Kapil Dev vs Ricky Ponting

[kyear2]

So yeah… my post and point still stand. Less funny now though, thanks

You think it's ridiculous how everyone jumps on the Bumrah train when he does the spectacular. But these are the moments that makes careers, that people will be arguing about in 10 years.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I think McGrath was the better bowler, in the tougher bowling era, and he elevated a team from great to arguably the greatest.

Its the other way around.
Australian team made Mcgrath stats better.
Hadlee didn't need that help.

 

[Coronis]

You think it's ridiculous how everyone jumps on the Bumrah train when he does the spectacular. But these are the moments that makes careers, that people will be arguing about in 10 years.

What about that would even make Smith’s career, I’m curious? His is already chock full of great moments.

I do think its ridiculous how much some posters get after one good or bad match for a player and how much they hype/downplay them afterwards (I don’t mean joke/sarcastic posts, I’m talking about the serious ones). I don’t think its ridiculous to think that but it might be.

 

[kyear2]

Its the other way around.
Australian team made Mcgrath stats better.
Hadlee didn't need that help.

I would argue strongly that it was the other way round.

Without him that team isn't close to what it became.

Hadlee had easier conditions his entire career. He had among the very best home conditions, up there with Steyn.

Not disparaging but placing in context.

And for some reason cricket is the only sport where you're almost punished for success.

And again, they are literally rated besides each other.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I would argue strongly that it was the other way round.

Without him that team isn't close to what it became.

Hadlee had easier conditions his entire career. He had among the very best home conditions, up there with Steyn.

Not disparaging but placing in context.

And for some reason cricket is the only sport where you're almost punished for success.

And again, they are literally rated besides each other.

Comparable as bowlers not as cricketers.

 

[kyear2]

Comparable as bowlers not as cricketers.

I don't follow the forum mantra that runs from the tail automatically makes everything better.

How impactful were those runs, how did it contribute to wins or saving matches?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I don't follow the forum mantra that runs from the tail automatically makes everything better.

How impactful were those runs, how did it contribute to wins or saving matches?

Your team chasing 450, only 4 wickets remaining.. 75 more runs needed. Who do you want to see at number 8.. Mcgrath or Hadlee?

 

[kyear2]

Your team chasing 450, only 4 wickets remaining.. 75 more runs needed. Who do you want to see at number 8.. Mcgrath or Hadlee?

McGrath has never batted at no 8 for any team in his career, and there will always be someone above him.

I'm also not saying lower order batting doesn't have its benefits. It can be critically important.

But the notion that it is the is all and be all of all success, and covers all deficiencies isn't quite true and has never been borne out.

That's all I mean, I obviously rate Hadlee very highly.

 

[ma1978]

Ok, the Sobers thing. You and apparently many others see Bradman as practically twice the batsman that everyone else is. I don't remotely see him that way. That doesn't only to Sobers, but Sachin, Hobbs, Richards etc as well.
The likely hood, based on attacks and conditions faced that he averages 100 in latter eras is 0.

And yes, any perusing of cricket literature or opinion has 3 players in that upper echelon, Bradman, Sobers and for those who delve further back in time, Grace. That's not disputable on any level.
I have not disparages Hadlee and I have said that he is the better comp for Sobers because he is also top tier as a bowler. I rate Hadlee top 5 all time and not that far behind those guys.

Re Marshall I think he's the best, but very much in the same tier as the other two. What separates him slightly from the others is his skill set, complete record and intangibles, similarly why I have McGrath slightly over Hadlee, intangibles and conditions faced. But I don't pretend there's a massive gulf between any of them. I do believe that the top 2 do have a small but perceptible advantage over Hadlee. But I rate Hadlee higher than most here.

Also to there being a massive gap after Sobers, I think Marshall is close, Pidge and Paddles not that far behind him, Tendulkar on par as batsmen if not the slightest hair ahead. Think Richards is on par with him as batsman, Hobbs being in that same tier.
But yeah, there are two that stands apart, and if you wish to disagree with that, that's your right as well.

I have and have always said that there have been 4 phenomenons in the history of the game. The Don, Sobers, the WI pace battery and McWarne. Those stand part, again you're free to disagree.

