CW50 2nd Edition - No 09

[Fusion]

As I said before, I have Hadlee ranked second on my bowlers list behind Marshall. I don't think making the case for him as the greatest ever is too big a stretch at all.

 

[NUFAN]

...yes I did. I'm looking at it right now in my sent folder.

Oh yeah my bad, you did an edit on your picks, the first time he was fourth.

I had Sir Richard in 11th spot.

 

[Prince EWS]

That means that someone here thinks that Richard Hadlee is the greatest ever fast bowler, interesting.

Not necessarily. I had him at #4 but I had Imran higher. I actually don't think either of them are the greatest fast bowler ever though; I factored in secondary skills.


How much are you grinding your teeth?

 

[Burgey]

Hey Burgey, someone had Ponting at #1. Your reaction to that?

x2

I don't know why you presume that I'd feel differently if Hadlee was Australian; or why you think I'd try to defend the fact someone had Ponting number one, when I've said I don't know how many times that I rate two of his contemporaries alone as better batsmen than him.

 

[Noble One]

Selected Hadlee at number 7.

On any given day I could have placed him anywhere between 5 and 25 given the strength of the list.

 

[silentstriker]

x2

I don't know why you presume that I'd feel differently if Hadlee was Australian; or why you think I'd try to defend the fact someone had Ponting number one, when I've said I don't know how many times that I rate two of his contemporaries alone as better batsmen than him.

The case for Lilllee is so universal amongst his contemporaries so overwhelmingly that you really have to pay attention IMO. A few points of average really means very little overall.

As I said before, I don't know of a single player (maybe people can correct me) from the 70s or 80s who has anyone except Lillee or Marshall as the best, and most times, the best ever. They just don't exist. And they knew about Hadlee, and Imran, and Holding, and Garner, and all the rest. And yet, Lillee for the vast majority, still comes out on top.

 

[Flem274*]

In the opinion of the vast majority back in the day, the world was flat.

What I mean is, just because lots of people say something, it doesn't necessarily make them right.

IMO, Glenn McGrath had it much, much harder than any bowler who played in the 80s.

 

[Jono]

Yeah it's a balance of things really. Anyone that completely ignores contemporary/peer/expert opinion is stupid, just like anyone who completely ignores statistical data is pretty stupid too.

Take a whole bunch of evidence into account - peer opinion, statistics, your own eyes etc. and make a judgment.

If some of those things you can't do - e.g. you didn't watch a certain player due to being too young or not having the chance to see footage because of the era, then you may choose to emphasise some of the other factors (be it opinion or stats) but ultimately you can't just ignore either.

 

[weldone]

Disagree entirely. When you are measuring performance, you can rely on 'performance' alone.

It's a different thing when you are trying to understand how talented players were, what they could do with the ball, how much control they had, etc etc...

 

[Satguru]

The case for Lilllee is so universal amongst his contemporaries so overwhelmingly that you really have to pay attention IMO. A few points of average really means very little overall.

As I said before, I don't know of a single player (maybe people can correct me) from the 70s or 80s who has anyone except Lillee or Marshall as the best, and most times, the best ever. They just don't exist. And they knew about Hadlee, and Imran, and Holding, and Garner, and all the rest. And yet, Lillee for the vast majority, still comes out on top.

Yeah, i dont get why Lillee is so vastly underrated here... to say that he wasnt as good as Hadlee, Marshall, etc just because of silly nitpicky reasons like 3 admittedly terrible matches in pakistan, ranking him even below steyn ... is laughable.
The guy picked up 355 in 70 matche FFS. 5 wickets a match with the sort of competition he had in the lineup is amazing. Plus, he picke up 23 5ers in those 70 matches, and 10 ten-wicket matches, which is one every 10 matches!!!!! Picking up wickets in big bunches like that is far, far, far more valuable in winning matches than having a marginally better average.
Wickets in bunches=match-winning ability. Averages are the most important charactersitic when judging a bowlers quality, but are still given far too much weight imo

 

[smash84]

awtjono

both have to be taken into account.

Burgey must be tearing his hair out right now though

 

[Jono]

Disagree entirely. When you are measuring performance, you can rely on 'performance' alone.

It's a different thing when you are trying to understand how talented players were, what they could do with the ball, how much control they had, etc etc...

Wtf is performance?

Do you mean pure stats alone?

If so, how do you compare openers with middle order batsmen? Spinners vs. seamers?

 

[smash84]

Yeah, i dont get why Lillee is so vastly underrated here... to say that he wasnt as good as Hadlee, Marshall, etc just because of silly nitpicky reasons like 3 admittedly terrible matches in pakistan, ranking him even below steyn ... is laughable.
The guy picked up 355 in 70 matche FFS. 5 wickets a match with the sort of competition he had in the lineup is amazing. Plus, he picke up 23 5ers in those 70 matches, and 10 ten-wicket matches, which is one every 10 matches!!!!! Picking up wickets in big bunches like that is far, far, far more valuable in winning matches than having a marginally better average.
Wickets in bunches=match-winning ability. Averages are the most important charactersitic when judging a bowlers quality, but are still given far too much weight imo

why is ranking him below Steyn laughable?

 

[NUFAN]

weldone, I can't believe that you disagree 'entirely' with Jono. He's making some excellent points.

 

[Satguru]

why is ranking him below Steyn laughable?

I didnt say that. Ranking him below steyn just because steyn has done well in SC and lillee didnt is laughable.
It isnt laughable to rank steyn above anyone bar maybe barnes and marshall imo

 

[Flem274*]

IMO, and building on from what Jono has said, it's all so damn close at the top that to separate them, I have to revert back to the philosophy that players design their game to succeed in their era, so I judge them by their contemporaries.

The result favours 2000s bowlers due to the flat pitches and ridiculous numbers of batsmen averaging 50.

 

[Cevno]

Fair ranking this, i would say.

 

[Burgey]

Tis an awful thing to agree with Jono, but I must. You do use both. If you went just on watching players you're limited. If you want to just go by stats, you may as well not watch the game.

In or about 2004-2007, people were seeing Ponting's average and saying he was better than Tendulkar. People look at Kallis' average now and say he's a better batsman than Ponting. Both are bull****. Not because either set of numbers is "wrong", but because you watch the ****s play and draw your own conclusions.

By the same token, if you saw Johnson in SA back on his first tour there, you'd say this bloke is the best thing ever - fast, left arm, swings it late. Or you'd watch the fifth Ashes test of the 01 series and say Mark Butcher was the best batsman in the world. Neither are right. There's a place for both.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Means Kallis makes it into the top 8 at least though.... Too high.

Nah

 

[Satguru]

Fair ranking this, i would say.

Means Kallis makes it into the top 8 at least though.... Too high.

Kallis is done i think... was 14 or 15