Steve Smith vs Brian Lara

[capt_Luffy]

That was early career Hadlee before he became worldclass. Overall he underperformed in series with top Hadlee and Lillee.

Eng is below par. WI mixed. Pakistan very good.

Hadlee won the Test NZ won Single-handedly that series. On the next tour he was not really that good himself, rather underperformed.

England is alright really, the **** who thinks WI mixed and Pakistan is ATG, probably the best there with Amarnath.

 

[Johan]

Now 35 is below par, but if you break it up really, it hardly was something like he struggled to him regularly. He just had a bad 3 matches in NZ, did perfectly fine before and at home.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he underperformed, I think it's unreasonable to think it was some big hole in his record. He should had done better against them, but it's not like he necessarily did bad against them as well. Has plenty of silver linings for me to not call his English record a hole per se.

Yeah, but it's just a decent home series (43 avg) and a bad away series (25 avg), I'd expect more, atleast one great home series against Hadlee would prop up his NZ performance for me.

tbh, I rate sub 40 performance against a major nation (PC, **** off) to be a hole in the record, not a big one but one there regardless, if he had the same average against say Sri Lanka then I won't care because of obvious reasons

 

[Coronis]

His average in games Hadlee plays is just 35, and he does dismiss him a bunch, surely that shows he wasn't as invincible against Hadlee as he was against others?

tbf I wouldn’t expect any batsman to be as invincible against an ATG bowler as he was against other bowlers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, but it's just a decent home series (43 avg) and a bad away series (25 avg), I'd expect more, atleast one great home series against Hadlee would prop up his NZ performance for me.

tbh, I rate sub 40 performance against a major nation (PC, **** off) to be a hole in the record, not a big one but one there regardless, if he had the same average against say Sri Lanka then I won't care because of obvious reasons

He had exactly one Great series, which was goodish. Had he played him like in 5 series, I will be like, yeah fair criticism. But he had 2 decent matches, 3 good ones and 3 bad ones. Don't think the outright output is like something I will call a hole necessarily.

I don't like going by average so much. Tell me what makes 40 average alright but not 38?? It's a very case by case basis analysis for me. If it's like 33, fair; but 38 not so much.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee won the Test NZ won Single-handedly that series. On the next tour he was not really that good himself, rather underperformed.

England is alright really, the **** who thinks WI mixed and Pakistan is ATG, probably the best there with Amarnath.

Hadlee wasn't the seam swing machine yet.

WI record wasn't quite as hot as advertised. Still good overall.

Pakistan, not sure I would call it ATG but still excellent.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hadlee wasn't the seam swing machine yet.

WI record wasn't quite as hot as advertised. Still good overall.

Pakistan, not sure I would call it ATG but still excellent.

Hadlee literally ripped through the Indian batting in their only loss that series, and Gavaskar was absent hurt. He was actually kinda down on Gavaskar's bad series.

Or what you predicted it to be...... It's just two Great series vs some of the best bowlers ever assembled, two series which were 700+ (one in India's first away win and the other with a decent bowling attack) and one bad series (where he averaged 30). Yeah, such a mid record.

Literally no one is better in Pakistan, except arguably Amarnath. Don't know if that's not ATG what is.

 

[Johan]

Hadlee literally ripped through the Indian batting in their only loss that series, and Gavaskar was absent hurt. He was actually kinda down on Gavaskar's bad series.

Or what you predicted it to be...... It's just two Great series vs some of the best bowlers ever assembled, two series which were 700+ (one in India's first away win and the other with a decent bowling attack) and one bad series (where he averaged 30). Yeah, such a mid record.

Literally no one is better in Pakistan, except arguably Amarnath. Don't know if that's not ATG what is.

Lord Brook.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee literally ripped through the Indian batting in their only loss that series, and Gavaskar was absent hurt. He was actually kinda down on Gavaskar's bad series.

Or what you predicted it to be...... It's just two Great series vs some of the best bowlers ever assembled, two series which were 700+ (one in India's first away win and the other with a decent bowling attack) and one bad series (where he averaged 30). Yeah, such a mid record.

Literally no one is better in Pakistan, except arguably Amarnath. Don't know if that's not ATG what is.

