one ATG Pacer vs Pace Battery

[DrWolverine]

Damn that Windies team was good

Marshall : 20.94
Garner : 20.97
Ambrose : 20.99
Croft : 23.20
Holding : 23.68
Bishop : 24.27
Walsh : 24.44
Roberts : 25.61

All of them played in last quarter of 20th century

 

[Coronis]

Marshall : 20.94
Garner : 20.97
Ambrose : 20.99
Croft : 23.20
Holding : 23.68
Bishop : 24.27
Walsh : 24.44
Roberts : 25.61

All of them played in last quarter of 20th century

Couldn’t do much against NZ in the 80’s tho.

 

[sayon basak]

I am really surprised by the results here.
Folks are seriously underestimating the impact of having an actual worldclass bowler.

You aren't going to consistently challenge superior teams with regular good pacers. You may be more effective at bullying weaker teams though. However, a worldclass bowler is the weapon to actually level the playing field.

If you put Hadlee et al in the mid 2010s NZ side, you would not only win everywhere they did but likely score the odd victory in Ind, Aus and Eng. You definitely wouldn't be whitewashed at home by Aus.

although I chose B, I still think it's close. But there's a problem. When I think of an attack with only one ATG bowler with 3 other meh bowlers, I don't think of those 3 bowlers as averaging 31/32 (actually averaging 31 across all formats is quite good, Abdul Qadir knows what I'm talking about).
So yeah, I think those 3 meh bowler's average in Unit A is overestimated. I think 35/36 works better.

 

[subshakerz]

although I chose B, I still think it's close. But there's a problem. When I think of an attack with only one ATG bowler with 3 other meh bowlers, I don't think of those 3 bowlers as averaging 31/32 (actually averaging 31 across all formats is quite good, Abdul Qadir knows what I'm talking about).
So yeah, I think those 3 meh bowler's average in Unit A is overestimated. I think 35/36 works better.

OP says 31 plus, so I am assuming 32/33.

Pakistan in the late 80s had this with Imran as the worldclass pacer and then early career Wasim and Qadir around 30 odd. They were quite successful.

 

[sayon basak]

Damn that Windies team was good

Not overrated anymore?

 

[Coronis]

Not overrated anymore?

Winning 30% of their matches against 80’s NZ is a hallmark of a great team.

 

[subshakerz]

Winning 30% of their matches against 80’s NZ is a hallmark of a great team.

Slow scoring era, more draws.

 

[sayon basak]

Slow scoring era, more draws.

Slow over rates too.

 

[Coronis]

Slow scoring era, more draws.

Actually the 80’s were the equal fastest of the post WWI decades, whilst having the third highest draw rate (besides the 40’s and the 60’s)

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

2nd one pretty easily imho.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

I've given your post a Love icon because of this: "Hadlee : Arguably the best ever" and also because the wolverine (along with the honey badger) is my favourite mustelid.

However, I think Subby is right here (which is why I have Liked all of his posts, I doubt it will ever happen again). Making an intellectual analogy, sometimes the super brilliant individual is required to crack the really hard stuff (e.g. Einstein and general relativity) and a group made up of many just brilliant individuals will not get the job done.

Anyway, I think I can prove reasonably convincingly why Subby is right. Firstly, it is only fair to compare the 1980s and 2010s NZ teams against the same opposition, and by the same opposition, I mean the same in terms of quality. And that means against the best teams because those results should be weighted far more highly than results against minnows. Also, the 1980s NZ teams played against far fewer minnows (just SL).

The top five teams of the 1980s (apart from NZ) were Australia, England, India, Pakistan and the WI.

For the 2010s teams, it would have been the same but with WI replaced by SA. You could possibly replace Pakistan with SL because while Pakistan has a better win-loss for that decade (33-37 vs. 31-40), SL holds an edge over Pakistan in head-to-head win-loss (7-5). I'll include NZ's results against both of them for completeness.

The Pakistan and SL data for that decade (to confirm my previous figures):

View attachment 42743

View attachment 42744

View attachment 42745

OK, here are the overall results for the 1980s NZ teams:

View attachment 42746

And here are the opposition team results:

View attachment 42747

You can see that we held our own against England, India and Pakistan. We lost narrowly to Australia (win-loss = 4-5) but if Morrison had been given that plumb LBW against McDermott in the 1987 Boxing Day test, it would have been 5-5 (not necessarily, of course, as the future would have been changed: there was a drawn test at the WACA in November 1989 in which Hadlee did not play for some reason). We also lost narrowly to the WI 2-3 (admittedly, the 1980 "win" against them was a bit, shall we say, controversial, thanks principally to Freddy G!).

