Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[subshakerz]

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.

He didn't do 4WPM. I did see the scorecards but it's par for the course plus Hadlee also had a higher than usual SR while Marshall took nearly twice as many wicket as he did. And it was the perception of the players that Hadlee was a diminished threat:

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]

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


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.


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

Hadlee also did much better against WI at home..... McGrath was a bowler who almost always did better away than at home.

 

[subshakerz]

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

Averaging in the 40s with your scoring concentrated against quality attacks is not middling. It's baseline good. Nobody puts this high of a standard, not even to Tendulkar.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Averaging in the 40s with your scoring concentrated against quality attacks is not middling. It's baseline good. Nobody puts this high of a standard.

But Hadlee Avg 27 against the greatest team ever at their home is middling. What. I am losing braincells at a rapid rate but still seem to have more than you smh.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee also did much better against WI at home..... McGrath was a bowler who almost always did better away than at home.

Yeah McGrath is slightly better than Hadlee away for me and overall.

 

[subshakerz]

But Hadlee Avg 27 against the greatest team ever at their home is middling. What. I am losing braincells at a rapid rate but still seem to have more than you smh.

You have lost braincells because my issue with Hadlee isn't just the average, it's the wicket tally and SR. He is a guy who takes 5 wickets a test on career average just to remind you.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You have lost braincells because my issue with Hadlee isn't just the average, it's the wicket tally and SR. He is a guy who takes 5 wickets a test on career average just to remind you.

Is Viv low century tally vs Aus, pak, NZ (8 hundreds in 57 tests!!!) a worse statistical quirk than Hadlees 4 wickets per game in 4 tests in WI? Request you to be honest.

Also, holding Hadlees own high career wpm as the expected standard is dumb.

 

[subshakerz]

@OverratedSanity let me explain it in these terms

Let's say Tendulkar played ATG Aus only once in his career in Australia in 99 in his prime.

Let's say he averaged 37/38 in that series.

I think many of us would have concerns.

Let's say he averaged 42/43 in that series.

Many of us wouldn't be as bothered and consider it acceptable.

I consider Hadlee in WI in 85 to be the former, you consider it to be the latter, that's our disagreement.

 

[subshakerz]

Is Viv low century tally vs Aus, pak, NZ (8 hundreds in 57 tests!!!) a worse statistical quirk than Hadlees 4 wickets per game in 4 tests in WI? Request you to be honest.

Also, holding Hadlees own high career wpm as the expected standard is dumb.

No that's a fair critique and overall less career tons is a fair critique depending on how one values that. Hadlee in WI is important in the contrxt of my critique that 69 of his 86 games are in Aus, Eng and NZ so we don't havea lot to show outside for his all-round abilities.

I didn't mean that Hadlee has to take 5WPM in WI, but that there was a significant dropoff for his performance there plus quotes to show that WI didn't consider him the same threat. I don't want to make much of a single series but those presenting it as if it's a great success are misleading IMO.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I specially also highlighted his 4th innings scores, his performances in victories etc.

While I not saying he provided no value, it's not nearly what is believed.

The consistent contributions weren't nearly as consistent as you think. For a batsman who averaged 32, with a couple hundreds and 39 no's, yes 39... how consistently do you think he scored those 30's?

 

[subshakerz]

I specially also highlighted his 4th innings scores, his performances in victories etc.

While I not saying he provided no value, it's not nearly what is believed.

The consistent contributions weren't nearly as consistent as you think. For a batsman who averaged 32, with a couple hundreds and 39 no's, yes 39... how consistently do you think he scored those 30's?

Pollock with the bat can't be as valuable as Kallis with the ball, tho depending on which career phase of Kallis we are talking about.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think people realise how average 8 tons in a big sample of 57 tests against the three stronger teams of your time is. Particularly considering he didn't even have to face the best attack of his era by far because they were on his own team.

I don't consider hundred rate the best metric at all but it's very poor output for a batsman of his reputation.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think people realise how average 8 tons in a big sample of 57 tests against the three stronger teams of your time is. I don't consider hundred rate the best metric at all but it's very poor output for a batsman of his reputation.

