Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[kyear2]

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.

Merely a great batter? I assume that's not how you categorized IVA.

And tbh a batting average of 27 is the equivalent to, to quote you, a rubbish batsman. And that comment at the end about not liking cricket is stupid.

If they have more influence over the game, why did NZ lose more matches than they won with Hadlee? I'll answer for you, becuse they didn't have the consistent top order batting support. If your batting collapses you can't win. Hence my point of needing a top tier batsman and bowler, you can't be a great team without both. And if you don't understand that, you really don't understand cricket.

I already gave two very detailed responses, which I imagine you can't counter, so I didn't expect any thing better from you as a response tbh.

 

[Xix2565]

Merely a great batter? I assume that's not how you categorized IVA.

And tbh a batting average of 27 is the equivalent to, to quote you, a rubbish batsman. And that comment at the end about not liking cricket is stupid.

If they have more influence over the game, why did NZ lose more matches than they won with Hadlee? I'll answer for you, becuse they didn't have the consistent top order batting support. If your batting collapses you can't win. Hence my point of needing a top tier batsman and bowler, you can't be a great team without both. And if you don't understand that, you really don't understand cricket.

I already gave two very detailed responses, which I imagine you can't counter, so I didn't expect any thing better from you as a response tbh.

Yes, because Viv doesn't stand out as much vs his batting peers compared to Hadlee. Hence merely a great.

NZ lost more because Hadlee was the entire attack, not because of batting. Case in point, look at how NZ did well recently, or even India. Having a good bowling attack matters more in winning Tests than anything else. To not acknowledge this given WI's dominance in the 80s is shameless tbh.

Your responses have no real meaning as far as this thread is concerned. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of cricketers and so there's nothing to discuss with you until this is rectified.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

I could push back on this entire premise. If it's just a small sample, then wicket tally and rate matter a bit more than average.

Steyn took 18 wickets in 3 tests against Aus in 2008 @26 with an SR in the 40s.

Ambrose too 13 wickets in 4 tests @23 against SA in 98 at an SR of 58.

There is no way that Ambrose performed better than Steyn who has more impactful despite being more expensive.

Back to Hadlee in WI in 84, yes his average is high but the real issue is he didn't take enough wickets to really threaten WI.

 

[ataraxia]

If they have more influence over the game, why did NZ lose more matches than they won with Hadlee? I'll answer for you, becuse they didn't have the consistent top order batting support. If your batting collapses you can't win. Hence my point of needing a top tier batsman and bowler, you can't be a great team without both. And if you don't understand that, you really don't understand cricket.

lol what?

Excluding the period (1973–77) when Hadlee averaged 36, NZ won more games with Hadlee than they lost. Out of the previous 127 test matches NZ had played they had won nine.

N I N E
I
N
E

Nine.

To win 20 out of 69 is hmm, over four times as good.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, because Viv doesn't stand out as much vs his batting peers compared to Hadlee. Hence merely a great.

As far as average is concerned, Hadlee didn't stand out as much either.

 

[ataraxia]

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.

Gosh watch some cricket man. This is a bad case of ATG brain.

Boult–Southee–Wagner: such a terribly middling attack.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

I think the quality and intensity of county vs WSC is my point.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, because Viv doesn't stand out as much vs his batting peers compared to Hadlee. Hence merely a great.

NZ lost more because Hadlee was the entire attack, not because of batting. Case in point, look at how NZ did well recently, or even India. Having a good bowling attack matters more in winning Tests than anything else. To not acknowledge this given WI's dominance in the 80s is shameless tbh.

Your responses have no real meaning as far as this thread is concerned. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of cricketers and so there's nothing to discuss with you until this is rectified.

To make some corrections, you lose when your side is bowled out twice. When you can't boql.out the other team twice, that's when you get draws.

Yes bowling is important, you need totals to defend as well. I don't see how this is difficult. You do know they had Richards, Lloyd, Greenidge etc. Australia had Ponting, Hayden, Waugh

So in other words, you can't counter my points so will continue to hide behind deliberately vague non specific responses.

All you do is add averages and deliberately ignore history, results or impact. So I guess the fundamental misunderstanding lies with you.

 

[ashley bach]

Unfair comparison on Viv because Paddles was simply too good in his craft.

The guy was a genius at work and a deck only had to half suit him before he was a massive threat.
To this day I don't recall anyone who had a better late out-swinger. He was also able to nip the ball away sharply at the last moment.
He could run in all day and hit good lengths so this combination became lethal.
He played at the highest level of quality time after time, he was an absolute machine.
One of the best decisions he ever made was to shorten his run up which not only proved to be better, but also prolonged his career.

