Cairns thinks hes got 1 more series of gas in the tank

[Loony BoB]

I'm literally shocked that Hadlee is rated so poorly by some of the people here when he's widely regarded as a potential Historic World XI candidate. He appears in a huge amount of these XI's. Isn't this a cricket board filled with people who are highly knowledgeable cricketers?

If Cairns hadn't been injured, he would be considered one of the all-time greats, although I'm not sure if his averages would be any better, and they aren't fantastic. Still, at one point he was rated as the best all rounder in the world, so he's definitely right up there. Actually, I think he is one of the all-time greats, now that I think about it. Wisden Cricketer Of The Year 2000, PwC #1 All Rounder for a year (or more?)... I think it's safe to say I'm not bias considering this sort of thing. If he had been in all the matches possible, he would have likely near-doubled his current figures.

Maybe it's just what someone said earlier... the English people don't like to rate NZ'ers very highly, purely out of habit.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm literally shocked that Hadlee is rated so poorly by some of the people here when he's widely regarded as a potential Historic World XI candidate. He appears in a huge amount of these XI's. Isn't this a cricket board filled with people who are highly knowledgeable cricketers?

its not that anyone rates him poorly...he was a very good bowler but his batting was the worst out of the big 4.and since we were talking about all rounders we could in no way categorise someone who was a great bowler but an ordinary batsman as one of the best all rounders ever.

 

[Loony BoB]

Player: Batting average, Bowling average.
Ian Botham: 33.54, 28.40
Kapil Dev: 31.05, 29.64
Richard Hadlee: 27.16, 22.29

Now, going by that...

Botham adds 33.54 runs and bowls for 28.40, which gives his team a 5.14 run per wicket advantage.
Dev adds 31.05 runs and bowls for 29.64, which gives his team a 1.41 run per wicket advantage.
Hadlee adds 27.16 runs and bowls for 22.29, which gives his team a 4.87 run per wicket advantage.

So what you're saying is that even though they can all bat and bowl, the fact that Dev and Botham were better at batting than bowling makes them better than an all rounder who can bowl better than he can bat? I think that's pretty unfair. They're still all rounders, and they're still bloody awesome - in Hadlee's case, they're undeniably world-beating for his time.

EDIT: Weird sidenote: I don't actually like Hadlee that much, personally, I just respect and acknowledge what he did.

 

[tooextracool]

Player: Batting average, Bowling average.
Ian Botham: 33.54, 28.40
Kapil Dev: 31.05, 29.64
Richard Hadlee: 27.16, 22.29

Now, going by that...

Botham adds 33.54 runs and bowls for 28.40, which gives his team a 5.14 run per wicket advantage.
Dev adds 31.05 runs and bowls for 29.64, which gives his team a 1.41 run per wicket advantage.
Hadlee adds 27.16 runs and bowls for 22.29, which gives his team a 4.87 run per wicket advantage.

So what you're saying is that even though they can all bat and bowl, the fact that Dev and Botham were better at batting than bowling makes them better than an all rounder who can bowl better than he can bat? I think that's pretty unfair. They're still all rounders, and they're still bloody awesome - in Hadlee's case, they're undeniably world-beating for his time.

EDIT: Weird sidenote: I don't actually like Hadlee that much, personally, I just respect and acknowledge what he did.

no what im saying is that botham at his peak was an awesome bowler and batsman....kapil was a decent bowler and a decent batsman while hadlee was a good bowler but not a very good batsman. my definition of an all rounder is one who would make it into the side for either his bowling or his batting and hadlee im afraid wouldnt make it for his batting

 

[Loony BoB]

You're forgetting he was in New Zealand. Of course that's a good average for us!

But seriously, Hadlee's average isn't that bad - less than four runs lower than Dev's. I think the bowling average of Botham is awful considering the time he lived in, and Dev's isn't exactly anything stunning either. No offence to them, of course.

 

[mavric41]

You're forgetting he was in New Zealand. Of course that's a good average for us!

But seriously, Hadlee's average isn't that bad - less than four runs lower than Dev's. I think the bowling average of Botham is awful considering the time he lived in, and Dev's isn't exactly anything stunning either. No offence to them, of course.

Do better!! - very few people in the history of the game have.

 

[tooextracool]

You're forgetting he was in New Zealand. Of course that's a good average for us!

yea well i guess he would have made the nz side...

[/B][/QUOTE] But seriously, Hadlee's average isn't that bad - less than four runs lower than Dev's. I think the bowling average of Botham is awful considering the time he lived in, and Dev's isn't exactly anything stunning either. No offence to them, of course. [/B][/QUOTE]

yea but botham post injury was a completely different bowler to what he was pre injury
1977 - 20.20
1978 - 18.20
1979 - 20.74
1980 - 23.37
1981 - 25.55
1982 - 37.24
1983 - 30.00
1984 - 37.57
1985 - 27.58
1986 - 37.13
1987 - 70.29
1989 - 80.33
1991 - 27.00
1992 - 45.67

u can see that after 1981 he really wasnt half as good as the bowler he was before and then after 1985 his bowling career was effectively over.
kapil dev on the other hand wasnt all that good but id rate him just a bit higher than hadlee considering that he had to bowl half his tests on those dead sub continental wickets.