Re Greenidge and Viv, Gavaskar is better than Greenidge. Let's be clear about that, and not sure why it was brought up.
Viv was better than Sunny, and don't think it was particularly close. That I'm not backing down on. Viv averaged a tad over 50 because he had a precipitous decline, but his domination of the pacers he played against, didn't get to play minnows or the fodder that Sunny massacred in '71 or during WSC, in addition to be being the greatest player ever vs pace and his WSC record, just pushes him ahead for me. So with regards to a gap, over Sunny, a bit of one, not massive, but definitely there, but he's very much in phase with the guys in the best after Bradman category, no gaps there.

And I have Sunny as a top 10 batsman of all time (probably the same position as you and everyone else in the forum not named Luffy), same way I have Imran as a top 8 bowler (exact same position as the forum), the pretence here is that I think both are crap, that's never been further from the truth.
With regards to not having to face his attack? Well outside of Border, Sunil or Javed none of the greats did either. Ponting never faced McWarne, Warne didn't have to face the greatest batting line up of all time either, Murali got to play on turners every home test, not everyone had equal footing.

If you want to go to over rated of late though, I can point to quite a bit of players who have been of late, a couple still playing (not Jasprit). But you focus on my guys, and again, not even on positioning, but your perception of my perception of the distances between the positioning. And it's not altogether accurate. I have Hadlee and McGrath rated higher than Viv, and rate Smith is a touch above Lara (though on a separate and a tad unfair note, tonight will impact how I view the former, not in relation to BCL, but in general). The gap to Bradman doesn't exist only for Sobers, he's not even at the top of that list.

Basically you like the players you like and write long emails bereft of analytic consistency to justify it

 

[peterhrt]

The pantheon of cricket isn't and has never been singular. It's always two or 3 names depending on where one falls on the Grace debate.

This is certainly true.

Pelham Warner (1945): Was Grace a better batsman than Bradman? It is, in my opinion, impossible to answer such questions.

EW Swanton (1962): As to the relative greatness of WG, Jack Hobbs and Don Bradman it is of course fruitless to argue: wickets, bowling, environment, atmosphere - all have varied. It is sufficient to say that each was supreme in his own day.

Wisden (early 21st century): If Sir Don Bradman was the best batsman ever to grace the cricket field, Sir Garfield Sobers was the best overall cricketer.

Suresh Menon for the BBC (2010): Is Sachin Tendulkar the greatest cricketer ever? Is he the greatest batsman of all time? The glib answer first. Yes.
Because it is in the nature of sport to produce bigger and better champions. In sports where progress can be measured, this is seen in the faster timings, longer jumps and greater heights recorded by modern athletes. Bradman's stature has grown every year that he hasn't played.

Where the careers of Bradman and Tendulkar begin to diverge is in the range and variety of international cricket the Indian has played. There were no one-day internationals in Bradman's time. Bradman toured only England; he only played Tests at 10 venues - five in Australia and five in England. In contrast, Tendulkar has played Tests in 10 countries, one-dayers in 17. He has played at 94 venues.

After 50 [Test hundreds], what? A hundred international centuries (Tendulkar has 96), perhaps a World Cup win, maybe 200 Test matches? Tendulkar has become used to those setting goals on his behalf moving the goalpost as he achieves these with almost monotonous inevitability.

Brian Lara (2013, before Tendulkar's 200th Test): Tendulkar is the greatest cricketer in history. He has had the greatest cricket career of anyone who has ever played the game. His stats speak for themselves. I don't think there is any 16-year-old who is going to embark on the sort of career that Sachin Tendulkar has had and walk away from the game at 40 with such great achievements. He's the Muhammad Ali and the Michael Jordan of cricket.

Among the stats being referred to were international centuries, a measure invented it seemed solely for Tendulkar. Red-ball and white-ball numbers had until then been kept apart. When he scored his 100th international century, Ponting was next with 71, then Kallis 59 and Lara 53. This was used as evidence of Tendulkar's dominance over all-comers.

 

[kyear2]

Basically you like the players you like and write long emails bereft of analytic consistency to justify it

Like does everyone.

My reasoning is as good or as valid as anyone's.

 

[Prince EWS]

Like does everyone.

My reasoning is as good or as valid as anyone's.

Except mine.

 

[kyear2]

Except mine.

View attachment 42690

Have you noted some of your votes recently?

