Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[subshakerz]

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

Pretty sure if you removed the NZ entire batting lineup, Hadlee would be useless. So maybe their bats are the core of that NZ team?

Both were their sides' MVP. The rest is just down to relative strengths of the other players.

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.

Except you haven't done that comparison to prove it.

And Viv still faced Lillee, peak Thommo, peak Botham, Imran, Hadlee, Indian spin quartet, and others. Thats more worldclass exposure than Sobers frankly.

 

[Xix2565]

Pretty sure if you removed the NZ entire batting lineup, Hadlee would be useless. So maybe their bats are the core of that NZ team?

Both were their sides' MVP. The rest is just down to relative strengths of the other players.


Except you haven't done that comparison to prove it.

And Viv still faced Lillee, peak Thommo, peak Botham, Imran, Hadlee, Indian spin quartet, and others. Thats more worldclass exposure than Sobers frankly.

Well no, because then what would Viv manage with a bunch of nothing for bowlers? He would be far more useless going by this analogy.

Viv cannot be considered the MVP when Marshall and others exist. Sorry but no ****ing way.

Viv barely averages over 50 and in certain countries averages under it despite playing a lot of games in one of the best teams ever. That's not a good marker for being such a great batter that you can be rated over players like Hadlee. Especially when you have a strong unit around you.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Pretty sure if you removed the NZ entire batting lineup, Hadlee would be useless. So maybe their bats are the core of that NZ team?

Both were their sides' MVP. The rest is just down to relative strengths of the other players.


Except you haven't done that comparison to prove it.

And Viv still faced Lillee, peak Thommo, peak Botham, Imran, Hadlee, Indian spin quartet, and others. Thats more worldclass exposure than Sobers frankly.

Viv literally wasn't though, definitely no way comparably to Hadlee with ****ing Malcolm Marshall in the team. NZ could well had played without there batting talents of Rutherford and Jeff Crowe, that was a disastrous lineup for the most part. You know it's utter non sense to suggest both were equally valuable in their respective teams; when one had Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Croft, Lloyd, Greenidge, Haynes, Kallicharan, Rowe, Richardson, Dujon; and the best player the other got for the most part was Ewen Chatfield, Lance Cairns, Jeremy Conney, Bevan Congdon, John Wright and Ian Smith.... The only truly great Hadlee had support of was Martin Crowe, and that too in the last 5 years of his 17 year long career.

 

[subshakerz]

Well no, because then what would Viv manage with a bunch of nothing for bowlers? He would be far more useless going by this analogy.

Viv cannot be considered the MVP when Marshall and others exist. Sorry but no ****ing way.

You do realise WI were dominating well before Marshall came in. And even with Marshall they had Holding, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop. It's not like he was Hadlee in a one-man band.

Ask any WI of that time who their MVP if the era was an I guarantee you it would be Viv. His batting peak coincided with WI's rise to the top. He stood out. And as captain and bat he contributed when it was critical to keep them there until the end. Please research the context.

Viv barely averages over 50 and in certain countries averages under it despite playing a lot of games in one of the best teams ever. That's not a good marker for being such a great batter that you can be rated over players like Hadlee. Especially when you have a strong unit around you.

Again, please see the other ATGs like Sobers and Tendulkar you are comparing him with and you will find similar 'holes' that aren't really holes

 

[subshakerz]

Viv literally wasn't though, definitely no way comparably to Hadlee with ****ing Malcolm Marshall in the team. NZ could well had played without there batting talents of Rutherford and Jeff Crowe, that was a disastrous lineup for the most part. You know it's utter non sense to suggest both were equally valuable in their respective teams; when one had Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Croft, Lloyd, Greenidge, Haynes, Kallicharan, Rowe, Richardson, Dujon; and the best player the other got for the most part was Ewen Chatfield, Lance Cairns, Jeremy Conney, Bevan Congdon, John Wright and Ian Smith.... The only truly great Hadlee had support of was Martin Crowe, and that too in the last 5 years of his 17 year long career.

Marshall gets injured and you had several options to carry the load. Viv wasn't replaceable like that. So he was MVP given the context of the side. He wouldn't be if WI only had a single great bowler like Hadlee and not an assembly line of worldclass bowlers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Marshall gets injured and you had several options to carry the load. Viv wasn't replaceable like that. So he was MVP given the context of the side. He wouldn't be if WI only had a single great bowler like Hadlee and not an assembly line of worldclass bowlers.

Sachin was more replaceable in the late 90s/early 2000s India team than Kumble; does that makes them MVPs. Not to mention, I don't need to tell you the replacement of Marshall was not going to be comparable to him any more than Viv's replacement; so I highly doubt that point even stands.

 

[subshakerz]

The point being if you want to play this silly card of giving brownie points to lone guns just by virtue if being line guns then we can reverse it to suggest that Viv stood out more as a bat given WI's rich bowling resources.

What would be better is to not overly penalise or reward for factors related to team makeup and not skills/output.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The point being if you want to play this silly card of giving brownie points to lone guns then we can reverse it to suggest that Viv stood out more as a bat given WI's rich bowling resources.

