Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

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.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Considering how Viv performed against most of these bowlers, doesn't that place an even better light in how he performed in the 70's?

 

[subshakerz]

Considering how Viv performed against most of these bowlers, doesn't that place an even better light in how he performed in the 70's?

It should. I think it is fair to say that Viv performed better and played more frequently against top quality bowling than Hadlee against top quality batting (away from home, at least).

 

[capt_Luffy]

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?

No, I believe Pollock's batting had more impact. Your whole premise is shaddy, the value Pollock provides isn't just his centuries and halfs, but batting with an established batsman and/or scoring 30s. For reference, Hancie Cronje was among SA's leading batsmen in Pollock's early days and he averaged 36, 6 more than Pollock. It's similar to Jadeja really, not many huge scores but enough consistent contribution to not make Kallis' bowling really any close.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

It's like saying a batting average of 40 isn't good..... It's simply not true.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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

I am more surprised in you seeing a difference there really....

 

[OverratedSanity]

How is a bowling average of 26-27 middling? I swear some of you have brain rot from only discussing ATG XI teams and not watching any actual cricket ffs.

 

[subshakerz]

How is a bowling average of 26-27 middling? I swear some of you have brain rot from only discussing ATG XI teams and not watching any actual cricket ffs.

Sheesh what's wrong with you guys.

A career average of 27 is middling by ATG standards.

But for a series or country sample, it all depends on context.

If you are taking 5 wickets a test at a good SR like Steyn in Australia, then it is still really good by ATG standards even with a bowling average of 27.

If you have a low WPM and high SR with an average of 27, yeah that is middling by ATG standards. Hadlee in WI was middling as far as output is concerned.

This obsession with blindly looking at raw averages is silly

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sheesh what's wrong with you guys.

A career average of 27 is middling by ATG standards.

But for a series or country sample, it all depends on context.

If you are taking 5 wickets a test at a good SR like Steyn in Australia, then it is still really good by ATG standards even with a bowling average of 27.

If you have a low WPM and high SR with an average of 27, yeah that is middling by ATG standards.

This obsession with blindly looking at raw averages is silly

Definitely blindly looking at stats is silly, but how come a batting average of 40 is ever being quoted "middling", but this one did. And WPM of 4 can hardly be considered low.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sheesh what's wrong with you guys.

A career average of 27 is middling by ATG standards.

Yes you think it's middling because you think of ATG standard for every small sample that's my point.

However I do agree about the applying context thing. Hadlee 27 Avg in WI is similar to Mcgrath 27 Avg 3 wpm against the best team of his time (SA). Which is a stat never brought up. In fact, Mcgrath vs sa is worse because it's a far higher sample of tests showing he was provably middling.

Also Viv only averaged 44 vs Australia with only 5 tons in 34 tests. Definition of middling imo. Only 43 vs NZ and 41 vs Pakistan (in a pretty large sample of tests)! Middling! And pak/NZ were arguably quite a bit stronger in the 80s than aus/eng. Request you to analyze these numbers for Viv. Thanks.

 

[subshakerz]

Definitely blindly looking at stats is silly, but how come a batting average of 40 is ever being quoted "middling", but this one did. And WPM of 4 can hardly be considered low.

I don't consider 40 to be middling. I consider it baseline good. Again it also depends on context. If you get to 40 by bashing crap attacks and failing against great ones, that is a problem.

Definitely blindly looking at stats is silly, but how come a batting average of 40 is ever being quoted "middling", but this one did. And WPM of 4 can hardly be considered low.

Not to nitpick, but Hadlee in WI was just below 4WPM. Combined with a slightly higher average and SR, it was middling. Not bad but if he had the same record over 10 to 15 tests in WI, we would consider it a bit disappointing compared to Aus and Eng output. You get me?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Viv gets more passes and excuses for the same dumb holes in his record that other players don't. @Coronis underrated him but man has always been kinda right about Viv.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

Run scoring is dictated more by bowlers than batters though ffs. It's not even a debate worth having given bowlers have far more influence on where the ball is being bowled than the batters, and the batters have a lot more ground to make up in order to best negotiate each delivery. Conditions can tilt this one way or the other, but generally bowlers > batters in Tests. While it's important to have good batting lineups, generally speaking they don't move the needle as much compared to good bowling attacks. See every great side in Test history (McWarne and co, WI pace battery, etc). If you can't acknowledge this then what's the point of responding to me?

The history is that Hadlee was a far more impactful player than Viv taking everything into account. Hence he's the greater cricketer. End of.

 

[Xix2565]

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

To me this is a marginal discussion one way or the other. And it's only a debate with Tendulkar, other great batters I put below great bowlers/ARs.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes you think it's middling because you think of ATG standard for every small sample that's my point.

Except I made a distinction in my post between career vs sample.

However I do agree about the applying context thing. Hadlee 27 Avg in WI is similar to Mcgrath 27 Avg 3 wpm against the best team of his time (SA). Which is a stat never brought up. In fact, Mcgrath vs sa is worse because it's a far higher sample of tests showing he was provably middling.

I do bring this up. It is a legitimate blemish in McGraths record. So why can't Hadlee in WI not be considered a blemish? Tho I will say McGrath did much better in SA than against them at home, opposite to Hadlee against WI.

Also Viv only averaged 44 vs Australia with only 5 tons in 34 tests. Definition of middling imo. Only 43 vs NZ and 41 vs Pakistan (in a pretty large sample of tests)! Middling! And pak/NZ were arguably quite a bit stronger in the 80s than aus/eng. Request you to analyze these numbers for Viv. Thanks.

Sorry 40 to me is baseline good for an ATG bat unless it can be shown that the scoring was just against poorer attacks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sorry 40 to me is baseline good for an ATG bat unless it can be shown that the scoring was just against poorer attacks.

What is your basis for considering 40 batting average baseline good but 27 bowling average middling?

That does not seem at all right to me.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv gets more passes and excuses for the same dumb holes in his record that other players don't. @Coronis underrated him but man has always been kinda right about Viv.

None of those are holes really.

 

[subshakerz]

What is your basis for considering 40 batting average baseline good but 27 bowling average middling?

That does not seem at all right to me.

Did you ignore my entire post on this? 27 by itself isn't middling unless we can reference wicket tally

 

[OverratedSanity]

If you have a low WPM and high SR with an average of 27, yeah that is middling by ATG standards. Hadlee in WI was middling as far as output is concerned.

This obsession with blindly looking at raw averages is silly

Did you even look at the games in that series? Hadlee barely got to bowl in two of the innings because WI were chasing like 50 to win. 4 wpm is perfectly good even without that context, but with it, it's actually good output.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Did you ignore my entire post on this? 27 by itself isn't middling unless we can reference wicket tally

Viv batting average in low 40s vs pak, NZ, Aus is middling considering very low century tally imo.