Hadlee was involved in 22 wins. In 18 of them he took atleast 6 wickets. In the remaining four he had:
Not really
Yeah Hadlee also popped to mind but I wanted to stick with specialists for a more direct comparison.
Batsmen generally don't have the same decisive match impact as bowlers.
Doesn't mean they can't win matches.
Sure but not with the frequency to have a label of a matchwinner. Even Lara probably played 2-3 pure undisputed matchwinning knocks in his career.
Why is it a stretch to call a batter "match winner"? Being an inferior match winner to some specific bowlers shouldn't disqualify the batter from the title as a whole.
What qualifies a batter to become a matchwinner and who do you consider fitting the criteria?
If a batter wins matches, he's a match winner imo.
If you want to use this same logic for bowlers…
Isn't that contradicting Konstas' role in Melbourne win?
Konstas didn't win the match though. He just set the momentum for the others to win the game. Isn't that obvious?
Top bowlers have way more matchwinning spells on average.
How often does that happen in a typical greats career?
You might claim them as matchwinning but are they matchwinning without whatever knock either set them up or finished the job?
Hopefully we'll see Smith and Root at the top of the chart very soon.
Why?