Here are the overall results for the 2010s NZ teams:

View attachment 42748

And here are the opposition team results:

View attachment 42749

You can see that we did well against Sri Lanka and Pakistan (the two weakest teams) with win-loss numbers of 7-2 and 5-3 respectively and we held our own against England (3-3). However, we got absolutely hammered against Australia (1-9), India (1-6) and SA (0-5).

Against the top teams (especially the best of the top teams), the 1980s NZ teams were definitely better.

@capt_Luffy has politely sent me a message pointing out that the TNT (Tim-Neil-Trent) era was actually a few years later than the start of the 2010s and he's right so I'm going to redo the stats. I was a bit sloppy before in other ways as well so I'll try to do a better job this time.

Firstly, I'll look at the Hadlee years when he was at or close to his best. This would be from February 1978 to retirement (July 1990), a period of about 12 years 5 months' duration. Here are the NZ team results from this time, making sure that Hadlee was always playing (something I didn't do before):

Overall:



Opposition team specifics:



You can see that we're even with Australia (5-5), have narrow wins against India (3-2) and Pakistan (2-1), a narrow loss against the WI (2-3) and a convincing loss against England (4-8) but still a decent number of wins against them.

Now I'll look at the TNT years, making sure that all three were always playing (again, something I didn't do before):

Overall:



Opposition team specifics:



You can see that we have convincing wins against SL (4-0) and, impressively, India (3-0), solid wins against Pakistan (2-0, from 2 matches), and losses (but not lop-sided demolitions like 9-1, 6-1 and 5-0 like in my earlier post) against England (3-2), Australia (2-0, from 2 matches) and SA (1-0).

I'm now not sure what to think. It's still not clear-cut for various reasons:

There isn't a lot of data from the TNT era: just 24 matches cf. 63 matches for the Hadlee era.

Six of the TNT era wins were against weaker teams: SL (4-0) and Pakistan (2-0) although the 3-0 against India was outstanding.

The TNT era NZ batting may have been better than the Hadlee era NZ batting so it might not have been mainly the bowling which made the difference. This needs looking into.

The Hadlee era spanned more time (12 years 5 months) cf. the TNT era (9 years 3-4 months):

The TNT era:



It's easier to shine over a shorter period of time. For example, here are the NZ team stats for the Hadlee era from February 1980 when we beat (or "beat") WI to March 1990 when we beat Australia (this covers 10 years 1 month which is still longer than the TNT era):

Overall:



Opposition team specifics:



You can see that we're now even with Australia (5-5) and England (3-3, the previous 4-8 deficit erased). We have wins against India (3-2) and Pakistan (2-0) and a narrow loss against WI (2-3).

 

[subshakerz]

@capt_Luffy has politely sent me a message pointing out that the TNT (Tim-Neil-Trent) era was actually a few years later than the start of the 2010s and he's right so I'm going to redo the stats. I was a bit sloppy before in other ways as well so I'll try to do a better job this time.

Firstly, I'll look at the Hadlee years when he was at or close to his best. This would be from February 1978 to retirement (July 1990), a period of about 12 years 5 months' duration. Here are the NZ team results from this time, making sure that Hadlee was always playing (something I didn't do before):

Overall:

View attachment 42757

Opposition team specifics:

View attachment 42758

You can see that we're even with Australia (5-5), have narrow wins against India (3-2) and Pakistan (2-1), a narrow loss against the WI (2-3) and a convincing loss against England (4-8) but still a decent number of wins against them.

Now I'll look at the TNT years, making sure that all three were always playing (again, something I didn't do before):

Overall:

View attachment 42759

Opposition team specifics:

View attachment 42760

You can see that we have convincing wins against SL (4-0) and, impressively, India (3-0), solid wins against Pakistan (2-0, from 2 matches), and losses (but not lop-sided demolitions like 9-1, 6-1 and 5-0 like in my earlier post) against England (3-2), Australia (2-0, from 2 matches) and SA (1-0).

