Who's better, Lillee or Hadlee?

[Ikki]

Yes, it does. Especially in something that can never be assessed accurately like that.

LOL, this said by someone who judges Mathew Hayden on a handful of tests and then disregards the rest of his career. You're a hypocrite.

I know beyond doubt that some people care. You don't, of course, but you're not everyone.

So if you know I don't really care to convince you - because I don't think you have the maturity to even concede a point, anyway - then why reply "well unless you find me x, y and z...". In the past I've even found you x, y and z, you just create a new standard.

I'm not here to convince you, if I reply or engage you I just want you to represent your side inconsistencies then of course you'll continue to defend them. I hope people see more and more such inconsistencies from you so that they recognise who they're talking to. Just like I have.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That's fine, but that's not what I was replying about. I replied to your statement that "ill-informed statsguru generation's argument will be that because Lillee never bowled in India, so he can't possibly be superior to bowlers who did." You could argue against the suggestion that people tend to be biased towards players from their own country, without resorting to misrepresenting arguments of others.

In any case, I didn't mean to create a fuss - I was just pointing out that you were wrong as to your reasons of why people think Lillee might be lower.

Except that I wasn't wrong. BS says in this thread that he voted for Hadlee because he proved himself in more parts of the World. A fairly obvious reference to the fact that Lillee had no success on the Sub-Continent.

 

[Anil]

no india wont. pathan is a superior option to him for the country.bowls far better, bats definitely better as far as we know he has not fixed any amtches yet.

seriously doubt whether pathan as a bowler has been as good as prabhakar so far, as far as batting goes, prabhakar used to be a more than useful top order bat for his state as well as the national team so pathan doesn't come off as significantly superior there either(in fact i would say he hasn't been as good), in the match-fixing stakes, pathan scores though...

 

[Smudge]

Hadlee was less of a team-man (He kept a prize car, against team policy).

Simply because he had already won about 3 or 4 before that and donated the proceeds from them directly to the team funds. I agree with his point that maybe he deserved to keep one for himself (and it was an Alfa Romeo, after all) but he could have gone about it a wee bit better.

 

[archie mac]

Although it might be influenced by nationalistic bias, it will also suffer from the ill-informed Statsguru generation who remember neither but can produce a spreadsheet showing Lillee never bowled in India so can't possibly be superior to bowlers who did.

Spot on, as always

I know how those fans of Trumper must have felt when people started saying "have a look at his average"

It annoys me when people say that everyone votes for their own

Was there not a Viv V GSC? Who did I vote for?

Put up a Warne V SFB and see who I vote for

Or Hadlee V McGrath for that matter

 

[silentstriker]

It annoys me when people say that everyone votes for their own

Except no one says that about everyone. But obviously there is a nationalistic bias in almost everything. No, that doesn't mean every single person is affected. But are you saying its a coincidence that more Indians would think SRT is better and more West Indians would think Lara is better?

Of course there is a nationalistic bias......that doesn't mean anyone is calling anyone specific biased, don't take it personally.

 

[Engle]

I'm well aware they did - that much is and always has been obvious. However, charisma and public-appeal quality is not really important in assessing who did the job of bowling best. It is hugely important when assessing who did most for the game of cricket, but that's not the question at hand.

What I find hugely important is not what you do by yourself, but what affect you have on the rest of your teammates. You have to transcend your art. Lillee, I believe, was the greater morale booster over Hadlee, who merely played within his zone, even though he did an excellent job of it.

 

[archie mac]

Except no one says that about everyone. But obviously there is a nationalistic bias in almost everything. No, that doesn't mean every single person is affected. But are you saying its a coincidence that more Indians would think SRT is better and more West Indians would think Lara is better?

Of course there is a nationalistic bias......that doesn't mean anyone is calling anyone specific biased, don't take it personally.

I am not taking it personally, I take offence at it being said in a dismissive manner, as in you can discount people's vote because of which country they come from (and yes I know that was not said, but it was implied

Why say it? We all know people are more inclined to vote for what they know. People in India hear a lot more about SRT then anyone else. I remember a poll where people in England voted Botham the greatest cricketer ever

Or have I become a little P.r...d again?

 

[Migara]

It's not that somebody was modest - meaning only one - most of the bowlers, and batsmen (Like Viv) in Lillee's era regarded him as the best ever.

Viv regarded Chandrashekar o be the most difficult to handle. Does it make Chandra > Lillee? Your argument is plain stupid.

 

[silentstriker]

I am not taking it personally, I take offence at it being said in a dismissive manner, as in you can discount people's vote because of which country they come from (and yes I know that was not said, but it was implied

Why say it? We all know people are more inclined to vote for what they know. People in India hear a lot more about SRT then anyone else. I remember a poll where people in England voted Botham the greatest cricketer ever

Or have I become a little P.r...d again?

Its not that you can't count it, but you expect people from one country to vote for people from their country, as a general trend. And its impossible to know which votes were made with proper thinking behind it, and which weren't. If you counted all the votes from all cricket playing country, there is probably a good chance Sachin would come ahead of Bradman...but that doesn't mean its right - it just means you have to take votes with a grain of salt. Only taking votes from 'neutral' countries is not a terrible way to go.

