Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[capt_Luffy]

I guess I'm looking at it differently. The best batsman of our generation vs a weak inexperienced team of debutants in a chase that well all believed would be a cake walk

Might be. I am looking at it as a batsman carrying his bat at 91, while team scores 207; in a Herculean effort to push team through victory, short by only 8 runs.

 

[kyear2]

Might be. I am looking at it as a batsman carrying his bat at 91, while team scores 207; in a Herculean effort to push team through victory, short by only 8 runs.

Don't want to belabour the point, but against vastly inferior opponents.
Don't get me wrong, it was a really good innings, all I'm saying is the set up doesn't read ATG innings. I especially loved how he accelerated at the end when he started to lose partners, showing awareness etc.....

 

[capt_Luffy]

Don't want to belabour the point, but against vastly inferior opponents.
Don't get me wrong, it was a really good innings, all I'm saying is the set up doesn't read ATG innings. I especially loved how he accelerated at the end when he started to lose partners, showing awareness etc.....

I, again, personally prefers not to look at bowling attacks over careers but how they bowled on a particular match when rating innings; and I thought WI bowled really well for the most part, especially Shamar Joseph.

 

[kyear2]

I, again, personally prefers not to look at bowling attacks over careers but how they bowled on a particular match when rating innings; and I thought WI bowled really well for the most part, especially Shamar Joseph.

If he turns out to be something special, then yeah, it's elevated, greatly elevated. Would be akin to a young Lillee bowling to a an established Sobers in '71.

If not, then not so much for me. And it's not down playing the knock, again it was special, but the attack through the gaze of history.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Boult Southee and Wagner bowled in 78 innings together, NZ took 711 wickets @ 28.50 and won 24 matches.

Hadlee bowled in 156 innings, New Zealand took 1255 wickets @ 32.04 and won 22 matches.

Draw your own conclusions.

well this confirms that the bowling attacks of that era are overrated

 

[kyear2]

Didn’t Akrams peak begin in the 90s?

well this confirms that the bowling attacks of that era are overrated

How the actual hell did you come to that conclusion by looking at the entire duration of Hadlee's career compared to a relatively concentrated time period of three decent bowlers boing together.

It didn't even counter with Hadlee and Chatfield. Come on man...

 

[Slifer]

How the actual hell did you come to that conclusion by looking at the entire duration of Hadlee's career compared to a relatively concentrated time period of three decent bowlers boing together.

It didn't even counter with Hadlee and Chatfield. Come on man...

 

[Coronis]

How the actual hell did you come to that conclusion by looking at the entire duration of Hadlee's career compared to a relatively concentrated time period of three decent bowlers boing together.

It didn't even counter with Hadlee and Chatfield. Come on man...

I didn’t specifically post Hadlee/Chatfield because as in the posts I quoted it was being argued that Hadlee himself + anyone > a strong attack of Boult/Southee/Wagner

fwiw Hadlee/Chatfield bowled together in 70 innings took 557 wickets @ 31.43 and won just 12 matches.

 

[Coronis]

If he turns out to be something special, then yeah, it's elevated, greatly elevated. Would be akin to a young Lillee bowling to a an established Sobers in '71.

If not, then not so much for me. And it's not down playing the knock, again it was special, but the attack through the gaze of history.

This makes no sense. Rating an innings based on what a bowler might hypothetically achieve in the future?

Should I base my ratings of any Australian innings vs Harbhajan in 00/01 or 04/05 based on his performances after those tests?

 

[kyear2]

I didn’t specifically post Hadlee/Chatfield because as in the posts I quoted it was being argued that Hadlee himself + anyone > a strong attack of Boult/Southee/Wagner

fwiw Hadlee/Chatfield bowled together in 70 innings took 557 wickets @ 31.43 and won just 12 matches.

I was specifically responding to a post by @PlayerComparisons and I stand by what I said.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I didn’t specifically post Hadlee/Chatfield because as in the posts I quoted it was being argued that Hadlee himself + anyone > a strong attack of Boult/Southee/Wagner

fwiw Hadlee/Chatfield bowled together in 70 innings took 557 wickets @ 31.43 and won just 12 matches.

So hadlee + chatfieids average is worse than Southee + Boult + wagner. But people think the attack with hadlee is far better lol

 

[kyear2]

This makes no sense. Rating an innings based on what a bowler might hypothetically achieve in the future?

Should I base my ratings of any Australian innings vs Harbhajan in 00/01 or 04/05 based on his performances after those tests?

Part of any "great" innings is who it was against.

 

[subshakerz]

So many variables in there. Strength of teams / quality of opposition (minnows etc). NZ played in an especially competitive era, one that doesn't exist today.

Yes. Would need to see a breakdown of the victories that Coronis mentioned.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

The problem with Smith is not so much as not doing well vs high quality attacks, as much cashing in on the flat track era(up till 2018), something which Vivian never got a chance at. And since 2018, Smith averages around 50, not the Bradmanesque numbers he was putting up before. And Viv’s SR is a factor in his favour, plus a clearly more balanced record across the four innings.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And for bowlers wise, Viv dominated some ATG bowlers and some pretty great attacks
(Eng 1976, Aus 1979(peak Lillee, Thomson and Hogg), Pak 1980, Pak 1987, Ind 1975/76 etc). Similarly great attacks Smith has dominated are(Eng 2015, Ind 2017, SA 2013, Eng 2017(even tho Anderson and Broad are pretty ordinary in Aus). Not including Eng 2019, as Anderson was absent for majority of the series

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And Smith played on a lot of flatbeds at home vs some supposedly great attacks(such as Southee/Boult/Wagner in Aus). Warner made some 500+ runs in that series

 

[capt_Luffy]

The problem with Smith is not so much as not doing well vs high quality attacks, as much cashing in on the flat track era(up till 2018), something which Vivian never got a chance at. And since 2018, Smith averages around 50, not the Bradmanesque numbers he was putting up before. And Viv’s SR is a factor in his favour, plus a clearly more balanced record across the four innings.

Yeah, but even before 2018, Smith played on some of the worst Post WWI pitches, in which even probably Viv didn't played; case in point, India 2017.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Part of any "great" innings is who it was against.

Exactly. And that who depends on the day how someone bowled; not what they became 20 years later.

 

[subshakerz]

And for bowlers wise, Viv dominated some ATG bowlers and some pretty great attacks
(Eng 1976, Aus 1979(peak Lillee, Thomson and Hogg), Pak 1980, Pak 1987, Ind 1975/76 etc). Similarly great attacks Smith has dominated are(Eng 2015, Ind 2017, SA 2013, Eng 2017(even tho Anderson and Broad are pretty ordinary in Aus). Not including Eng 2019, as Anderson was absent for majority of the series

Viv also did well vs excellent England attacks in 76 and 80/81, plus a top series against Hadlee in 84.

Smith simply hasnt faced top pace attacks as regularly and has cashed in on ordinary attacks or flat pitches disproportionately.

 

[subshakerz]

So hadlee + chatfieids average is worse than Southee + Boult + wagner. But people think the attack with hadlee is far better lol

Guarantee you if you had just Hadlee, then NZ wouldn't be so easily whitewashed home and away against Australia this past decade. They would have been able to win a game in SA too. This is my point, against superior teams, your normal good bowlers aren't going to cut it.