Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[Coronis]

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?

In 59/156 innings 17 out of his 39 not outs. (37.82% of innings)

For comparison with the other allrounders..

Shakib 58/123, 7/7 n.o (47.15%)
Miller 37/87, 4/7 n.o (42.53%)
Stokes 76/185, 6/7 n.o (41.08%)
Imran 50/126, 14/25 n.o (39.68%)
Botham 62/161, 5/6 n.o (38.51%)
Kapil 70/184, 9/15 n.o (38.04%)
Jadeja 38/105, 13/21 n.o (36.19%)
Hadlee 34/134, 8/19 n.o (25.37%)

For some other notable tailenders, Wasim clocks in just below 25%, Warne at 20, and Marshall at just below 17.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

There is no need to make strawmen to beat up here. The only batter who can be said to be above every other cricketer is Bradman, and that's taking into account any issues with the era he played in and such. Everyone else has weaknesses and imperfections in their records and are just generally less valuable than bowlers and ARs, who tend to be more valuable players for the XI pound for pound.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any pure bat in your top ten cricketers outside of Bradman?

 

[kyear2]

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.

So would it have been better to have scored more hundreds with that average?

Becuse slightly less hundreds, even factoring in his decline may have shown a little more consistency than, let's say if he had scored way more hundreds as others did, but had basically the same average.

Viv scored an 89 during WSC, which Benaud called the best innings he's ever seen him play. Is that less valuable because it wasn't a hundred?

At the end of the day Viv won matches for his team, that's the goal of the game.

 

[subshakerz]

There is no need to make strawmen to beat up here. The only batter who can be said to be above every other cricketer is Bradman, and that's taking into account any issues with the era he played in and such. Everyone else has weaknesses and imperfections in their records and are just generally less valuable than bowlers and ARs, who tend to be more valuable players for the XI pound for pound.

Let me out it this way:


Hadlee played 69 out of 86 tests in Aus, Eng and NZ.

Imagine you have a 2000s SC bat who had 80 percent of his tests in SL, Pak and India with worldclass records.

Outside of that, he had plenty of tests destroying Zimbabwe, played two series in England, one poor early career, one great. He had one poor early career series in SA. And one series in his prime averaging at best early 40s in ATG Aus.

How would we rate that batsman? Let's be honest here.

We are overrating Hadlee.

 

[Xix2565]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any pure bat in your top ten cricketers outside of Bradman?

Bradman
Sobers/Imran
McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee
Murali/Warne
Steyn/Ambrose/Kallis/Tendulkar

Tendulkar makes it I suppose.

 

[subshakerz]

So would it have been better to have scored more hundreds with that average?

Becuse slightly less hundreds, even factoring in his decline may have shown a little more consistency than, let's say if he had scored way more hundreds as others did, but had basically the same average.

Viv scored an 89 during WSC, which Benaud called the best innings he's ever seen him play. Is that less valuable because it wasn't a hundred?

At the end of the day Viv won matches for his team, that's the goal of the game.

Absolutely. His 50s against the best bowlers were high impact. I compare it to late career ABD who did similar against Ind and Aus in 2018.

 

[subshakerz]

Bradman
Sobers/Imran
McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee
Murali/Warne
Steyn/Ambrose/Kallis/Tendulkar

Tendulkar makes it I suppose.

Great so you are consistent at least, then I have no issues per se.

 

[Xix2565]

Let me out it this way:


Hadlee played 69 out of 86 tests in Aus, Eng and NZ.

Imagine you have a 2000s SC bat who had 80 percent of his tests in SL, Pak and India with worldclass records.

Outside of that, he had plenty of tests destroying Zimbabwe, played two series in England, one poor early career, one great. He had one poor early career series in SA. And one series in his prime averaging at best early 40s in ATG Aus.

How would we rate that batsman? Let's be honest here.

I would never consider that batter on the same plane as the bowler in comparison. He's just a less valuable player in general because his batting is less impactful vs the bowling of the bowler. This sort of detailed nitpicking isn't really that important here.

 

[subshakerz]

I would never consider that batter on the same plane as the bowler in comparison. He's just a less valuable player in general because his batting is less impactful vs the bowling of the bowler. This sort of detailed nitpicking isn't really that important here.

What kind of answer is that? At least address the analogy.

Don't pretend this isn't an legitimate issue to pick with Hadlee's record.

 

[Xix2565]

What kind of answer is that? At least address the analogy.

Don't pretend this isn't an legitimate issue to pick with Hadlee's record.

The analogy is pointless to me because a lot of the times people assume in such cases that conditions are consistently the same. There's no evaluation of whether some games had conditions more/less suitable for the player involved and such no acknowledgement that they may have succeeded or failed in such conditions.

In this analogy there's nothing on this or the quality of the team he's played for. At least for Hadlee as much as he might have had more games in conditions more suitable to his playstyle, he was also largely the only player holding up a weaker NZ side. That adds to his value more than Viv being part of one of the greatest teams ever does to Viv's value.

