capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
It does not. But even if Gavaskar scored a few, had it cleared his name given Hadlee was average in that series??? Especially given he was actually distinctively better in the previous one.
-
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.
Steve Smith vs Brian Lara
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Wait but if the prime version had a meh series then was he actually difficult to face? Surely in such small sample sizes how a bowler bowls in those series is what is crucial. You make no sense tbh.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
First off, it's an assumption just looking at the scorecard to assume he was bowling below par. Often greats bowl well and don't get the wickets. Hadlee in that series had wickettaking spells in the first two games. It's a fair assumption for us to suggest ATG pacers always pose somewhat of a threat (unless you watch the game and can see he was bowling pies).
Main thing for Gavaskar is that he didn't really score that series. So it's not like he 'failed' against Hadlee but never succeeded against him in his prime.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Little different for batsmen isn't it. You can't have good series of you keep getting owned by a bowler. It's possible for a bowler to still be great in a series even if a batsman is batting you superbly. Also, unironically no one really rates that Harbhajan series highly because he owned a flat footed Ponting right? It's because he owned the whole ATG batting lineup.
Also it can kinda work the other way too. The example I'll keep giving is Smith had a great series vs Rabada in Australia in his prime but people who watched know he bowled absolute rubbish that series.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Are you sure Hadlee was bowling average that series? This is like taking a case where someone scored against McGrath and saying we can't rate that innings because McGrath didn't take wickets therefore he was below par.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah but we are looking at a case where Gavaskar didn't score regardless of how Hadlee was bowling. How is that any way a pass for him?
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Hadlee’s 12 wickets @ 16 - not during peak so bowled badly
Hadlee’s 10 wickets @ 28 - during peak so bowled well
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
No Indian batsman necessarily did Great in that series either, so that argument doesn't works here.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Huh? The rest failing doesn't excuse Gavaskar.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah but nobody is saying that.
Hadlee in 76 was a raw pacer. Btw when he bowled well (as a fourth seamer) Gavaskar didn't even bat that innings.
Hadlee in 80 was a prime ATG bowler.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
It's fundamentally different between bowlers and batsmen though. A bowler can get dominated by a batsman but still end up with great figures overall. And like, Ponting gets extreme flak for that series and his overall India record.
Last edited:
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Are you thick?? I said if no one batted Great then the argument that Hadlee bowled great but was outplayed doesn't works.....
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I didn't make that argument. My argument was that prime Hadlee still represented a threat to whatever degree that you can't dismiss him by just looking at scorecards.
sayon basak
International Vice-Captain
Is that a bad thing?
Coronis
International Coach
I want ‘em real thick and juicy.