Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[subshakerz]

Nope. It was mostly just good

He had a fifty in there too somewhere.

 

[kyear2]

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

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.

I will love to know when we designated bowling ARs the quarterbacks of cricket.

Like genuine and sincere question, nothing to do with Imran. And this has nothing to do with which players are better.... Since when did we designate bowling all rounders to be the most vital role in cricket?

Easily acknowledge that bowlers are slightly more important than batsmen, simply because you can't win a match without taking 20 wickets, and the bowlers are seen as match winners. But it's been over played by many here as a gulf apart. You can't bowl out teams without runs to bowl at.

The AR side, I'll leave Imran out of it, we've discussed that enough. Hadlee scored two hundreds in tests, both in draws. One of which had 3 innings, only two completed, the other against minnow SL, where of the two innings started, neither were completed. He did have a 99 in a victory, but to be fair England didn't reach triple figures in either innings, he also scored a 92 where the lost by 165 runs.

The though process that bowling all rounder's batting regularly win or save games is total fiction, and the importance allocated here is based purely on combined averages. With said averages being partly based on empty calories and not outs.
A batsman averaging in the early or mid 30's wouldn't be expected to contribute consistently, yet the belief is that somehow changes in the lower order.

The though process behind a position being seen as the most vital in a sport, QB in football for example is based around the premise that one can't, or it's difficult to win or compete without them, that immediately invalidates the B-AR argument for cricket.

In our sport, it's the premier fast bowler and alpha middle order batsman. It also seems to help if the alpha male can lock down one of the crucial slip positions. Evidence?

Lindwall & Harvey
Lillee & Chappell
Marshall & Richards
McGrath & Ponting
Steyn & Kallis

You want to select a multi faceted role that are just indispensable to teams?

How about the guys like -
Sobers / Simpson / Hammond / Kallis

Your best batsman, your 4th / 5th bowler and key slip fielder. The utility and function of those guys exceeds that of blowing ARs, but the thought process here is locked in with absolutely nothing to support it.

I've said this before, but guys like Waugh, Kallis etc have contributed to more wins in the cordon than the batting of most lower order guys. That's before the bowling is even factored in.

Anyways, carry on.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I will love to know when we designated bowling ARs the quarterbacks of cricket.

Like genuine and sincere question, nothing to do with Imran. And this has nothing to do with which players are better.... Since when did we designate bowling all rounders to be the most vital role in cricket?

Easily acknowledge that bowlers are slightly more important than batsmen, simply because you can't win a match without taking 20 wickets, and the bowlers are seen as match winners. But it's been over played by many here as a gulf apart. You can't bowl out teams without runs to bowl at.

The AR side, I'll leave Imran out of it, we've discussed that enough. Hadlee scored two hundreds in tests, both in draws. One of which had 3 innings, only two completed, the other against minnow SL, where of the two innings started, neither were completed. He did have a 99 in a victory, but to be fair England didn't reach triple figures in either innings, he also scored a 92 where the lost by 165 runs.

The though process that bowling all rounder's batting regularly win or save games is total fiction, and the importance allocated here is based purely on combined averages. With said averages being partly based on empty calories and not outs.
A batsman averaging in the early or mid 30's wouldn't be expected to contribute consistently, yet the belief is that somehow changes in the lower order.

The though process behind a position being seen as the most vital in a sport, QB in football for example is based around the premise that one can't, or it's difficult to win or compete without them, that immediately invalidates the B-AR for cricket.

In our sport, it's the premier fast bowler and alpha middle order batsman, it also seems to help if the alpha male can man lock down one of the crucial slip positions. Evidence?

Lindwall & Harvey
Lillee & Chappell
Marshall & Richards
McGrath & Ponting
Steyn & Kallis

You want to select a multi faceted role that are just indispensable to teams?

