Hadlee Vs Viv Richards

[smash84]

I've explained in the previous pages. Kept the WI no.1 with more competitive teams and an aging side.

He was drawing far more than Lloyd wasn't he? What's so special about that?

 

[subshakerz]

He was drawing far more than Lloyd wasn't he? What's so special about that?

I've explained. He lost Lloyd himself as a batter, lost Holding, lost Garner. His side was better but not so much and he could have easily lost a series on several occasions in the late 80s against tough teams but managed to get them over the line each time. It's not easy to keep no.1 with an aging and somewhat less stocked side. Australia went from an ATG side to a mid-tier team from 2007 to 2010, tho yes they had less quality bowlers.

Again, securing that legacy doesn't make him a great captain, just a good one.

 

[smash84]

I've explained. He lost Lloyd himself as a batter, lost Holding, lost Garner. His side was better but not so much and he could have easily lost a series on several occasions in the late 80s against tough teams but managed to get them over the line each time. It's not easy to keep no.1 with an aging and somewhat less stocked side. Australia went from an ATG side to a mid-tier team by the end of the 2000s, tho yes they had less quality bowlers.

Again, securing that legacy doesn't make him a great captain, just a good one.

Oh wait, you mean home umpires? That must severely count him shouldn't it? As we all know from a certain poster.

 

[subshakerz]

Oh wait, you mean home umpires? That must severely count him shouldn't it? As we all know from a certain poster.

Not home umpires. Like Pak in 86 and 88 or even England 1990, when he lost the first tests of series and had to come back to win/draw with it all on the line.

Point being WIs unbeaten reign could have easily ended much sooner but he was a proud captain and remaining unbeaten is to his credit IMO.

 

[smash84]

Not home umpires. Like Pak in 86 and 88 or even England 1990, when he lost the first tests of series and had to come back to win/draw with it all on the line.

Point being WIs unbeaten reign could have easily ended much sooner but he was a proud captain and remaining unbeaten is to his credit IMO.

Another way to look at it is that he underperformed given the rich resources he had at his disposal

 

[subshakerz]

Another way to look at it is that he underperformed given the rich resources he had at his disposal

Yeah but as mentioned, when he had the full fast bowler line, he won series. The struggle mostly when it was just Marshall plus early career Walsh as the main bowlers, or in the case of WI in 88, just Walsh. I would say Pak in 88 likely had a better bowling attack than WI in that series.

 

[smash84]

Yeah but as mentioned, when he had the full fast bowler line, he won series. The struggle mostly when it was just Marshall plus early career Walsh as the main bowlers, or in the case of WI in 88, just Walsh. I would say Pak in 88 likely had a better bowling attack than WI in that series.

Other teams would kill to have those resources

 

[subshakerz]

Other teams would kill to have those resources

Sure. Anyways can agree to disagree Bhai.

 

[smash84]

Sure. Anyways can agree to disagree Bhai.

Sure.

I am sure your sidekick kyear2 will agree

 

[subshakerz]

Sure.

I am sure your sidekick kyear2 will agree

My crony, according to HB.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

My crony, according to HB.

Interesting dynamics

 

[kyear2]

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.

Hadlee is a top 5 bowler, no argument there.

Far greater than Viv exits in your head. Viv for many here, including myself, is a top 5 batsman, so the 'end of discussion" bit is arrogant and out of place.

To call Viv inconsistent and unable to dominate all attacks is flat out incorrect and incredibly misleading, as no batsman ever have.

The straw man argument that he's never faced the best attack of his time is idiotic. Besides Sunny and Border, did any ATG face am attack of that magnitude? He dominated the best attack he faced. Did Bradman face the quartet? McWarne? Did McWarne face the best batting line ups of their era? Did Bradman face the best bowlers of his?

The second statement that he is down graded by playing on a great team is even dumber. You can't control the situations you're in, just improve them. Viv made his name standing up to Lillee and Thompson, even opening the batting to face them as the rest of the team crumbled. Yes, Hadlee deserves credit for helping make NZ a competitive team, but that doesn't take away from what Viv did.

The highlighted part, I don't even know how to address it, because it makes literally no sense. Also of there's a greater pool from which to compare, Viv looks even better in comparison and exists in an even higher percentile. Saying everyone has to bat is in no way an argument to diminish the importance of batsmen, and I'm tired of hearing it.

One can say bowling is slightly more critical to winning as you have to close the deal and bowl teams out, twice. But what you you bowling at, the totals set. The higher the totals, the greater your chance of victory. I can't believe I have to explain this. This doesn't even include chasing and reaching winning totals in the 4th innings. No, you can't say one isn't as necessary.

To say Viv doesn't stand out, in the 70's and 80's mind you, as Hadlee did is laughable.
Viv was a top 5 Wisden player and made the Cricinfo and Wisden all time teams as a result. Viv was by some margin the best batsman of his era. You can question it all you want, no one who watched him does. Hadlee was never higher than the 2nd best bowler of his. Also in a bowling era, his numbers jumped out way less than Viv's. Ask Lille of the best 3 batsmen he bowled to (along with his name sake and Sobers mind you), ask Imran. Richards generally notes two bowlers from the era, Lillee and Marshall. Ask guys like @peterhrt he will tell you the three best batsmen he's seem were Richards, Richards and Sachin (no order).

