Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar has a bunch of 40s against countries in his record too.

Sobers was getting flack for being unimpressive outside and only had two major countries.

Lara is just flat out worse than Viv in terms of consistency output.

I talk about consistency of output/overall record and yet you go back to your stupid ****ing country wise checklist. Absolute smoothbrain . Apologies for the insult but you deserve it. You are beyond help. @Prince EWS you need to argue against these checklist buffoons more often. I'm out.

 

[subshakerz]

I talk about consistency of output/overall record and yet you go back to your stupid ****ing country wise checklist. Absolute smoothbrain . Apologies for the insult. You are beyond help. @Prince EWS you need to argue against these checklist buffoons more often. I'm out.

Yeah what does that mean, Mr Smarty Pants? You yourself were carving his 'low output' records against NZ, Pak and Aus, not me, so don't accuse me of checklist.

I already agreed on hundred conversion.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, that would be true for all pacers as fast bowlers in general play much less than batsmen and Hadlee more so being from NZ, who tour SC and WI less often.

It isn't though. I show that virtually all others except Lillee and Ambrose have more exposure everywhere.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

If you are the type of person who can only believe in extremes where having a good bowling attack means having number 11s for a batting lineup or vice versa then why are you here? Are you that incapable of basic cricket understanding? Or is this a problem of literacy where you can't figure out the words that I have typed out?

Clean up this nonsense and get back when you have actually read and understood my points, because as it is you're screaming in denial.

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.

That's because they're worse players than Warne and Murali as per my values of what makes a great cricketer. Richards wouldn't scrape into the top 30 if we're being honest here.

 

[Prince EWS]

I talk about consistency of output/overall record and yet you go back to your stupid ****ing country wise checklist. Absolute smoothbrain . Apologies for the insult but you deserve it. You are beyond help. @Prince EWS you need to argue against these checklist buffoons more often. I'm out.

It is really about output a lot of the time.

I railed against a couple of orthodoxies for a while and they became jokes. Certainly, arguments were mocked just via their proximity to something I hated. Now they're mainstream again because I cbf.

But it's not because I was a genius or because my enemies were dumb (although both of those things are true), it's because I was everywhere. I collected PEWSian theorists.

I'm too busy furthering economic inequality in New South Wales these days, but surely I have ****ing disciples or something now. Take arms ffs.

 

[honestbharani]

It is really about output a lot of the time.

I railed against a couple of orthodoxies for a while and they became jokes. Certainly, arguments were mocked just via their proximity to something I hated. Now they're mainstream again because I cbf.

But it's not because I was a genius or because my enemies were dumb (although both of those things are true), it's because I was everywhere. I collected PEWSian theorists.

I'm too busy furthering economic inequality in New South Wales these days, but surely I have ****ing disciples or something now. Take arms ffs.

OK, Telnet.

 

[subshakerz]

It is really about output a lot of the time.

I railed against a couple of orthodoxies for a while and they became jokes. Certainly, arguments were mocked just via their proximity to something I hated. Now they're mainstream again because I cbf.

But it's not because I was a genius or because my enemies were dumb (although both of those things are true), it's because I was everywhere. I collected PEWSian theorists.

I'm too busy furthering economic inequality in New South Wales these days, but surely I have ****ing disciples or something now. Take arms ffs.

Um, are you well?

 

[kyear2]

You look at "holes" just in terms of vs country slices. I could make easily an argument Viv's relative lack of consistency compared to other ATGs, and less impressive output of runs/hundreds is actually a far bigger and more glaring "hole" than Murali failing in one particular country in a handful of games.

The idea that Warne Murali have zero argument ahead of those batsmen like you implied is crazy imo.

Whare did I imply 0 argument.

If that was implied, not the intent. But I personally don't see it.

 

[Coronis]

Um, are you well?

Better than NSW’s economy, that’s for sure.

 

[kyear2]

If you are the type of person who can only believe in extremes where having a good bowling attack means having number 11s for a batting lineup or vice versa then why are you here? Are you that incapable of basic cricket understanding? Or is this a problem of literacy where you can't figure out the words that I have typed out?

Clean up this nonsense and get back when you have actually read and understood my points, because as it is you're screaming in denial.


That's because they're worse players than Warne and Murali as per my values of what makes a great cricketer. Richards wouldn't scrape into the top 30 if we're being honest here.

None of your points makes and sense and all you do is to misrepresent mine.

Having a good attack doesn't mean you have to have a genuine no. 11, but if your best bowler, ie, a McGrath or Bumrah, you still pick them.

Now is this difficult. It literally currently exists.

 

[Xix2565]

None of your points makes and sense and all you do is to misrepresent mine.

Having a good attack doesn't mean you have to have a genuine no. 11, but if your best bowler, ie, a McGrath or Bumrah, you still pick them.

Now is this difficult. It literally currently exists.