I'm now not sure what to think. It's still not clear-cut for various reasons:

There isn't a lot of data from the TNT era: just 24 matches cf. 63 matches for the Hadlee era.

Six of the TNT era wins were against weaker teams: SL (4-0) and Pakistan (2-0) although the 3-0 against India was outstanding.

The TNT era NZ batting may have been better than the Hadlee era NZ batting so it might not have been mainly the bowling which made the difference. This needs looking into.

The Hadlee era spanned more time (12 years 5 months) cf. the TNT era (9 years 3-4 months):

The TNT era:

View attachment 42761

It's easier to shine over a shorter period of time. For example, here are the NZ team stats for the Hadlee era from February 1980 when we beat (or "beat") WI to March 1990 when we beat Australia (this covers 10 years 1 month which is still longer than the TNT era):

Overall:

View attachment 42762

Opposition team specifics:

View attachment 42763

You can see that we're now even with Australia (5-5) and England (3-3, the previous 4-8 deficit erased). We have wins against India (3-2) and Pakistan (2-0) and a narrow loss against WI (2-3).

The 2010s NZ team clearly had better batting yet overall the results are quite on a close level.

Would say there isn't any evidence those Unit A bowling attack produces worse results.

As I mentioned, Pakistan in the late 80s had pretty much the same Unit A attack (worldclass Imran with 30 odd averaging Wasim and Qadir) and achieved great results.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

@capt_Luffy has politely sent me a message pointing out that the TNT (Tim-Neil-Trent) era was actually a few years later than the start of the 2010s and he's right so I'm going to redo the stats. I was a bit sloppy before in other ways as well so I'll try to do a better job this time.

Firstly, I'll look at the Hadlee years when he was at or close to his best. This would be from February 1978 to retirement (July 1990), a period of about 12 years 5 months' duration. Here are the NZ team results from this time, making sure that Hadlee was always playing (something I didn't do before):

Overall:

View attachment 42757

Opposition team specifics:

View attachment 42758

You can see that we're even with Australia (5-5), have narrow wins against India (3-2) and Pakistan (2-1), a narrow loss against the WI (2-3) and a convincing loss against England (4-8) but still a decent number of wins against them.

Now I'll look at the TNT years, making sure that all three were always playing (again, something I didn't do before):

Overall:

View attachment 42759

Opposition team specifics:

View attachment 42760

You can see that we have convincing wins against SL (4-0) and, impressively, India (3-0), solid wins against Pakistan (2-0, from 2 matches), and losses (but not lop-sided demolitions like 9-1, 6-1 and 5-0 like in my earlier post) against England (3-2), Australia (2-0, from 2 matches) and SA (1-0).

I'm now not sure what to think. It's still not clear-cut for various reasons:

There isn't a lot of data from the TNT era: just 24 matches cf. 63 matches for the Hadlee era.

Six of the TNT era wins were against weaker teams: SL (4-0) and Pakistan (2-0) although the 3-0 against India was outstanding.

The TNT era NZ batting may have been better than the Hadlee era NZ batting so it might not have been mainly the bowling which made the difference. This needs looking into.

The Hadlee era spanned more time (12 years 5 months) cf. the TNT era (9 years 3-4 months):

The TNT era:

View attachment 42761

It's easier to shine over a shorter period of time. For example, here are the NZ team stats for the Hadlee era from February 1980 when we beat (or "beat") WI to March 1990 when we beat Australia (this covers 10 years 1 month which is still longer than the TNT era):

Overall:

View attachment 42762

Opposition team specifics:

View attachment 42763

You can see that we're now even with Australia (5-5) and England (3-3, the previous 4-8 deficit erased). We have wins against India (3-2) and Pakistan (2-0) and a narrow loss against WI (2-3).

Both home wins and away wins are nice but I think it's fair to say that away wins are more cherished (in general).

Here are the Hadlee era away results against top teams between February 1980 and March 1990:



Of NZ's 15 wins in total, 5 or one-third were away.

Here are the TNT era away or neutral results against top teams:



Of NZ's 11 wins in total, 0 were away and only 1 was neutral, in England, where the conditions would have been more like home (NZ) than away (India). Also, that neutral win didn't just have TNT, it had Kyle Jamieson as well who took 5/31 and 2/30 (and was Player of the Match).