 

[Prince EWS]

Have you noted some of your votes recently?

Yes, they are objectively correct.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, they are objectively correct.

Think there was one with Dev where the only "Dev and not close" was you and PFK

Can't recall of it was vs Ponting or another one

 

[Prince EWS]

Think there was one with Dev where the only "Dev and not close" was you and PFK

Can't recall of it was vs Ponting or another one

I've voted for Dev and it's close in the Ponting one. Can't even remember another Dev vote.

I'm not a big Dev fan really but I do rate all rounders highly. Specialists are cringe.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

I would argue strongly that it was the other way round.

Without him that team isn't close to what it became.

Hadlee had easier conditions his entire career. He had among the very best home conditions, up there with Steyn.

Not disparaging but placing in context.

And for some reason cricket is the only sport where you're almost punished for success.

And again, they are literally rated besides each other.

I believe you've posted comments like these before and I don't think you've got it quite right. I think you've said that the WI pitches during Marshall's era were a mixture, some spicy but others quite flat. Believe it or not, as a Kiwi who lived through that era, the NZ pitches during Hadlee's heyday were also like that: the odd minefield, some green ones but also some pancakes. I can remember many times screaming at the TV during the early eighties until the end of Hadlee's career something like, "FFS, you've got the best seam bowler in the world who can land the ball on the seam at will. Why in God's name are you giving him these grassless pitches to toil on?".

Just to back up what I'm saying, consider this: if Hadlee had been given greentops regularly during home tests, do you think that his home bowling statistics would be significantly worse (as they are) than his away stats?

Home bowling stats:



Away stats:



You can see that, apart from Econ, his away stats are better across the board (note that the home and away bowling performances are nicely balanced at 43 matches and 75 innings each!):

Average: away better (lower) by 5.4% (21.72 cf. 22.96)

SR: away better (lower) by 7.7% (48.9 cf. 53.0)

WPM (and WPI): away better by 14.4% (230 and 201 relative to the same divisors because of the equality between home and away)

Econ: home better (lower) by 2.6% (2.59 cf. 2.66)

BBI: away better: 9/52 vs. 7/23

BBM: away better: 15/123 vs. 11/58

5WI/I: away better by 40% (21 cf. 15, same divisors)

10WM/M: away better by 100% (6 cf. 3, same divisors)

It's true that at Notts, greentops were deliberately prepared by groundsman Ron Allsopp for Hadlee (and Rice) and this is reflected by the difference in Hadlee's home and away bowling stats there:

home average: 12.96

away: 16.54 (still remarkable)

(thanks again to Coronis for this home and away split!)

So again, if greentops were the norm for NZ pitches during Hadlee's time, you would expect to see this sort of difference between home and away in the stats and you don't.

You've mentioned McGrath thriving in the batting era post-2000 (and he did). Here's the aggregate batting stats for that era until McGrath retired (the final seven years of McGrath's career):



You can see that the batting average is historically quite high at 31.49, confirming the batting era.

I'm now going to look at the corresponding final seven years of Hadlee's career. This was when Hadlee was at his best, exclusively off the short run, ascending to #1 in the rankings, taking wickets left, right and centre.

Here are Hadlee's bowling stats for that time (home and away combined):



I'll now do a home vs. away check again (for these final seven years) but first I'm going to show you the aggregate batting stats for NZ pitches during Hadlee's final seven years:



You can see that the batting average is 32.65, more than 1 run greater (1.16 runs) than the global batting average of 31.49 during McGrath's batting era post-2000.

Here are Hadlee's home and away bowling stats during his final seven years:

Home:



Away:



Notice how much better Hadlee's away stats are than his home stats: they're miles better! His away average is over four runs better than his home average! Those super-juicy, super-spicy lush greentops that the NZ groundsmen eagerly prepared for Hadlee test after test don't seem to have helped him very much. Luckily, Hadlee did most of his bowling during his final seven years in away tests (27 tests and 47 innings away compared to just 19 tests and 30 innings home) so bowling at home on those allegedly helpful pitches (some genuinely were) didn't damage his stats too much.