How about the guys like -
Sobers / Simpson / Hammond / Kallis

Your best batsman, your 4th / 5th bowler and key slip fielder. The utility and function of those guys exceeds that of blowing ARs, but the thought process here is locked in with absolutely nothing to support it.

I've said this before, but guys like Waugh, Kallis etc have contributed to more wins in the cordon than the batting of most lower order guys. That's before the bowling is even factored in.

Anyways, carry on.

A batsman who is a 5th bowler and good fielder is more often than not as valuable as a bowling all-rounder who is a decent bat.... I know you will disagree and make a long post and anything I say won't change your beliefs; but a batsman who is a 5th bowler can at best be used for resting your main bowlers. Kallis' bowling and fielding wasn't turning matches for Saffas like Pollock's batting did.

 

[Bolo.]

Viv does well for me on those counts.

My issue with Hadlee wasn't random countries though. It was specific to him proving himself in those countries given he was already loaded in SENA. Like if he had his WI record in Eng, it wouldn't be a big deal at all.

SENA is only a recent thing. At that time, WI was pretty poor for spin, and belonged in that category. Just more challenging in terms of pitches and batying quality.

 

[subshakerz]

SENA is only a recent thing. At that time, WI was pretty poor for spin, and belonged in that category. Just more challenging in terms of pitches and batying quality.

Well then let's just agree to disagree on how well Hadlee did there.

 

[subshakerz]

I will love to know when we designated bowling ARs the quarterbacks of cricket.

Like genuine and sincere question, nothing to do with Imran. And this has nothing to do with which players are better.... Since when did we designate bowling all rounders to be the most vital role in cricket?

Easily acknowledge that bowlers are slightly more important than batsmen, simply because you can't win a match without taking 20 wickets, and the bowlers are seen as match winners. But it's been over played by many here as a gulf apart. You can't bowl out teams without runs to bowl at.

The AR side, I'll leave Imran out of it, we've discussed that enough. Hadlee scored two hundreds in tests, both in draws. One of which had 3 innings, only two completed, the other against minnow SL, where of the two innings started, neither were completed. He did have a 99 in a victory, but to be fair England didn't reach triple figures in either innings, he also scored a 92 where the lost by 165 runs.

The though process that bowling all rounder's batting regularly win or save games is total fiction, and the importance allocated here is based purely on combined averages. With said averages being partly based on empty calories and not outs.
A batsman averaging in the early or mid 30's wouldn't be expected to contribute consistently, yet the belief is that somehow changes in the lower order.

The though process behind a position being seen as the most vital in a sport, QB in football for example is based around the premise that one can't, or it's difficult to win or compete without them, that immediately invalidates the B-AR for cricket.

In our sport, it's the premier fast bowler and alpha middle order batsman, it also seems to help if the alpha male can man lock down one of the crucial slip positions. Evidence?

Lindwall & Harvey
Lillee & Chappell
Marshall & Richards
McGrath & Ponting
Steyn & Kallis

You want to select a multi faceted role that are just indispensable to teams?

How about the guys like -
Sobers / Simpson / Hammond / Kallis

Your best batsman, your 4th / 5th bowler and key slip fielder. The utility and function of those guys exceeds that of blowing ARs, but the thought process here is locked in with absolutely nothing to support it.

I've said this before, but guys like Waugh, Kallis etc have contributed to more wins in the cordon than the batting of most lower order guys. That's before the bowling is even factored in.

Anyways, carry on.

Not trying to attack you but just please let's not get sidetracked back into that AR debate.

However, it is fair to raise concerns on Hadlee's batting impact.

Averaging in the 20s with the bat for Hadlee isnt that decisive that it cannot be overhauled by other advantages that Viv has, not the least in primary skills.

 

[kyear2]

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).

Besides long term consistency, what else is there? Viv aso had consistency in most conditions.

 

[kyear2]

In that regard you can't have a single series like that anywhere against anyone. And again, a 27 bowling average and around 4 WPM being 'middling' is pushing to too far.