It's a poor conversion rate for sure but he still averages 40 plus against all three so overall output is not poor.

And I would say, from what I read, that Viv was often a short innings impact player. Similar to late career stage ABD for us today, he would come in when things were in the balance and score a momentum shifting 50 odd to give WI the edge. So it wasn't just about hundreds with him like other traditional bats.

 

[Xix2565]

I don't think people realise how average 8 tons in a big sample of 57 tests against the three stronger teams of your time is. Particularly considering he didn't even have to face the best attack of his era by far because they were on his own team.

I don't consider hundred rate the best metric at all but it's very poor output for a batsman of his reputation.

Uncomfortably close to Ajinkya Rahane vs AUS/ENG/SA.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

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.

Wow, I never realized Viv was so middling against the best bowling attacks! I’ve really been overrating him.

 

[Coronis]

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.

Its nice to be seen

 

[kyear2]

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.

Yes every great side had a great attack, they also had great batsmen.

I've never denied bowlers move the needle more, but you still can't win consistently with out runs on the board.

McWarne had Ponting, The quartet had Viv, Lillee and Thompson had Chappell, Steyn ang Philander had Kallis.

They also needed catching support, because having those great bowlers creating chances without them being taken, means very little.

So while you want to isolate it to a single factor, there was multiple. That's my only point.

As I said I think Hadlee was slightly better, but this gulf that you're imagining exists, didn't.

I'm not the biggest fan or peer reviews, but they are part of any evaluation, and for some reason, possibly because he was from NZ, he wasn't nearly held at the same esteem as Viv.

So as much as ORS is now saying Coronis was right, there had to be a reason besides excitement that Viv makes Crifinfo's and Wisden's teams while Hadlee made neither.

Again, I believe Hadlee was slightly ahead, but to pretend it's not a contest. Every bowler from the era will tell you that he was not only the most difficult batsman to bowl to, he was also the best.

And to Subz point, he did it more places, and more difficult places. If he had retired at the same age and amount of tests as Chappell we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I specially also highlighted his 4th innings scores, his performances in victories etc.

While I not saying he provided no value, it's not nearly what is believed.

The consistent contributions weren't nearly as consistent as you think. For a batsman who averaged 32, with a couple hundreds and 39 no's, yes 39... how consistently do you think he scored those 30's?

Batting at 6 down, he then consistently provided support to the top order.

 

[subshakerz]

I am beginning to think this board has switched to a heavy bowler bias, expecting ATG bats to be pristine in their records while ignoring obvious problems in bowling records.

We can instantly recognize when a bat has heavily concentrated his record in a few choices countries but make excuses when it is a bowler.

 

[Xix2565]

Yes every great side had a great attack, they also had great batsmen.

I've never denied bowlers move the needle more, but you still can't win consistently with out runs on the board.

McWarne had Ponting, The quartet had Viv, Lillee and Thompson had Chappell, Steyn ang Philander had Kallis.

They also needed catching support, because having those great bowlers creating chances without them being taken, means very little.

So while you want to isolate it to a single factor, there was multiple. That's my only point.

As I said I think Hadlee was slightly better, but this gulf that you're imagining exists, didn't.

I'm not the biggest fan or peer reviews, but they are part of any evaluation, and for some reason, possibly because he was from NZ, he wasn't nearly held at the same esteem as Viv.

So as much as ORS is now saying Coronis was right, there had to be a reason besides excitement that Viv makes Crifinfo's and Wisden's teams while Hadlee made neither.

Again, I believe Hadlee was slightly ahead, but to pretend it's not a contest. Every bowler from the era will tell you that he was not only the most difficult batsman to bowl to, he was also the best.

And to Subz point, he did it more places, and more difficult places. If he had retired at the same age and amount of tests as Chappell we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Again, the hierarchy of bowling -> batting -> everything else as far as winning Tests go dictates that being a greater exponent of the more valuable skill is greater than being the same of a less valuable skill.

Peer reviews are not part of my reasoning so this is meaningless.

Reasons outside of cricketing records are not really that valuable as far as this comparison is concerned.

Again, when you finally acknowledge my point then we can have more discussion. Until then, don't respond.