Here's another detailed home vs. away comparison, for Hadlee's final seven years:

Average: away better (lower) by 18.6% (18.44 cf. 22.65)

SR: away better (lower) by 15.2% (44.7 cf. 52.7)

WPM: away better by 38.3% ((167/27)/(85/19) - 1)

WPI: away better by 25.4% ((167/47)/(85/30) - 1)

Econ: away better (lower) by 3.9% (2.47 cf. 2.57)

BBI: away better: 9/52 vs. 7/116

BBM: away better: 15/123 vs. 9/151 (never took a 10WM at home during his prime years!)

Note: Hadlee took 3 10WM at home: against India in 1976, against England in 1978 and against the WI in 1980. He bowled extremely well for these returns and they were all off the long run but they weren't achieved when Hadlee was in his prime epoch, and it was when the NZ pitches appeared to be more helpful to bowl on (see below).

5WI/I: away better by 80.9% ((17/47)/(6/30) - 1)

10WM/M: away better by infinity % (6 cf. 0)

Another thing, Hadlee won eight Player of the Series awards in 33 series and six of these were during his final seven years, all of the six in away series (3 vs. England, 2 vs. Australia and 1 vs. SL).

Finally, the Steyn comparison: these are the aggregate batting stats for SA pitches during the Steyn years:



Again, the NZ pitches during Hadlee's final seven years (the prime years):



Now the NZ pitches during the pre-prime Hadlee years:



You can see that based on batting average, the Steyn home pitches and the pre-prime Hadlee home pitches appear to be about equally helpful but during the last seven years of Hadlee's career, the NZ pitches appear to be distinctly unhelpful and this is backed up by some of the bowling stats I've posted above (and by my now rather vague recollections of these pitches).

The point I'm trying to make is that Hadlee cemented his greatness during his final seven years and the home pitches he bowled on during that time do not seem to have helped him too much and don't detract in any significant way from his achievements or his legacy.

 

[kyear2]

I believe you've posted comments like these before and I don't think you've got it quite right. I think you've said that the WI pitches during Marshall's era were a mixture, some spicy but others quite flat. Believe it or not, as a Kiwi who lived through that era, the NZ pitches during Hadlee's heyday were also like that: the odd minefield, some green ones but also some pancakes. I can remember many times screaming at the TV during the early eighties until the end of Hadlee's career something like, "FFS, you've got the best seam bowler in the world who can land the ball on the seam at will. Why in God's name are you giving him these grassless pitches to toil on?".

Just to back up what I'm saying, consider this: if Hadlee had been given greentops regularly during home tests, do you think that his home bowling statistics would be significantly worse (as they are) than his away stats?

Home bowling stats:

View attachment 42706

Away stats:

View attachment 42707

You can see that, apart from Econ, his away stats are better across the board (note that the home and away bowling performances are nicely balanced at 43 matches and 75 innings each!):

Average: away better (lower) by 5.4% (21.72 cf. 22.96)

SR: away better (lower) by 7.7% (48.9 cf. 53.0)

WPM (and WPI): away better by 14.4% (230 and 201 relative to the same divisors because of the equality between home and away)

Econ: home better (lower) by 2.6% (2.59 cf. 2.66)

BBI: away better: 9/52 vs. 7/23

BBM: away better: 15/123 vs. 11/58

5WI/I: away better by 40% (21 cf. 15, same divisors)

10WM/M: away better by 100% (6 cf. 3, same divisors)

It's true that at Notts, greentops were deliberately prepared by groundsman Ron Allsopp for Hadlee (and Rice) and this is reflected by the difference in Hadlee's home and away bowling stats there:

home average: 12.96

away: 16.54 (still remarkable)

(thanks again to Coronis for this home and away split!)

So again, if greentops were the norm for NZ pitches during Hadlee's time, you would expect to see this sort of difference between home and away in the stats and you don't.

You've mentioned McGrath thriving in the batting era post-2000 (and he did). Here's the aggregate batting stats for that era until McGrath retired (the final seven years of McGrath's career):

View attachment 42708

You can see that the batting average is historically quite high at 31.49, confirming the batting era.

I'm now going to look at the corresponding final seven years of Hadlee's career. This was when Hadlee was at his best, exclusively off the short run, ascending to #1 in the rankings, taking wickets left, right and centre.