 

[kyear2]

lol what?

Excluding the period (1973–77) when Hadlee averaged 36, NZ won more games with Hadlee than they lost. Out of the previous 127 test matches NZ had played they had won nine.

N I N E
I
N
E

Nine.

To win 20 out of 69 is hmm, over four times as good.

No one said he wasn't great, I'm saying to consistently win you need to have great bowling and at least very good batting.

Hadlee is a top 3 bowler ever, not even arguing that. Bowlers are slightly more important, not arguing that.

The through process that there's a gulf or one can win without support from a batting line up doesn't make sense.

 

[kyear2]

Unfair comparison on Viv because Paddles was simply too good in his craft.

The guy was a genius at work and a deck only had to half suit him before he was a massive threat.
To this day I don't recall anyone who had a better late out-swinger. He was also able to nip the ball away sharply at the last moment.
He could run in all day and hit good lengths so this combination became lethal.
He played at the highest level of quality time after time, he was an absolute machine.
One of the best decisions he ever made was to shorten his run up which not only proved to be better, but also prolonged his career.

No argument that Hadlee was a top tier bowler, in the absolute top tier, behind only 2. Not going to argue that.

Vivian for me and many was also a member of the absolute top tier. I wouldn't say 2nd, but could make an argument for 3rd.

I agree Hadlee is better, said that to start, but the notion that he wasn't in Hadlee's class is just not correct.

Again, I have Hadlee 5th, Viv 7th.

 

[subshakerz]

Gosh watch some cricket man. This is a bad case of ATG brain.

Boult–Southee–Wagner: such a terribly middling attack.

The problem is he is conflating career averages with series or small samples.

If you are taking 5 wickets a test at a sub 50 SR, it doesn't matter as much if you average above 25.

 

[subshakerz]

No argument that Hadlee was a top tier bowler, in the absolute top tier, behind only 2. Not going to argue that.

Vivian for me and many was also a member of the absolute top tier. I wouldn't say 2nd, but could make an argument for 3rd.

I agree Hadlee is better, said that to start, but the notion that he wasn't in Hadlee's class is just not correct.

Again, I have Hadlee 5th, Viv 7th.

I think Bradman distorts the batting list. Viv is only after Sachin, Sobers, Hobbs.

That to me is roughly equivalent with Hadlee at no.3

But I think Viv was slightly more outstanding than Hadlee whose career was built on mostly fairweather conditions.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, because Viv doesn't stand out as much vs his batting peers compared to Hadlee. Hence merely a great.

NZ lost more because Hadlee was the entire attack, not because of batting. Case in point, look at how NZ did well recently, or even India. Having a good bowling attack matters more in winning Tests than anything else. To not acknowledge this given WI's dominance in the 80s is shameless tbh.

Your responses have no real meaning as far as this thread is concerned. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of cricketers and so there's nothing to discuss with you until this is rectified.

Hadlee was the 2nd best bowler of the 70's behind Lillee and 2nd best of the 80's behind Marshall.

Viv was the best for his entire career and bridged the gap between Sobers - Richards - Richards - Tendulkar.

And also since bowling is more important than batting, how do you all vote Sachin over Marshall? Just wondering.

 

[subshakerz]

The through process that there's a gulf or one can win without support from a batting line up doesn't make sense.

No. But you are likely to win much more with a worldclass bowler than a worldclass bat. But you can't be a good team without quality bats.

 

[subshakerz]

And also since bowling is more important than batting, how do you all vote Sachin over Marshall? Just wondering.

This board was gone overboard with this line of thinking in rating players.

 

[kyear2]

No. But you are likely to win much more with a worldclass bowler than a worldclass bat. But you can't be a good team without quality bats.

Not that hard.

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee was the 2nd best bowler of the 70's behind Lillee and 2nd best of the 80's behind Marshall.

Viv was the best for his entire career and bridged the gap between Sobers - Richards - Richards - Tendulkar.

And also since bowling is more important than batting, how do you all vote Sachin over Marshall? Just wondering.

Are you high? Neither Imran or Hadlee are even top 10 bowlers of the 70’s.

 

[subshakerz]

Are you high? Neither Imran or Hadlee are even top 10 bowlers of the 70’s.

Pretty sure Roberts was second best of the 70s.

 

[Coronis]

Pretty sure Roberts was second best of the 70s.

Bowlers I would without question have above them.. (in order of wickets taken in the 70’s) Underwood, Bedi, Lillee, Willis, Chandrasekhar, Thomson, Roberts, Walker, Botham, Snow. Arguments to be made for Old and Arnold too.