If not middling, what is it?

Genuine question.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If not middling, what is it?

Genuine question.

It's genuinely pretty good.

A very genuine answer.

 

[subshakerz]

If not middling, what is it?

Genuine question.

Yeah I don't get this. That Hadlee WI series would be considered 'really good' by them and then Viv averaging 42 in Pakistan is considered below par.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah I don't get this. That Hadlee WI series would be considered 'really good' by them and then Viv averaging 42 in Pakistan is considered below par.

Viv averaging 42 in Pakistan is "below par" by ATG standards, as is Gavaskar averaging 41 in England; as both played many series there and were mostly middling except one ATG series. By general standards, he is perfectly good in Pakistan. Hadlee played only a 4 match series in WI, and did pretty good. Not to mention a 27 bowling average is about equal to a 42 batting mostly.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee played only a 4 match series in WI, and did pretty good. Not to mention a 27 bowling average is about equal to a 42 batting mostly.

Hadlee was also below par by ATG standards then.

And forget average since 15 wickets in 4 tests is a low haul. And I already gave you a quote regarding his performance in that series

Imran Khan said “I also was told by the West Indians that when Hadlee toured the Caribbean, he was not the same attacking bowler they feared from county cricket”

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hadlee was also below par by ATG standards then.

And forget average since 15 wickets in 4 tests is a low haul. And I already gave you a quote regarding his performance in that series

Imran Khan said “I also was told by the West Indians that when Hadlee toured the Caribbean, he was not the same attacking bowler they feared from county cricket”

Again, I won't read too much into a single Imran Khan quote, not to mention Hadlee was the GoAT county bowler. It was also just a 4 match series and I don't exactly think a WPM of 4 can really be considered "low". You are cherry picking here based on a single series of less than 4 matches.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, I won't read too much into a single Imran Khan quote, not to mention Hadlee was the GoAT county bowler. It was also just a 4 match series and I don't exactly think a WPM of 4 can really be considered "low". You are cherry picking here based on a single series of less than 4 matches.

I am not sure if you realise what I am doing.

I am not saying Hadlee failed in the WI.

I am just saying what he did do is not enough to consider it the same way we look at Aus or Eng numbers as proof of his ATG status. And we on CW have traditionally put much importance on proving yourself against the best opposition available.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I am not sure if you realise what I am doing.

I am not saying Hadlee failed in the WI.

I am just saying what he did do is not enough to consider it the same way we look at Aus or Eng numbers as proof of his ATG status. And we on CW have traditionally put much importance on proving yourself against the best opposition available.

Hadlee did that at his home very well though, we're Viv himself properly failed. And like, Viv also never played against the best bowlers of his time.

 

[Coronis]

Because they are entirely different formats.

lol. Yet you continue to bring up WSC.

Anyway yeah Viv’s county record is relatively poor compared to his peers, but thats only one country ofc and his test record is what matters.

 

[Xix2565]

I will love to know when we designated bowling ARs the quarterbacks of cricket.

Like genuine and sincere question, nothing to do with Imran. And this has nothing to do with which players are better.... Since when did we designate bowling all rounders to be the most vital role in cricket?

Easily acknowledge that bowlers are slightly more important than batsmen, simply because you can't win a match without taking 20 wickets, and the bowlers are seen as match winners. But it's been over played by many here as a gulf apart. You can't bowl out teams without runs to bowl at.

The AR side, I'll leave Imran out of it, we've discussed that enough. Hadlee scored two hundreds in tests, both in draws. One of which had 3 innings, only two completed, the other against minnow SL, where of the two innings started, neither were completed. He did have a 99 in a victory, but to be fair England didn't reach triple figures in either innings, he also scored a 92 where the lost by 165 runs.