Yeah but you know what we are talking about when we are talking about Gavaskar facing Hadlee. We mean the consistently worldclass version.

Mid record in WI in the sense that he failed against the top quartet but succeeded against lesser attacks. Still good overall.

Ok sure whatever on Pakistan.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah but you know what we are talking about when we are talking about Gavaskar facing Hadlee. We mean the consistently worldclass version.

Mid record in WI in the sense that he failed against the top quartet but succeeded against lesser attacks. Still good overall.

Ok sure whatever on Pakistan.

Hadlee literally was midish in the series Gavaskar faced him away. That series Hadlee wasn't World Class......

1976 had a top attack of Holding and Roberts. And ofcourse, the 83 home series vs the quartet.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee literally was midish in the series Gavaskar faced him away. That series Hadlee wasn't World Class......

1976 had a top attack of Holding and Roberts. And ofcourse, the 83 home series vs the quartet.

I am being tempted to bring the Javed comparison again.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I am being tempted to bring the Javed comparison again.

Javed had a great series vs Hadlee, sure. That's pretty much it. And like, you never acknowledged that Hadlee actually was better in the previous series than the later one.

 

[subshakerz]

Javed had a great series vs Hadlee, sure. That's pretty much it. And like, you never acknowledged that Hadlee actually was better in the previous series than the later one.

Javed was ATG in NZ.

Acknowledge Hadlee for which bat?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Javed was ATG in NZ.

Acknowledge Hadlee for which bat?

Javed was, but that pretty much encapsulates every nearly great thing of his away.

Acknowledge that Hadlee bowled better in Gavaskar's first series than his second. You can't seriously think the reputation of the bowler going in the series is more important than how he performed, right??

 

[subshakerz]

Acknowledge that Hadlee bowled better in Gavaskar's first series than his second. You can't seriously think the reputation of the bowler going in the series is more important than how he performed, right??

I think the point is that Hadlee in early career phase was a tearaway and his good performance in that early series was more of an aberration. He took a 7fer as a fourth pacer of the attack. Gavaskar didn't bat that innings. That series reflects nothing.

Whereas in the next series he was already his accomplished worldclass self and Gavaskar didn't score much against him.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think the point is that Hadlee in early career phase was a tearaway and his good performance in that early series was more of an aberration. He took a 7fer as a fourth pacer of the attack. Gavaskar didn't bat that innings. That series reflects nothing.

Whereas in the next series he was already his accomplished worldclass self and Gavaskar didn't score much against him.

Yeah, but in the next series Hadlee wasn't really great. He had a middling series, worse than his previous one.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, but in the next series Hadlee wasn't really great. He had a middling series, worse than his previous one.

Hadlee having a middling series doesn't mean he wasnt a great bowler at that stage, that's the point.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hadlee having a middling series doesn't mean he wasnt a great bowler at that stage, that's the point.

My point is the bowler's performance is more important than their stature.

 

[subshakerz]

My point is the bowler's performance is more important than their stature.

It's not stature. When we ask 'how did Gavaskar do against Hadlee?' we obviously care more about Hadlee in his actual bowling prime versus some raw version.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's not stature. When we ask 'how did Gavaskar do against Hadlee?' we obviously care more about Hadlee in his actual bowling prime versus some raw version.

Shouldn't we care more about how he bowled in that particular series more??? I certainly do.

 

[kyear2]

Yawn. Lara averages 38 (35 in the 4th innings) and nobody accuses him of a problem. Smith would have had a 4th innings ton against the Windies earlier this year while opening if someone could’ve stuck around (yes I know batting with the tail is a skill).

Hutton has 0 tons in the 4th innings compared to 3 for Sutcliffe. Should we rate him higher based on that fact alone?

Williamson of the Fab Four has by far the best record in the 4th innings with 5 tons. Nobody is even saying he’s top 2, people will argue he’s 4th of them.

Ponting has 4 tons in the 4th innings and averages 50. Better than Lara?

Did I say it was definitive. And it's not to drop anyone of of this tier.

It's just comparing the guys in said tier, and I also noted Lara's numbers and Sachin's isn't much better either.

But I already have Smith just above Lara and both of them a hair below the 4 guys, who are below Bradman.

It is interesting though.