 

[subshakerz]

The analogy is pointless to me because a lot of the times people assume in such cases that conditions are consistently the same. There's no evaluation of whether some games had conditions more/less suitable for the player involved and such no acknowledgement that they may have succeeded or failed in such conditions.

I think the point is that players with records highly concentrated in certain regions are viewed with a certain skepticism. Same with Lillee who has a similar high percent in Aus, Eng and NZ and is often called a green track bully, a bit unfairly.

In this analogy there's nothing on this or the quality of the team he's played for. At least for Hadlee as much as he might have had more games in conditions more suitable to his playstyle, he was also largely the only player holding up a weaker NZ side. That adds to his value more than Viv being part of one of the greatest teams ever does to Viv's value.

I just want more posters to acknowledge that because nobody even mentions it. He had vastly more games in favorable conditions than your average ATG pacer.

 

[kyear2]

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

You keep using the word constantly for some reason.

Prime time is the 4th innings, where matches are won, saved or lost.

Of 18 innings, small sample size, but clear indicator of value. 11 single digit scores.

He averaged was propped up by a couple hundreds, some 50's and 39 not outs.

As would be anyone averaging in the low 30's, he wasn't consistent.

24 innings vs Australia, how many scores of 30 and above, 9. How many of single figures? 10.


From 156 innings he scored 16 50's, Marshall from 107 innings had 10.

No, Marshall wasn't the batsman Pollock was, but looking strictly at runs scored per innings, Pollock was at 24, Marshall was at 17.

The difference isn't what one would imagine it to be.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You keep using the word constantly for some reason.

Prime time is the 4th innings, where matches are won, saved or lost.

Of 18 innings, small sample size, but clear indicator of value. 11 single digit scores.

He averaged was propped up by a couple hundreds, some 50's and 39 not outs.

As would be anyone averaging in the low 30's, he wasn't consistent.

24 innings vs Australia, how many scores of 30 and above, 9. How many of single figures? 10.


From 156 innings he scored 16 50's, Marshall from 107 innings had 10.

No, Marshall wasn't the batsman Pollock was, but looking strictly at runs scored per innings, Pollock was at 24, Marshall was at 17.

The difference isn't what one would imagine it to be.

Every innings is valuable lol. It's not like the 1st innings runs are somehow detrimental now. And Coronis already provided the not out rate of other allrounders, Pollock's is pretty damn average to above average. And like, for a bowling allrounder 9 scores of 30+ in 24 innings is bad now?? I can't....

 

[OverratedSanity]

So would it have been better to have scored more hundreds with that average?

Becuse slightly less hundreds, even factoring in his decline may have shown a little more consistency than, let's say if he had scored way more hundreds as others did, but had basically the same average.

Viv scored an 89 during WSC, which Benaud called the best innings he's ever seen him play. Is that less valuable because it wasn't a hundred?

At the end of the day Viv won matches for his team, that's the goal of the game.

Neither his average, nor his rate of hundreds vs arguably the three other strongest teams of the 80s is particularly great.

Doesn't mean he wasn't a match winner on his day, that's not the argument. It's about consistency. The statistical consistency is far below what you'd expect from a top tier atg. I don't think it's wrong to rate him as one of the best since Bradman. But why this refusal to acknowledge some faults in his record. IIRC you've acknowledged it in the past and said he's a ATG despite that, which is fine by me.

 

[subshakerz]

Neither his average, nor his rate of hundreds vs arguably the three other strongest teams of the 80s is particularly great.

Doesn't mean he wasn't a match winner on his day, that's not the argument. It's about consistency. The statistical consistency is far below what you'd expect from a top tier atg. I don't think it's wrong to rate him as one of the best since Bradman. But why this refusal to acknowledge some faults in his record. IIRC you've acknowledged it in the past and said he's a ATG despite that, which is fine by me.

That's just an exaggeration. Tendulkar averages in the 40s too against several countries yet is somehow a solid no.2

I do acknowledge the century conversion rate is a flaw. I don't think his average distribution is much of a flaw at all.

 

[kyear2]

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.

You have provided literally nothing to support your argument other than I've said so. While dismissing everything you don't agree with.

You say bowling dictates batting. Look at Pollock and Donald vs Australia.

Look at Warne vs the WI and India.

Look at Murali vs Lara, India and Australia.


Tiny micro example.

WI vs Pak, 1st test Pakistan wins, Imran wins man of the match. 2nd Test, Viv returns, scores a magnificent hundred and wins the match and the man of the match.

Again, yes, a great spell can win you a match from nowhere, but so can a classic like 153*

The west indies has had a decent home bowling attack, still can't win anything because our batters are ****.
You can also have a scenario like the great Indian batting lineups that couldn't win abroad because the couldn't bowl teams out. But with one you just draw a lot. With crap batsmen, you just lose, regardless of your attack.

Again, no matter how great your attack is, if you don't have a good batting lineup, and a great thrown in there somewhere, you will lose.