Then there is the question of availability:

Between February 1980 and March 1990, NZ played 57 tests against top teams:



Hadlee played in 51 of these so he was available 51/57 = 89.5% of the time.

During the TNT era, NZ played 59 tests against top teams:



TNT played in 24 of these so were available 24/59 = 40.7% of the time (<< 89.5%).

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Both home wins and away wins are nice but I think it's fair to say that away wins are more cherished (in general).

Here are the Hadlee era away results against top teams between February 1980 and March 1990:

View attachment 42766

Of NZ's 15 wins in total, 5 or one-third were away.

Here are the TNT era away or neutral results against top teams:

View attachment 42767

Of NZ's 11 wins in total, 0 were away and only 1 was neutral, in England, where the conditions would have been more like home (NZ) than away (India). Also, that neutral win didn't just have TNT, it had Kyle Jamieson as well who took 5/31 and 2/30 (and was Player of the Match).

Then there is the question of availability:

Between February 1980 and March 1990, NZ played 57 tests against top teams:

View attachment 42768

Hadlee played in 51 of these so he was available 51/57 = 89.5% of the time.

During the TNT era, NZ played 59 tests against top teams:

View attachment 42769

TNT played in 24 of these so were available 24/59 = 40.7% of the time (<< 89.5%).

That TNT availability was actually generous because I went from when they first played together to when they last played together when I could have instead gone from when the last of them started playing for NZ to when the first of them stopped playing for NZ. This would have made the start and finish dates as 25 July 2012 (Wagner) and 23 June 2022 (Boult) respectively. If we instead use these dates to define the TNT era then NZ played 65 tests during this time against top teams:



And then the TNT availability drops further to 24/65 = 36.9% which is again << 89.5%. This extended TNT era is about 9 years 11 months long so is still shorter than the cherry-picked Hadlee era of February 1980 to March 1990.

 

[subshakerz]

A team I can think of having mostly goodish pacers was Aus under Border in the late 80s. Even in their resurgence, they couldn't really do much except beat mid teams like England and NZ. I would have rated Pakistan with a single worldclass pacer better than them.

India under Dhoni 2009 to 2011 though with Zaheer et al rose to number one though.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

This doesn't answer the poll question in general but sticking to the NZ theme, I think TNT + nobody else really good vs. Hadlee + his support is close. In fact, I might even go with Hadlee et al. They did a bit better against the very best teams. Hadlee Feb. 1980 - Mar. 1990 were even with Aus (5-5), Eng (3-3), leading India (3-2), Pak (2-0) and only losing narrowly to WI (2-3). TNT did great against India (3-0) but were losing to Eng (3-2), Aus (2-0) and SA (1-0). Hadlee et al. were also better away: 5-0 (although TNT didn't play away much). I also suspect that TNT NZ batting was better than Hadlee NZ batting. However, if it's TNT + somebody really good, like Kyle Jamieson, and they're all in good form then I have to go with them. Not even Hadlee can overcome that.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

This doesn't answer the poll question in general but sticking to the NZ theme, I think TNT + nobody else really good vs. Hadlee + his support is close. In fact, I might even go with Hadlee et al. They did a bit better against the very best teams. Hadlee Feb. 1980 - Mar. 1990 were even with Aus (5-5), Eng (3-3), leading India (3-2), Pak (2-0) and only losing narrowly to WI (2-3). TNT did great against India (3-0) but were losing to Eng (3-2), Aus (2-0) and SA (1-0). Hadlee et al. were also better away: 5-0 (although TNT didn't play away much). I also suspect that TNT NZ batting was better than Hadlee NZ batting. However, if it's TNT + somebody really good, like Kyle Jamieson, and they're all in good form then I have to go with them. Not even Hadlee can overcome that.

OK, I've thought about this a bit more: TNT went 3-0 against India but for TWO of those victories, Kyle Jamieson was also present:



So TNT without Jamieson are actually just 1-0 against India and 1-0 against Pakistan instead of 2-0 because Jamieson was also present for one of their Pakistan wins.

Here are Jamieson's bowling performances in those three wins (you can see that he contributed significantly in every win):



I think this strengthens the argument that TNT without another bowler of comparable quality is not as good as Hadlee + his support.