Here are Hadlee's bowling stats for that time (home and away combined):

View attachment 42709

I'll now do a home vs. away check again (for these final seven years) but first I'm going to show you the aggregate batting stats for NZ pitches during Hadlee's final seven years:

View attachment 42710

You can see that the batting average is 32.65, more than 1 run greater (1.16 runs) than the global batting average of 31.49 during McGrath's batting era post-2000.

Here are Hadlee's home and away bowling stats during his final seven years:

Home:

View attachment 42711

Away:

View attachment 42712

Notice how much better Hadlee's away stats are than his home stats: they're miles better! His away average is over four runs better than his home average! Those super-juicy, super-spicy lush greentops that the NZ groundsmen eagerly prepared for Hadlee test after test don't seem to have helped him very much. Luckily, Hadlee did most of his bowling during his final seven years in away tests (27 tests and 47 innings away compared to just 19 tests and 30 innings home) so bowling at home on those allegedly helpful pitches (some genuinely were) didn't damage his stats too much.

Here's another detailed home vs. away comparison, for Hadlee's final seven years:

Average: away better (lower) by 18.6% (18.44 cf. 22.65)

SR: away better (lower) by 15.2% (44.7 cf. 52.7)

WPM: away better by 38.3% ((167/27)/(85/19) - 1)

WPI: away better by 25.4% ((167/47)/(85/30) - 1)

Econ: away better (lower) by 3.9% (2.47 cf. 2.57)

BBI: away better: 9/52 vs. 7/116

BBM: away better: 15/123 vs. 9/151 (never took a 10WM at home during his prime years!)

Note: Hadlee took 3 10WM at home: against India in 1976, against England in 1978 and against the WI in 1980. He bowled extremely well for these returns and they were all off the long run but they weren't achieved when Hadlee was in his prime epoch, and it was when the NZ pitches appeared to be more helpful to bowl on (see below).

5WI/I: away better by 80.9% ((17/47)/(6/30) - 1)

10WM/M: away better by infinity % (6 cf. 0)

Another thing, Hadlee won eight Player of the Series awards in 33 series and six of these were during his final seven years, all of the six in away series (3 vs. England, 2 vs. Australia and 1 vs. SL).

Finally, the Steyn comparison: these are the aggregate batting stats for SA pitches during the Steyn years:

View attachment 42714

Again, the NZ pitches during Hadlee's final seven years (the prime years):

View attachment 42715

Now the NZ pitches during the pre-prime Hadlee years:

View attachment 42716

You can see that based on batting average, the Steyn home pitches and the pre-prime Hadlee home pitches appear to be about equally helpful but during the last seven years of Hadlee's career, the NZ pitches appear to be distinctly unhelpful and this is backed up by some of the bowling stats I've posted above (and by my now rather vague recollections of these pitches).

The point I'm trying to make is that Hadlee cemented his greatness during his final seven years and the home pitches he bowled on during that time do not seem to have helped him too much and don't detract in any significant way from his achievements or his legacy.

I will admit that I haven't read most of the above, however.

I'm not comparing Hadlee to everyone. Specifically one Glenn McGrath who had distinctly unhelpful pitches in an era where he was the only standout.

Now lowering Hadlee's legacy in any way, I have him 3rd all time.

 

[DrWolverine]

I'm not comparing Hadlee to everyone. Specifically one Glenn McGrath who had distinctly unhelpful pitches in an era where he was the only standout.

McGrath took 190 wickets between 2002-2007. Akhtar was the only bowler with similar stats in that era.

McGrath took 367 wickets between 1994-2002. In the same time period; Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Wasim Akram, Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose performed just as good if not better

Yes McGrath was the standout bowler for 5 years(2002-2007) after the retirement of Donald, Ambrose, Akram and Walsh. But before that it was not really an unhelpful era for fast bowling. Even in those years(2002-2007), Shoaib was just as good but injury prone.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath took 190 wickets between 2002-2007. Akhtar was the only bowler with similar stats in that era.

McGrath took 367 wickets between 1994-2002. In the same time period; Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Wasim Akram, Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose performed just as good if not better

Yes McGrath was the standout bowler for 5 years(2002-2007) after the retirement of Donald, Ambrose, Akram and Walsh. But before that it was not really an unhelpful era for fast bowling. Even in those years(2002-2007), Shoaib was just as good but injury prone.

Yes, I was speaking of him in the 2000's.