What would be better is to not overly penalise or reward for factors related to team makeup and not skills/output.

Viv was far from a lone gun..... He for ****'s sake got outperformed at home by Desmond ****ing Haynes.

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin was more replaceable in the late 90s/early 2000s India team than Kumble; does that makes them MVPs. Not to mention, I don't need to tell you the replacement of Marshall was not going to be comparable to him any more than Viv's replacement; so I highly doubt that point even stands.

Yes Kumble would be more important as an individual cricketer to the team if Sachin is more replaceable. Doesn't make him a better cricketer at all. That's my point. Hadlee being so essential to NZ is more by default of the team he is in than any special extra abilities over others.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv was far from a lone gun..... He for ****'s sake got outperformed at home by Desmond ****ing Haynes.

Yeah but I didn't call Viv a lone gun. I just said his contribution stood out more than any single other given the dynamics of the team factoring in both peak batting in WIs rise to the top and batting + captaincy in keeping them no.1.

 

[Xix2565]

You do realise WI were dominating well before Marshall came in. And even with Marshall they had Holding, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop. It's not like he was Hadlee in a one-man band.

Ask any WI of that time who their MVP if the era was an I guarantee you it would be Viv. His batting peak coincided with WI's rise to the top. He stood out. And as captain and bat he contributed when it was critical to keep them there until the end. Please research the context.


Again, please see the other ATGs like Sobers and Tendulkar you are comparing him with and you will find similar 'holes' that aren't really holes

Yes, because of their bowling attack. Viv was great but not the driver of their success. Bringing in the other names just helps my point because they all were more valuable to the WI unit than Viv overall. Viv at the very least was the best among a great batting unit, his absence would not be as detrimental to them if everything else remained constant. Again, overrating batting vs bowling and using intangibles that can't be measured. That fans might misunderstand what wins Test matches is not new, we see it here in this very thread already. Doesn't make them or their viewpoint right.

Tendulkar at the very least to his credit started far younger than anyone he's compared to and had a monumental career with an incredible record despite the struggles of his team at times. His weaknesses are more than made up in a way Viv's aren't. Sobers is an AR, he's just a better cricketer in general than Viv.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, because of their bowling attack. Viv was great but not the driver of their success. Bringing in the other names just helps my point because they all were more valuable to the WI unit than Viv overall.

Calling Viv an MVP just means he individually is more important than any single other, which he was. Doesn't mean as a single bat he has to be more important than an entire bowling lineup, that's nuts.

Tendulkar at the very least to his credit started far younger than anyone he's compared to and had a monumental career with an incredible record despite the struggles of his team at times. His weaknesses are more than made up in a way Viv's aren't. Sobers is an AR, he's just a better cricketer in general than Viv.

These are all red herrings. Tendulkar as a teen or Sobers as an AR are not relevant to your point about top tier bat consistency.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Calling Viv an MVP just means he individually is more important than any single other, which he was. Doesn't mean as a single bat he has to be more important than an entire bowling lineup, that's nuts.


These are all red herrings. Tendulkar as a teen or Sobers as an AR are not relevant to your point about top tier bat consistency.

Individually also, Marshall was far more important in WI's 80s dynasty. Viv was quite inconsistent in that time frame.

 

[Xix2565]

Calling Viv an MVP just means he individually is more important than any single other, which he was. Doesn't mean as a single bat he has to be more important than an entire bowling lineup, that's nuts.


These are all red herrings. Tendulkar as a teen or Sobers as an AR are not relevant to your point about top tier bat consistency.

This is just meaningless hype because of your personal evaluation of Viv. It doesn't bear out in actual reality given the records of the bowlers involved in that side.

Viv's consistency is his flaw, not the same as Tendulkar or Sobers. And I don't rate him higher than either of them so it's perfectly relevant to show why I rate players.

 

[Coronis]

Someone being more easily replaceable is about the relative strength of their domestic backups more than anything else.

 

[subshakerz]

Individually also, Marshall was far more important in WI's 80s dynasty. Viv was quite inconsistent in that time frame.

In Viv's latter career half I give him captaincy points.

 

[subshakerz]

Someone being more easily replaceable is about the relative strength of their domestic backups more than anything else.

Yes. Hadlee may not be MVP of NZ if they had a bowling lineup of four Marshalls.

 

[subshakerz]

This is just meaningless hype because of your personal evaluation of Viv. It doesn't bear out in actual reality given the records of the bowlers involved in that side.

Again, don't compare four bowlers to one bat and say the bat is not good enough.

Viv's consistency is his flaw, not the same as Tendulkar or Sobers. And I don't rate him higher than either of them so it's perfectly relevant to show why I rate players.

You are just restating your point without actually citing anything in Tendulkar and Sobers records.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In Viv's latter career half I give him captaincy points.

I don't really give him much there.

 

[Xix2565]

Again, don't compare four bowlers to one bat and say the bat is not good enough.


You are just restating your point without actually citing anything in Tendulkar and Sobers records.

Each of them are more valuable than Viv though. They do more of the match winning than Viv does.

I've given my points on Viv already though. You're the one dismissing it for no reason.