Kallis was just as if not more valuable to SA as Pollock.

You can say he was like Sachin with the bat, a decent enough 4th bowler and Waugh Jr in the slips.

A 55 averaging batsman, almost 300 wickets and 200 catches? He accounted for almost 500 hundred wickets while averaging 55

So while, and again, yes, bowlers are slightly more valuable.

There is, as you've mentioned, a template.

There was McWarne, and the WI battery, and let's not forget Lillee and Thompson and Steyn and co.

But they were supported by some of the greatest slip cordons ever, and they had runs to defend.
A decent opener or even better opening partnership and alpha middle order bat.

And if you want to continue to champion the bowling all rounders, there was literally only one that "move the needle" the was you believe as a batsman, and that was Imran. As relatively soft as his numbers were, he was a beast as a a lower order bat.

 

[kyear2]

There is no need to make strawmen to beat up here. The only batter who can be said to be above every other cricketer is Bradman, and that's taking into account any issues with the era he played in and such. Everyone else has weaknesses and imperfections in their records and are just generally less valuable than bowlers and ARs, who tend to be more valuable players for the XI pound for pound.

So bowlers and all rounders don't have weaknesses or imperfections in their records?

 

[Xix2565]

You have provided literally nothing to support your argument other than I've said so. While dismissing everything you don't agree with.

You say bowling dictates batting. Look at Pollock and Donald vs Australia.

Look at Warne vs the WI and India.

Look at Murali vs Lara, India and Australia.


Tiny micro example.

WI vs Pak, 1st test Pakistan wins, Imran wins man of the match. 2nd Test, Viv returns, scores a magnificent hundred and wins the match and the man of the match.

Again, yes, a great spell can win you a match from nowhere, but so can a classic like 153*

The west indies has had a decent home bowling attack, still can't win anything because our batters are ****.
You can also have a scenario like the great Indian batting lineups that couldn't win abroad because the couldn't bowl teams out. But with one you just draw a lot. With crap batsmen, you just lose, regardless of your attack.

Again, no matter how great your attack is, if you don't have a good batting lineup, and a great thrown in there somewhere, you will lose.

Kallis was just as if not more valuable to SA as Pollock.

You can say he was like Sachin with the bat, a decent enough 4th bowler and Waugh Jr in the slips.

A 55 averaging batsman, almost 300 wickets and 200 catches? He accounted for almost 500 hundred wickets while averaging 55

So while, and again, yes, bowlers are slightly more valuable.

There is, as you've mentioned, a template.

There was McWarne, and the WI battery, and let's not forget Lillee and Thompson and Steyn and co.

But they were supported by some of the greatest slip cordons ever, and they had runs to defend.
A decent opener or even better opening partnership and alpha middle order bat.

And if you want to continue to champion the bowling all rounders, there was literally only one that "move the needle" the was you believe as a batsman, and that was Imran. As relatively soft as his numbers were, he was a beast as a a lower order bat.

I see, making dumb comparisons totally supports your dumb points! What a brilliant move! Superb! Excellent!

Again, individual bowlers having struggles here and there doesn't render my point moot. And deciding to ignore the rest of the bowling attack as well as other contextual information in such comparisons is very strange. Almost as if you weren't interested in having a fair debate. Even your micro example is nigh on useless because you barely give any details on how the matches proceeded in order to show how impactful certain players were.

A team without a good bowling attack doesn't draw a lot, they lose a lot. See general minnow level sides in Test history. Yes, you need both batting and bowling to be a good team, but having good bowling helps you far more than having good batting, since they're more necessary to fulfill the win conditions and as far as the micro details of how each ball plays out, they have more influence over it than the batters they face do. This isn't something that only applies to certain specific players, it is a general observation overall, accounting for good and bad players on both sides.

As for the rest of this babbling, again, when you have acknowledged my points we can continue.

So bowlers and all rounders don't have weaknesses or imperfections in their records?

In this comparison, Viv has more such things than Hadlee. And Viv's impact is not more than Hadlee's. Pretty simple to see honestly.

 

[kyear2]

Neither his average, nor his rate of hundreds vs arguably the three other strongest teams of the 80s is particularly great.

Doesn't mean he wasn't a match winner on his day, that's not the argument. It's about consistency. The statistical consistency is far below what you'd expect from a top tier atg. I don't think it's wrong to rate him as one of the best since Bradman. But why this refusal to acknowledge some faults in his record. IIRC you've acknowledged it in the past and said he's a ATG despite that, which is fine by me.

Never said he didn't have faults in his record. Think there are about 3 players that have relatively complete records and even then, one can nit pick.

Playing in NZ, Pak and Australia were for many reasons the toughest for any batsman to play in the history of the game. Probably only playing vs Steyn in SA was comparable to pace in modern times (outside of the quartet of course). His numbers would never have looked like Sanga's.
But let's say he retired at the same stage as Chappell, and we factor in his WSC numbers, are we having this conversation?