The though process that bowling all rounder's batting regularly win or save games is total fiction, and the importance allocated here is based purely on combined averages. With said averages being partly based on empty calories and not outs.
A batsman averaging in the early or mid 30's wouldn't be expected to contribute consistently, yet the belief is that somehow changes in the lower order.

The though process behind a position being seen as the most vital in a sport, QB in football for example is based around the premise that one can't, or it's difficult to win or compete without them, that immediately invalidates the B-AR for cricket.

In our sport, it's the premier fast bowler and alpha middle order batsman, it also seems to help if the alpha male can man lock down one of the crucial slip positions. Evidence?

Lindwall & Harvey
Lillee & Chappell
Marshall & Richards
McGrath & Ponting
Steyn & Kallis

You want to select a multi faceted role that are just indispensable to teams?

How about the guys like -
Sobers / Simpson / Hammond / Kallis

Your best batsman, your 4th / 5th bowler and key slip fielder. The utility and function of those guys exceeds that of blowing ARs, but the thought process here is locked in with absolutely nothing to support it.

I've said this before, but guys like Waugh, Kallis etc have contributed to more wins in the cordon than the batting of most lower order guys. That's before the bowling is even factored in.

Anyways, carry on.

Hadlee gives me the most valuable skill with a lot of volume and is capable of batting a bit. That's far greater than being merely a great batter who bowls part time rubbish to give the more important bowlers a break. If you don't like that you don't like cricket tbh.

Yeah, and you have to make runs by actually trying to score against the bowlers doing their best not to let you do so. The bowlers in this scenario have far more agency and thus influence over the game. Anything else is being stupid honestly.

 

[kyear2]

A batsman who is a 5th bowler and good fielder is more often than not as valuable as a bowling all-rounder who is a decent bat.... I know you will disagree and make a long post and anything I say won't change your beliefs; but a batsman who is a 5th bowler can at best be used for resting your main bowlers. Kallis' bowling and fielding wasn't turning matches for Saffas like Pollock's batting did.

To start, to dismissively state he was a 5th bowler and a good fielder is inaccurate in every way. Kallis was most often the 4th option who was an ATG slip fielder and one of the absolute best ever. You didn't even try to substantiate your statements, but I'll try to illustrate mine and be as brief as possible, while showing my position isn't just my beliefs.

Shaun Pollock scored two hundreds during his test career, both in the same year.

One was against a Murali less and over matched SL team (though his hundred did help set up the innings plus victory). And the other vs a post Ambrose WI attack where we held on in the 2nd innings to claim a draw, despite a 8 wicket hauls from Kallis of all people (so yes, Kallis had the greater impact in that one)

In 18 4th innings knocks he has one half century, a 67* where they still lost by almost 200 runs. But notably, 11 single digit scores.

In 49 marches that they won, he scored 4 50's and one hundred, the aforementioned effort vs SL. Not quite the impact one would imagine.

Kallis in 166 matches had 5 five-for's, in 108 matches Kallis had 2 centuries, again, both in 2001.
When you add the 200 catches, which literally translated into 200 wickets, do you really believe that Pollock's batting had the same impact as Kallis's bowling at 2nd change, and brilliant catching at the pivotal 2nd slip position?

Don't tell me what you believe, prove it?

 

[kyear2]

It's genuinely pretty good.

A very genuine answer.

A bowling average under 20 is brilliant

An average under 22 is excellent

An average under 24 is very good

Anything over 26 is middling at best. Ask if that was someone's overall average and how you would catergorize their career.

If you want to say sample size is too small to factor in, sure. But 27 isn't good.

 

[kyear2]

Viv averaging 42 in Pakistan is "below par" by ATG standards, as is Gavaskar averaging 41 in England; as both played many series there and were mostly middling except one ATG series. By general standards, he is perfectly good in Pakistan. Hadlee played only a 4 match series in WI, and did pretty good. Not to mention a 27 bowling average is about equal to a 42 batting mostly.

You don't see the difference between 41 in England and 42 in Pakistan?