Again, not what I was saying but if you decided that reading was optional, fine. Once again, in Tests bowlers matter more to winning than batters. Having more good bowlers = higher chances of winning than having more good batters. Not everyone can or will bowl at the Test level, but everyone will have to chip in with the bat. Hence, the scarcity of bowlers compared to batting talent makes the average bowler more valuable to have vs the average batter. When both players are greats, or ATGs in the case of Hadlee and Viv, this gap is bigger now because of how good they are.

Hadlee did great things in a more impactful role for Tests beyond the realm of all but a handful of his bowling peers for a team that in all honesty was not very good. Viv in no way stood out that much for a much stronger team (aka one of the few teams that can be considered the greatest ever), and he did it with the lesser role. If you can't acknowledge that you might as well say you don't understand cricket and we can move on to ignoring anything else you post from now on. Otherwise if you do want to make a debate, stick to the points I've made and stop ****ing around with useless tangents.

 

[smash84]

and stop ****ing around with useless tangents.

Good luck with that. I have been trying to get him to do that for more than a decade........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

and failed

 

[kyear2]

Again, not what I was saying but if you decided that reading was optional, fine. Once again, in Tests bowlers matter more to winning than batters. Having more good bowlers = higher chances of winning than having more good batters. Not everyone can or will bowl at the Test level, but everyone will have to chip in with the bat. Hence, the scarcity of bowlers compared to batting talent makes the average bowler more valuable to have vs the average batter. When both players are greats, or ATGs in the case of Hadlee and Viv, this gap is bigger now because of how good they are.

Hadlee did great things in a more impactful role for Tests beyond the realm of all but a handful of his bowling peers for a team that in all honesty was not very good. Viv in no way stood out that much for a much stronger team (aka one of the few teams that can be considered the greatest ever), and he did it with the lesser role. If you can't acknowledge that you might as well say you don't understand cricket and we can move on to ignoring anything else you post from now on. Otherwise if you do want to make a debate, stick to the points I've made and stop ****ing around with useless tangents.

I'll try to make sense of this, and yes some parts makes sense.

Yes bowlers matter a bit more than batsmen with regards to winning, simply because you have to bowl out the opposition twice.

Yes having more good bowlers increases your chances of winning.

What you seem to miss is no matter how good the bowling, of you have the current west indies batting lineup, you're still not winning.

Now this paragraph is where you lose me... The whole not everyone is good enough bowl, but everyone has to chip in with the bat is nonsense from both sides. I've seen matches where Hooper and Viv had to bowl significant overs. I've also watched McGrath and Walsh try to bat. Wasn't pretty.

I'm sure @Miagra tried the whole 7 batsmen, 4 bowlers argument, to prove that bowlers are twice as important and it makes as much sense then as it does now.

The highlighted part just doesn't make any sense.

Yes, Hadlee did amazing things, so did Viv. Of course Hadlee stood out more, he wasn't on as good a team, that's not hard to figure out.

Yes a great bowler on a one off is more likely to lead you to a victory than a single batsmen, but for long term sustained success, you need both. I don't get how this is hard.

Australia 2000's vs WI '80's. The Windows have a better bowling attack, the reason Australia evens the odds is due to their slightly stronger batting line up.

I'm not arguing with you that Hadlee was slightly better, or even more important. But the though process that leads us to a top 10 with 9 bowlers doesn't make any sense.

I feel like the cricket fraternity over rates batsmen and we go in the opposite direction. Yes Maco was more impactful and consistent that Viv in the later years, but do they reach the level of success without him? His destructive batting, his catching and in the later days his leadership? All I'm saying.

You'll believe you have some unique insight into the game, and no other perspective is valid, and it's hilarious. Everyone sees it differently.

One single example. For me, a guy like Punter who was an ATG bat and slip fielder has just as much value as Polly, a great bowler and decent lower order bat. I can accept your perspective of value, you're dismissive of mine.

 

[kyear2]

Good luck with that. I have been trying to get him to do that for more than a decade........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

and failed

Please spare me the sanctimonious bull ****. Your perspective is no more right than anyone's, and your beliefs, which you and Subz believe to be absolute truths on the forum, really aren't either.

So give it a rest.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not arguing with you that Hadlee was slightly better, or even more important. But the though process that leads us to a top 10 with 9 bowlers doesn't make any sense.

The thing is, if we take the metric of bowlers being inherently more valuable, then such a top ten is logically consistent. But I agree, it seems wrong.

I am questioning if that is the best metric to judge cricketers as great.

I don't think skill level itself is the best metric otherwise we would have Knott in the top ten.

I am still working this one out.

Please spare me the sanctimonious bull ****. Your perspective is no more right than anyone's, and your beliefs, which you and Subz believe to be absolute truths on the forum, really aren't either.

So give it a rest.

That's a tad unfair, mate. I have gotten you to budge on several issues (you may not admit it, that's fine). I will admit you have even gotten me to soften certain positions even tho we vehemently disagree on others.

 

[Xix2565]

I'll try to make sense of this, and yes some parts makes sense.

Yes bowlers matter a bit more than batsmen with regards to winning, simply because you have to bowl out the opposition twice.

Yes having more good bowlers increases your chances of winning.

