• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

  • Total voters
    37
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Xix2565 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No flaw in Vivs record compares to the weighted imbalance of Hadlee's record in three friendly countries.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Yes but not as significant as for example Viv playing 80 percent in friendly countries.
Click to expand...
Is this really the case though? If Viv was a great player of pace would it not be more to his advantage to have played in pace friendly conditions? Or is this just something that only applies to batters who handle spin well?
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
capt_Luffy said:
I mean, they are pace friendly but Australia wasn't the ideal place for a swing based bowler..... All I can say is you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Don't think Australia can be considered particularly friendly for Hadlee type corridor bowlers who depend on movement more than pace or carry.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Xix2565 said:
Is this really the case though? If Viv was a great player of pace would it not be more to his advantage to have played in pace friendly conditions? Or is this just something that only applies to batters who handle spin well?
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily spin, it's low bounce and less swing in SC.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
OverratedSanity said:
Agreed. Don't think Australia can be considered particularly friendly for Hadlee type corridor bowlers who depend on movement more than pace or carry.
Click to expand...
Hadlee was nippy and did use carry along with movement. Aus in the 80s wasn't Aus in the 2000s.

capt_Luffy said:
Viv literally played 77% of all his matches at home, Australia and England..... So I don't really know how big that 3% difference is.
Click to expand...
Yeah except he has 24 games and 6 series in the SC so we don't need to guess how he would do there.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Xix2565 said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...
You've long stopped even trying to make an argument, it's just it's what I say it is.

The WI has had decent home bowling attacks, still can't win, because our batting is abysmal. Even when Lara was there and Wash and Ambrose still around, we couldn't win because he had no support.

You can have the greatest attack ever, but if you can't score, there's nothing to defend.

I've never argued with you that bowlers don't move the needle more, but they can't win on their own.

I've said in the last, multiple times in fact that there have been 4 great phenomenons in the history of the "modern" Test game.

Bradman
Sobers
The Quartet / WI Battery
McWarne

If you want to go back a little further, Hobbs. For me nothing comes close to that 5.

I'm not crazy, I know how much Marshall and co and McWarne meant to those teams. But even McWarne wasn't as good as the WI attacks, but they had the added luxury and pressure of the score board. Their attack didn't have to be as great, because their batting was a little better. Yes Marshall and.McGrath were the most important, but Ponting and Viv were right up there as well. Not to add, and this is lost on many in this community. The speed at which they scored, also allowed more time to bowl the opposition out.

I'm not saying your premise is wrong, it just goes too far and devoid of balance.

And don't care if this annoys anyone. These bowling attacks that you vaunt, they wouldn't be nearly as effective without the people taking the edges, who for the most part happens to be the ones scoring the runs.
So the same way the bowling all rounders get a boost, so should the guys that supports them and scores the runs.

There was a clip of Steyn's dismissals a few weeks back (if anyone can find it, I'll appreciate if they can repost it) where it showed the ridiculous takes that Kallis was responsible for.

Cricket is the ultimate team game, no one thing works without the next.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
Australia was friendly for high Pacers like Lillee and Thomson; not those who bowling was movement based like Hadlee.
Click to expand...
Hadlee wasn't some medium pacer. He was proper fast medium and did exploit the bounce and pace on offer. Plus if you go through highlight he got quite a lot of swing there.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Xix2565 said:
Bradman
Sobers/Imran
McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee
Murali/Warne
Steyn/Ambrose/Kallis/Tendulkar

Tendulkar makes it I suppose.
Click to expand...
Don't see how Richards, Hobbs and Tendulkar aren't ahead of Warne and Murali, far less the ones below them.

If Richards has holes in his record, don't know what you call what Warne and Murali has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top