Tour entire last statement reads like it's been written by a 5 year old. "I'm right, you're wrong" really? I'm not over rating anything, bowlers are slightly more important, but both are needed in equal measure.

I don't over rate catching at all, you under state it. In ever test match I hear Sunny commentate, even he brings it up and how critical it is.
I believe all secondary skills are critical. Imran's batting helped save matches for Pakistan, Kallis and Sobers won matches with the ball for their respective teams, but when one looks at the great teams, which you highlighted quite well, and how they won, slip fielding was more critical for all 3 of them.

I've asked a simple question. Would Australia, (70's & 00's) the West Indies (70's & 80's), South Africa (following Aus) teams listed, have traded out their cordons for a stronger batting lower order? I know you wouldn't want to answer, but we all know the answer is no.

But I'll give you another scenario if you don't like that one. In an ATG team comprising Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist etc. And we'll use Ataraxia's ongoing poll and say that the bowling attack is made up of Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Warne.

With what is without doubt the best greatest collection of batsmen ever, and 4 bowlers who primarily took the ball away from batsmen and got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket... Which would hurt this team more, a weaker tail or a weaker codon dropping most of the chances? All of a sudden your bowlers aren't nearly as effective, and opportunities are lost.

Your inability to see or acknowledge perspectives outside of yours is disappoint, but not unexpected. The fact that Smali liked that post Is just predictable of personal grievances and dislike, cause they know better.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Take a look at what their record was when he missed matches, or even not fit / well.

 

[kyear2]

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

Don't think anyone would argue Malcolm was the most important member of that team, but Viv was also crucial. And for as talented as that team was, when these two weren't there, they lost. Both top 10 all time players for me, and automatics in my all time XI.
Just because Warne wasn't the best or most important player on the team, doesn't mean he wasn't critical or important.

How many in history were better match winners than Richards in tests?

 

[kyear2]

Nahhh..... I only give so high points to ATG captains like Worrell, Benaud, Imran, Ranatunga, Bradman, etc. Below that level, captaincy is hardly a tertiary skill to me, much much below Fielding.

I hate the captaincy argument in general. No one can tell me what makes a great one.

Worrell was said to be a great man manger, so were Lloyd and Richards. Imran, like the aforementioned was supposed to be a great unifier and man manager. None of them were great tactically. Well not that sure about Worrell, but it's not as frequently mentioned.

What anecdotal evidence (same as peer review mind you), do you have that Bradman was a great captain?

Hutton is one that I liked because I have read about various (borderline low) tactics to win, overcoming the challenges of being the first professional captain (hope I'm remembering correctly). He wasn't a "bully" like Imran or Viv.

Border seems to have balanced all virtues pretty well, Taylor as well. Lloyd deserves some credit for building that juggernaut and perfecting the template he got from Chappell, and uniting players from different countries where there was a lot of insularity and distrust.

Guys like Marshall and Warne used to set their own fields to varying degrees.

I don't know.

 

[kyear2]

I mean that is fine. To me a good captain and an average/bad captain is the difference between a close series lost or drawn/won. A great captain gives a whole new slew of results. I think that has more impact than fielding unless the fielding is elite.

Hard disagree.

But will leave that for another time.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I hate the captaincy argument in general. No one can tell me what makes a great one.

Worrell was said to be a great man manger, so were Lloyd and Richards. Imran, like the aforementioned was supposed to be a great unifier and man manager. None of them were great tactically. Well not that sure about Worrell, but it's not as frequently mentioned.

What anecdotal evidence (same as peer review mind you), do you have that Bradman was a great captain?

Hutton is one that I liked because I have read about various (borderline low) tactics to win, overcoming the challenges of being the first professional captain (hope I'm remembering correctly). He wasn't a "bully" like Imran or Viv.

Border seems to have balanced all virtues pretty well, Taylor as well. Lloyd deserves some credit for building that juggernaut and perfecting the template he got from Chappell, and uniting players from different countries where there was a lot of insularity and distrust.

Guys like Marshall and Warne used to set their own fields to varying degrees.

I don't know.

Have read about some of his shrewd tactics. He indeed was a cricketing genius. Like for instance, I read about a match were India declared while well behind to try to take advantage from rain damaged pitches. Bradman reversed the batting order. Some more like that, he wasn't a great man manager like Worrell or Imran, but his stature seems to have a huge leeway above most of his teammates.

 

[kyear2]

Have read about some of his shrewd tactics. He indeed was a cricketing genius. Like for instance, I read about a match were India declared while well behind to try to take advantage from rain damaged pitches. Bradman reversed the batting order. Some more like that, he wasn't a great man manager like Worrell or Imran, but his stature seems to have a huge leeway above most of his teammates.

I knew this was going to be an example used, because it's the one always used.

Also would say the shrewd move there was India's.

