• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW50 2nd Edition - No 09

ankitj

ankitj

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ikki said:
This is for CW's 'Greatest' cricketers. Not who was the best all-round player. Otherwise I'd have voted Chris Cairns above McGrath and Kallis over Sachin; neither of which happened.
Click to expand...
Ah I always miss out on those subtleties :p
 
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
This double standard where all rounders are concered to push Hadlee is quite humourous. Ponting is a hair behind sachin as a batsman, but he is a ATG slip fielder (saturday not with standing) and a super successful captain behind probably only LLoyd and Richards, so according to the arguments, he should be ahead of Sachin on the list, also Hammond had as many five wicket hauls as Hadlee has hundreds and he was also a ATG slip fielder and was along with Bradman, Headley and Hutton among the premeir batsmen of his era, so he should also be ahead of Hadlee and Tendulkar. Lara is a better batsman than Sachin (Sachin had the better career so thats why I rank him higher, but no doubt Lara was the better batsman, especially to watch), and also a great slip fielder and tactically a good captain. As I have maintained, unless you could make your team in either disipline, and only Botham, Imran and Sobers could, maybe Kallis, then just rank the players based on their Primary skill, other wise Bradman would rate 12th after Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Hammond, Botham, Hadlee, Barlow, Dev ect. Shouldn't cherry pick which players who deserve to have their seconday skill factored in.

Additionally when looking back at players the only true way to rate a player is to factor in his stats, opinion of his peers/journalists and trusting your own eyes. The fact remains that no one of his own era considered Hadlee the greatest fast bowler or allrounder while he was still playing. By concensus he was the 3rd best all rounder and third of fourth best bolwer of his era, so for us to have a revisionist view of history is hilarious.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
As I have maintained, unless you could make your team in either disipline, and only Botham, Imran and Sobers could, maybe Kallis, then just rank the players based on their Primary skill, other wise Bradman would rate 12th after Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Hammond, Botham, Hadlee, Barlow, Dev ect.
Click to expand...
With respect, that's painfully poor logic. You don't rate a specialist batsman on his occasional bowling, because he doesn't need to bowl. All bowlers, however, need to bat, and lower order runs can be absolutely vital: turning matches, saving matches, and winning matches. Why, when assessing Hadlee, would you conceivably ignore the fact that he could score useful runs quickly?

The other fact which you're either ignoring or unaware of is that he was an absolutely outstandingly brilliant bowler. And I say that having seen him bowl (a lot), seen his stats (which are outstanding) and read many of the opinions of others (the consensus of which was, he was as good a bowler as there was in the world).

All time great? Dead right he was.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Never said he was an all time great, just not top 3 all time. Additionally a batting average of 27 with 2 hundreds in 88 matches wouldn't cut it in the top 6, unlike Imran and averaging under 10 more than the likes of Warne and Marshall doesn't elevate hom over two superior bowlers.

Also quote my entire post to gain the full perspective.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Your entire post remains visible in case anyone is interested. I quoted a particular point which I wanted to address, specifically your suggestion that you should for some (still unexplained) reason discount Hadlee's batting when considering how great a player he was.

Now no-one suggests Hadlee was a top 6 Test batsman. But then again, Imran, Botham and Kapil were hardly top 6 batsmen. Botham came closest but even as a long-suffering England fan who grew up with him as our national hero I wouldn't rate him as highly as I rate Hadlee. The contest really is between Imran and Hadlee. That is very elevated company. Now I know you would put Sobers higher, as would most people, but I think I'd be just as likely to include Hadlee in my all time world XI as Sobers, because Hadlee's batting is likely to be as useful to that team as Sobers' bowling, and perhaps more so.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
kyear2 said:
Never said he was an all time great, just not top 3 all time. Additionally a batting average of 27 with 2 hundreds in 88 matches wouldn't cut it in the top 6, unlike Imran and averaging under 10 more than the likes of Warne and Marshall doesn't elevate hom over two superior bowlers.

Also quote my entire post to gain the full perspective.
Click to expand...
Shane Warne and Malcolm Marshall have a combined hundred total of zero.

If you want to continue this simplistic line of thought, a difference in bowling average of 2 does not cancel out a difference in batting average of 9.

I am undecided on who the best bowler of the four greatest of that generation was, but Hadlee and Imran were the best cricketers of the four.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
kyear2 said:
Never said he was an all time great, just not top 3 all time. Additionally a batting average of 27 with 2 hundreds in 88 matches wouldn't cut it in the top 6, unlike Imran and averaging under 10 more than the likes of Warne and Marshall doesn't elevate hom over two superior bowlers.

Also quote my entire post to gain the full perspective.
Click to expand...
kyear2 it really isn't impossible to imagine hadlee as top 3. Heck if I want a line and length bowler I might as well pick him and McGrath over Marshall. There isn't really daylight between these guys.

zaremba said:
Your entire post remains visible in case anyone is interested. I quoted a particular point which I wanted to address, specifically your suggestion that you should for some (still unexplained) reason discount Hadlee's batting when considering how great a player he was.

Now no-one suggests Hadlee was a top 6 Test batsman. But then again, Imran, Botham and Kapil were hardly top 6 batsmen. Botham came closest but even as a long-suffering England fan who grew up with him as our national hero I wouldn't rate him as highly as I rate Hadlee. The contest really is between Imran and Hadlee. That is very elevated company. Now I know you would put Sobers higher, as would most people, but I think I'd be just as likely to include Hadlee in my all time world XI as Sobers, because Hadlee's batting is likely to be as useful to that team as Sobers' bowling, and perhaps more so.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
The fact remains that no one of his own era considered Hadlee the greatest fast bowler or allrounder while he was still playing. By concensus he was the 3rd best all rounder and third of fourth best bolwer of his era, so for us to have a revisionist view of history is hilarious.
Click to expand...
Hurricane said:
Geoffrey Boycott ranked him as the best corridor bowler
My XI - Geoffrey Boycott: Richard Hadlee - 'The best of the corridor bowlers' - YouTube
Click to expand...
Boycott hasn't said he was the best bowler here - but he has said he was the best on one dimension of bowling and what a dimension to be rated the best in. The knocks on Hadlee was his aggresson level. And I suspect that Boycott had this in mind and this stopped him from giving him an unqualified nod of approval. One of the Chappel brothers commented that if it was a deck with low bounce hadlee wouldn't dare bowl a bouncer while Imran while nearly kill himself trying to extract bounce for his bumpers. Likewise when I WATCHED him which I am beginning to suspect you may not have (have you watched him live?) - he could have retorted with more bouncers after being thumped if he had a bit more pace especially in the twilight of his career.

I agree that he is an ATG - and I rated him only on his bowling if that relieves some of your frustration. He is a great mainly due to his bowling and his batting is just a handy bonus.

For those who saw him live you got to watch someone who could swing and seam the ball (on a helpful pitch) both ways at will deliberately. Which is a dead odds with someone like Ishant Sharma who relies on the ball randomly hit the seam and getting a surprise when it moves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top