NZ. Can't penalize for that.

Hadlee played the best team in their home and averaged 27, that's fine in my books. Far more consistent than Viv.

Yes, because they are not at equivalent ranks in their primary disciplines. Hadlee can be conceivably rated as first among the greatest bowlers ever, let alone ARs, while Viv has a far harder case.

Hadlee’s usually rated below Marshall and Mcgrath. Viv has suffered a decline in perception, but still is ranked number 5 or 6, except for the latest rankings, where he was ranked 8 I think. Anyways agree to disagree on this.

 

[Xix2565]

Hadlee’s usually rated below Marshall and Mcgrath. Viv has suffered a decline in perception, but still is ranked number 5 or 6, except for the latest rankings, where he was ranked 8 I think. Anyways agree to disagree on this.

Sure, but Hadlee at least has a decent case to be put ahead of them. Viv I don't think can be said to have a similar case, especially when taking into account the levels of bowling attacks over the years.

Fair enough.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No he has two great series in India.

In Pak, it was a near ATG series.

It's a strech to call his 74 series "Great". It was good, no doubt, but basically consisted of one daddy not out ton.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Personally don’t think either Hadlee has a reasonable case of being rated ahead of Marshall or Viv ahead of Hobbs and Tendulkar

 

[capt_Luffy]

Personally don’t think either Hadlee has a reasonable case of being rated ahead of Marshall or Viv ahead of Hobbs and Tendulkar

Marshall bowled in a very supportive attack (to say the least) . While that makes more competition for wickets (in which Marshall excelled at, but I do think people forget that Great bowling attacks leads the opposition to all out much more often, hence more for everyone, in a way atleast), it also makes hiding easier on a bad day, a luxury guys like Hadlee and Murali didn't have. Also, Marshall was only ATG for a rather short peak from 83-89, and it could be argued that his early rough days got shielded by playing for such a strong attack. Meanwhile Hadlee had performed at an ATG level for much longer. Not that I rate Hadlee higher, but he sure do have arguments.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Marshall bowled in a very supportive attack (to say the least) . While that makes more competition for wickets (in which Marshall excelled at, but I do think people forget that Great bowling attacks leads the opposition to all out much more often, hence more for everyone, in a way atleast), it also makes hiding easier on a bad day, a luxury guys like Hadlee and Murali didn't have. Also, Marshall was only ATG for a rather short peak from 83-89, while Hadlee did that much longer. Not that I rate Hadlee higher, but he sure do have arguments.

Maybe you have a point there.

 

[Bolo.]

Except Marshall, McGrath, Imran and Steyn all have more representative sample sizes to make a better assessment of them outside their comfort zone countries. Viv too has a big sample size everywhere except NZ.


It wasn't even a good series. Hadlee was disappointed with himself afterward for not being threatening enough and below his own worldclass standards.


Except it's not checklist. 69 of 86 tests are in his choice countries and outside of that, it's basically that one India 88 series to build his case.


Hadlee is better than Lillee and Ambrose by virtue of that single India series in 88. Otherwise SL is irrelevant and he had two poor series in India and Pak prior.

They have more representative samples, but also failed to fully fire more often. Proven is> unproven, but not when it comes to proven worse. Unless you don't mean this on a country by country basis? I don't mind if you rank any of them besides Imran ahead in this case.

His figures in WI are very good considering the pitches and opposition. Unless you are suggesting he got a bunch of luck, him being unhappy with his bowling just suggests he was bowling badly by his own standards, and that he would expect to do better given more games there. I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that him being unhappy could be a point against him. Either don't trust his judgement and ignore him, or it's a point in his favour.

SL were crap enough that performances like Imran's don't indicate much either way. Performances like Hadlee's don't happen without bowling exceptionally in the conditions. Exceptional bowling is still a thing regardless of batting quality.

He had a number of poor series prior to 78, and almost none thereafter. That's just improvement.

 

[subshakerz]

They have more representative samples, but also failed to fully fire more often. Proven is> unproven, but not when it comes to proven worse. Unless you don't mean this on a country by country basis? I don't mind if you rank any of them besides Imran ahead in this case.

My point is to acknowledge the relative lack of representative sample outside SENA as a legitimate blemish for Hadlee.

Let's exclude Imran for a second and look at non-SC bowlers, excluding minnows:

Marshall: Three tours of England, two tours of Aus, three tours of Pak, two tours of India

McGrath: Three tours of England, three tours of WI, three tours of SA, three tours of India, three tours of Pak/UAE, one tour of SL

Steyn: Two tours of England, three tours of Aus, three tours of Ind, three tours of Pak/UAE, two tours of SL

Hadlee: Five tours of England, four tours of Australia, two tours of India, one tour of Pak, one tour of WI

So as mentioned, Hadlee is imbalanced in his record and only has one quality tour outside of SENA worth talking about.

His figures in WI are very good considering the pitches and opposition. Unless you are suggesting he got a bunch of luck, him being unhappy with his bowling just suggests he was bowling badly by his own standards, and that he would expect to do better given more games there. I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that him being unhappy could be a point against him. Either don't trust his judgement and ignore him, or it's a point in his favour.

Bottom line is that the 84 WI series was below worldclass standards, not really by average but by wicket-taking penetration. And they were the strongest side he faced so at best he can claim to be unproven there, unlike say McGrath or Steyn in India. Again, just a minor blemish but we have to acknowledge it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

My point is to acknowledge the relative lack of representative sample outside SENA as a legitimate blemish for Hadlee.

Let's exclude Imran for a second and look at non-SC bowlers, excluding minnows:

Marshall: Three tours of England, two tours of Aus, three tours of Pak, two tours of India

McGrath: Three tours of England, three tours of WI, three tours of SA, three tours of India, three tours of Pak/UAE, one tour of SL

Steyn: Two tours of England, three tours of Aus, three tours of Ind, three tours of Pak/UAE, two tours of SL

Hadlee: Five tours of England, four tours of Australia, two tours of India, one tour of Pak, one tour of WI

So as mentioned, Hadlee is imbalanced in his record and only has one quality tour outside of SENA worth talking about.


Bottom line is that the 84 WI series was below worldclass standards, not really by average but by wicket-taking penetration. And they were the strongest side he faced so at best he can claim to be unproven there, unlike say McGrath or Steyn in India. Again, just a minor blemish but we have to acknowledge it.

Again, WI 84 was really good, not ATG stuff but calling it a blemish is literally stooping low to prove a point not there.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, WI 84 was really good, not ATG stuff but calling it a blemish is literally stooping low to prove a point not there.

Blemish doesn't imply an outright bad performance. Merely below his usual output.

I wouldn't call 15 wickets in 4 tests @27 really good though. Seems we are changing standards here.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Blemish doesn't imply an outright bad performance. Merely below his usual output.

I wouldn't call 15 wickets in 4 tests @27 really good though. Seems we are changing standards here.

By opposition I would definitely call it good. Not calling it good atleast is the epitome of challenging standards.