I also imagine that the greatest batsman ever carried away and elevated him among the players, earning respect that way.

Oh, and if Imran was a man manager, so was Viv. And definely not in the way Worrell was. Lloyd was way more similar to Worrell from that perspective.

The modern captains that set shrewd fields and tactical matchups are helped more than anything from off field analytics and are extensions of the coaching staffs.

Bradman would be the automatic captain for an ATG XI for most, but that has more with him being the best player. Was he the best captain?
From what I've read, that may well be Hutton, but he doesn't have the gravitas and isn't even secured a spot.

 

[Xix2565]

Hadlee is a top 5 bowler, no argument there.

Far greater than Viv exits in your head. Viv for many here, including myself, is a top 5 batsman, so the 'end of discussion" bit is arrogant and out of place.

To call Viv inconsistent and unable to dominate all attacks is flat out incorrect and incredibly misleading, as no batsman ever have.

The straw man argument that he's never faced the best attack of his time is idiotic. Besides Sunny and Border, did any ATG face am attack of that magnitude? He dominated the best attack he faced. Did Bradman face the quartet? McWarne? Did McWarne face the best batting line ups of their era? Did Bradman face the best bowlers of his?

The second statement that he is down graded by playing on a great team is even dumber. You can't control the situations you're in, just improve them. Viv made his name standing up to Lillee and Thompson, even opening the batting to face them as the rest of the team crumbled. Yes, Hadlee deserves credit for helping make NZ a competitive team, but that doesn't take away from what Viv did.

The highlighted part, I don't even know how to address it, because it makes literally no sense. Also of there's a greater pool from which to compare, Viv looks even better in comparison and exists in an even higher percentile. Saying everyone has to bat is in no way an argument to diminish the importance of batsmen, and I'm tired of hearing it.

One can say bowling is slightly more critical to winning as you have to close the deal and bowl teams out, twice. But what you you bowling at, the totals set. The higher the totals, the greater your chance of victory. I can't believe I have to explain this. This doesn't even include chasing and reaching winning totals in the 4th innings. No, you can't say one isn't as necessary.

To say Viv doesn't stand out, in the 70's and 80's mind you, as Hadlee did is laughable.
Viv was a top 5 Wisden player and made the Cricinfo and Wisden all time teams as a result. Viv was by some margin the best batsman of his era. You can question it all you want, no one who watched him does. Hadlee was never higher than the 2nd best bowler of his. Also in a bowling era, his numbers jumped out way less than Viv's. Ask Lille of the best 3 batsmen he bowled to (along with his name sake and Sobers mind you), ask Imran. Richards generally notes two bowlers from the era, Lillee and Marshall. Ask guys like @peterhrt he will tell you the three best batsmen he's seem were Richards, Richards and Sachin (no order).

Tour entire last statement reads like it's been written by a 5 year old. "I'm right, you're wrong" really? I'm not over rating anything, bowlers are slightly more important, but both are needed in equal measure.

I don't over rate catching at all, you under state it. In ever test match I hear Sunny commentate, even he brings it up and how critical it is.
I believe all secondary skills are critical. Imran's batting helped save matches for Pakistan, Kallis and Sobers won matches with the ball for their respective teams, but when one looks at the great teams, which you highlighted quite well, and how they won, slip fielding was more critical for all 3 of them.

I've asked a simple question. Would Australia, (70's & 00's) the West Indies (70's & 80's), South Africa (following Aus) teams listed, have traded out their cordons for a stronger batting lower order? I know you wouldn't want to answer, but we all know the answer is no.

But I'll give you another scenario if you don't like that one. In an ATG team comprising Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist etc. And we'll use Ataraxia's ongoing poll and say that the bowling attack is made up of Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Warne.

With what is without doubt the best greatest collection of batsmen ever, and 4 bowlers who primarily took the ball away from batsmen and got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket... Which would hurt this team more, a weaker tail or a weaker codon dropping most of the chances? All of a sudden your bowlers aren't nearly as effective, and opportunities are lost.

Your inability to see or acknowledge perspectives outside of yours is disappoint, but not unexpected. The fact that Smali liked that post Is just predictable of personal grievances and dislike, cause they know better.

So is there a point here that is being made or is this just a little bitch fit at being wrong?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I knew this was going to be an example used, because it's the one always used.

Also would say the shrewd move there was India's.

I also imagine that the greatest batsman ever carried away and elevated him among the players, earning respect that way.

Oh, and if Imran was a man manager, so was Viv. And definely not in the way Worrell was. Lloyd was way more similar to Worrell from that perspective.

The modern captains that set shrewd fields and tactical matchups are helped more than anything from off field analytics and are extensions of the coaching staffs.

Bradman would be the automatic captain for an ATG XI for most, but that has more with him being the best player. Was he the best captain?
From what I've read, that may well be Hutton, but he doesn't have the gravitas and isn't even secured a spot.

I don't know, I am not sure if Hutton makes my Top 5 English captains, definitely not Top 3....Viv was a good man manager as far as I know, but nothing spectacular like Worrell.