What you seem to miss is no matter how good the bowling, of you have the current west indies batting lineup, you're still not winning.

Now this paragraph is where you lose me... The whole not everyone is good enough bowl, but everyone has to chip in with the bat is nonsense from both sides. I've seen matches where Hooper and Viv had to bowl significant overs. I've also watched McGrath and Walsh try to bat. Wasn't pretty.

I'm sure @Miagra tried the whole 7 batsmen, 4 bowlers argument, to prove that bowlers are twice as important and it makes as much sense then as it does now.

The highlighted part just doesn't make any sense.

Yes, Hadlee did amazing things, so did Viv. Of course Hadlee stood out more, he wasn't on as good a team, that's not hard to figure out.

Yes a great bowler on a one off is more likely to lead you to a victory than a single batsmen, but for long term sustained success, you need both. I don't get how this is hard.

Australia 2000's vs WI '80's. The Windows have a better bowling attack, the reason Australia evens the odds is due to their slightly stronger batting line up.

I'm not arguing with you that Hadlee was slightly better, or even more important. But the though process that leads us to a top 10 with 9 bowlers doesn't make any sense.

I feel like the cricket fraternity over rates batsmen and we go in the opposite direction. Yes Maco was more impactful and consistent that Viv in the later years, but do they reach the level of success without him? His destructive batting, his catching and in the later days his leadership? All I'm saying.

You'll believe you have some unique insight into the game, and no other perspective is valid, and it's hilarious. Everyone sees it differently.

One single example. For me, a guy like Punter who was an ATG bat and slip fielder has just as much value as Polly, a great bowler and decent lower order bat. I can accept your perspective of value, you're dismissive of mine.

What is so difficult to understand? Hadlee is among the best bowlers of all time, at the very least top 5 and he has enough batting ability to not be a tailender. He is far greater than Viv who is playing in a less impactful role and isn't in the top 5 batters of all time. End of discussion. Viv's general lack of consistency and inability to properly dominate all attacks despite not facing the best one in his era as well as having a great team around him holds him back vs Hadlee who had to shoulder far more responsibility as the sole matchwinner for a weaker side in that era.

Yes, but most of the time batters aren't forced to bowl, but everyone has to bat right? In that context there's a greater pool of players to compare Viv to and also the value of his role is diminished slightly because it isn't as necessary to winning games like bowling is. When this is accounted for as well as other factors, Viv doesn't stand out as much as Hadlee does. I've never denied not needing both batting and bowling, I've only stated that bowling is the more important of the two. If you can't grasp that what are you even doing here? Did I ever state at any point that batting is useless? No.

The thought process is perfectly sound, you just don't like it because you overrate the value of batting/fielding vs bowling. I'm right, you're just mad at being wrong. It's fine, but you have to accept it someday because you keep barging into discussions with faulty logic that makes little sense.

 

[kyear2]

The thing is, if we take the metric of bowlers being inherently more valuable, then such a top ten is logically consistent. But I agree, it seems wrong.

I am questioning if that is the best metric to judge cricketers as great.

I don't think skill level itself is the best metric otherwise we would have Knott in the top ten.

I am still working this one out.


That's a tad unfair, mate. I have gotten you to budge on several issues (you may not admit it, that's fine). I will admit you have even gotten me to soften certain positions even tho we vehemently disagree on others.

I changed many of my views, only the arrogant refuses to.

What you will never get is that our differences around certain players isn't some inherent bass or agenda, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[subshakerz]

What is so difficult to understand? Hadlee is among the best bowlers of all time, at the very least top 5 and he has enough batting ability to not be a tailender. He is far greater than Viv who is playing in a less impactful role and isn't in the top 5 batters of all time. End of discussion.

Viv was the core of that team, and once you factor his unbeaten captain reign, saying he didn't have as much impact is not really true.

Viv's general lack of consistency and inability to properly dominate all attacks despite not facing the best one in his era as well as having a great team around him holds him back vs Hadlee who had to shoulder far more responsibility as the sole matchwinner for a weaker side in that era.

If Viv was not consistent neither were any of the top tier ATG bats. He faced and scored more against great pacers than others. Yes that balances with lesser scoring afterwards against lesser attacks though but overall record is good to great against everyone.

 

[subshakerz]

What you will never get is that our differences around certain players isn't some inherent bass or agenda, it just doesn't make sense.

Dude there is nothing wrong in having an agenda. Own it. Embrace the dark side.

 

[Xix2565]

Viv was the core of that team, and once you factor his unbeaten captain reign, saying he didn't have as much impact is not really true.


If Viv was not consistent neither were any of the top tier ATG bats. He faced and scored more against great pacers than others. Yes that balances with lesser scoring afterwards against lesser attacks though but overall record is good to great against everyone.

Viv was not the core of the team. The bowlers were. Without them they wouldn't have been dominant at all.

Viv was far less consistent as far as the top tiers are concerned and didn't make as many runs as he could have given the circumstances. As far as great pacers are concerned, most of the time they were on his team.