 

[marc71178]

I'm literally shocked that Hadlee is rated so poorly by some of the people here when he's widely regarded as a potential Historic World XI candidate.

I wouldn't have him there - there's been better bowlers and all-rounders overall (I'd put him 3rd of the big 4)

Actually, I think he is one of the all-time greats, now that I think about it. Wisden Cricketer Of The Year 2000, PwC #1 All Rounder for a year (or more?)...

Most decent players get the Wisden award, and the #1 All Rounder of this generation is Pollock - who's closer to being an all-time great.

 

[marc71178]

Player: Batting average, Bowling average.
Ian Botham: 33.54, 28.40
Kapil Dev: 31.05, 29.64
Richard Hadlee: 27.16, 22.29

And for completeness:

Imran Khan: 37.69, 22.81

 

[Loony BoB]

And for completeness:

Imran Khan: 37.69, 22.81

Good call!

Also, I do agree that Pollock is probably the all rounder of the generation (or possibly one of the guys from the subcontinent, to be honest I've never kept both eyes on teams outside NZ, Aussie and SA, but I know there were some bloody good all rounders), but I still think that Cairns should be listed as an all-time great alongside him. I mean, let's face it, Cairns has a lot of runs and a lot of wickets, but his averages don't reflect them very well. But just because he's not the best doesn't mean he isn't one of them.

Good point about the subcontinent wickets, too. Of course, you could also say that his batting average is better for playing there, too!

 

[marc71178]

I mean, let's face it, Cairns has a lot of runs and a lot of wickets, but his averages don't reflect them very well.

I don't think you meant to, but that implies to me that he got these figures from quantity rather than quality

Since he is second to Botham, that's not the case.

 

[Loony BoB]

Whoops. Wow, I could have sworn his averages were worse than what I just saw on cricinfo. My bad. At the same time, I thought Pollock's averages were a lot better, but that probably comes from watching so many SA-NZ matches... we don't exactly have the best history against them!

 

[Swervy]

we do seem to be getting off topic a bit here, but I will add my opinion to this:

Botham for me was the best allrounder I have ever seen. For a fairly long time early in his career, he was the worlds top bowler,one of the more successful batsmen,and an astonishing slip fielder.

Hadlee for me is on a par with marshall as the best pace bowler I have ever seen.His batting as far as I am concerned was roughly as good as Dev's, but he played a different role in the batting line up to Dev.

Dev was a good bowler,and a good batsman,and so therefore a good allrounder.

Imran was a much better bowler than batsman, although his batting did develop later on.

For me,forget the averages with the batting...look at the number of hundreds they got...Botham blows them all away.

Pollock is a great bowler, but is an average middle lower order batsman. kallis is a great batsman, but an average first or second change fastish bowler.

Chris cairns I think had it in him to be a very good batsman, and a very good bowler,in his youth, he had a fair turn of pace about him.

So in summary, out of the BIG 4:

Best batsman(at peak): Botham
Best Bowler: Hadlee
Best Fielder: Botham
Best captain: Imran
Best allrounder: Botham

 

[biased indian]

So in summary, out of the BIG 4:

Best batsman(at peak): Botham

At peak any player in the world will be good

i will say imran was a better batsmen

 

[Swervy]

At peak any player in the world will be good

i will say imran was a better batsmen

as i say have a look at how many 100's Botham and Imran got...have a look at how many games Imran won with the bat, compared to Botham!!!!!

 

[thierry henry]

It's strange because I wouldn't have thought of him as being close to them (indeed wouldn't have ranked him number 1 of his generation)

Of course not:rolleyes: You are so anti-NZ it's unbelievable. Just wait until Cairns goes past Viv's 6s record on the England tour in half the time it took Viv.

 

[swillisam]

Cairns is rank

I don't see why everyone rates Chris Cairns so highly, he's useless. He comes into the new zealand team for one game and then injures himself for another 4 while he gets out for a duck and gets hit for 60. In my mind and everyone whos got any sense chris carins is a soft loser that can't play cricket and shld stay home with his kids and lay down in bed so he doesn't break a nail and be out for another tour. so good riddance!

 

[Loony BoB]

It's when I read posts like these that I wonder if it would be worth my time to respond.

 

[tooextracool]

Re: Cairns is rank

I don't see why everyone rates Chris Cairns so highly, he's useless. He comes into the new zealand team for one game and then injures himself for another 4 while he gets out for a duck and gets hit for 60. In my mind and everyone whos got any sense chris carins is a soft loser that can't play cricket and shld stay home with his kids and lay down in bed so he doesn't break a nail and be out for another tour. so good riddance!

POST OF THE YEAR FOR ME!!

 

[marc71178]

Of course not:rolleyes: You are so anti-NZ it's unbelievable. Just wait until Cairns goes past Viv's 6s record on the England tour in half the time it took Viv.

Actually I'm not anti-New Zealand.

I just tend to take a balanced view of the relative abilites of players and look beyond the numbers.

Cairns has never struck me as that great an all-rounder, yet he is second quickest to that milestone.

Still doesn't stop me putting him below the big 4 and Sobers and also that he's not the best in his generation.

Whether he has more 6s than Viv or not won't change a thing either.