 

[Migara]

Here's what Imran, who should know more about fast bowling than most, says about Lillee, first para on chapter " Best of the Rest " .

" As far as I am concerned, the sign of an outstanding player is his ability to perform well consistently under pressure. He must also be a complete team man.
The bowler who really stands out is Dennis Lillee.... "

And on Hadlee :
" The one-criticism I've heard of Hadlee is that he sometimes becomes defensive when a batsman attacks him. Instead of taking up the challenge, he tends to go into his shell and bowl defensively..... "

Lillee commanded fear and respect amongst all. He was able to perform well under the highest intensity cricket and was a complete team man. He never shied away from a challenge. He was aggresive and had leadership qualities.

Hadlee ? ....well, hardly.

But the stats shows a different story. Against the two best sides at that time, namely WI and PAK, Hadlee had done so much better than Lillee. Now how would you call that a defensive move?

 

[SJS]

By the way, I am neither Australian nor a Kiwi. I voted for Lillee and I saw him bowl live on TV almost all through his career.

I saw Hadlee live and it is amongst the most abiding memories I have. Those who go ga-ga over McGrath would realise MacGrath's limitaions if only they saw Hadlee bowl. As accurate as Pidge but seemingly quicker with more movement in the air and off the wicket and much more pro-active in his wicket seeking pursuit.

The fact that I still chose Lillee is no reflection on the truly great Newzealander but an acknowledgment of one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time.

It is a tough one - this comparison as any comparison between two great sportsmen must be. If someone chooses Hadlee I would not arhue too much against it because there is so much to admire in Hadlee too. But I do not think one has to be an Australian to consider Lillee an all time great. nor a Newzealander to think the same of Hadlee.

 

[archie mac]

By the way, I am neither Australian nor a Kiwi. I voted for Lillee and I saw him bowl live on TV almost all through his career.

I saw Hadlee live and it is amongst the most abiding memories I have. Those who go ga-ga over McGrath would realise MacGrath's limitaions if only they saw Hadlee bowl. As accurate as Pidge but seemingly quicker with more movement in the air and off the wicket and much more pro-active in his wicket seeking pursuit.

The fact that I still chose Lillee is no reflection on the truly great Newzealander but an acknowledgment of one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time.

It is a tough one - this comparison as any comparison between two great sportsmen must be. If someone chooses Hadlee I would not arhue too much against it because there is so much to admire in Hadlee too. But I do not think one has to be an Australian to consider Lillee an all time great. nor a Newzealander to think the same of Hadlee.

Well expressed

 

[NZTailender]

Well expressed

What Mac said.

I didn't pick Hadlee because he's simply from New Zealand. Having watched replays of them bowl, IMO, Hadlee is (or rather, was) better (overall). If I had to choose just one of them to be in my cricket team, I'd choose Hadlee (and this is ignoring his batting).

 

[Richard]

I'm well aware of that. The point, though, is that it's very likely that if you were Aussie, you'd have thought differently. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Richard]

I am not taking it personally, I take offence at it being said in a dismissive manner, as in you can discount people's vote because of which country they come from (and yes I know that was not said, but it was implied

It wasn't implied. What was implied is that as a rule, Aussies would tend to think Lillee was better, Kiwis would think Hadlee was. This is not (neccessarily) a result of bias as such, merely upbringing. There is little good reason for a Kiwi to consider Lillee > Hadlee or an Aussie to consider Hadlee > Lillee.

I also never said you can discount people's votes. What I said is that it's more interesting to look at which neutrals vote for who than how many Aussies and Kiwis vote for their own countryman.

 

[Richard]

LOL, this said by someone who judges Mathew Hayden on a handful of tests and then disregards the rest of his career. You're a hypocrite.

Nah. If a stance was hypocritical, I wouldn't take it.

So if you know I don't really care to convince you - because I don't think you have the maturity to even concede a point, anyway - then why reply "well unless you find me x, y and z...". In the past I've even found you x, y and z, you just create a new standard.

I'm not here to convince you, if I reply or engage you I just want you to represent your side inconsistencies then of course you'll continue to defend them. I hope people see more and more such inconsistencies from you so that they recognise who they're talking to. Just like I have.

The comment was not aimed at you, it was aimed at "the general".

 

[sudhindra9]

Hadlee for me

 

[Son Of Coco]

Richard Hadlee - The Great New Zealand Disappointment

Much has been made of his prowess with the ball, however there are some alarming statistics that counter the many claims of brilliance. For example:

Did you know that in his first 3 full test matches Richard Hadlee averaged 119.66 runs per wicket? That's right! In an alarming 3.48837% of all the matches he played in his career he averaged greater than 115 runs per wicket. If we take the 3.48837% and call it the 'Golden Years', it's fair to suggest that anything lying outside this period must indeed be treated as an anomaly, and therefore struck from the record. In stats terms we'll refer to the other 96.5 odd percent of his career as 'extreme variables' - lying outside the reasonable area of expectancy given the results in these three Tests and therefore struck from the record.

Hadlee was a one trick pony, and I implore you not to let the fact that he performed the trick 431 times at an average of 22.29 fool you into thinking otherwise! In his fifth last test he took 2/132...and as the old saying goes - "You're only as good as your fifth last test!".

That makes Hadlee as good as someone who took 2 wickets at an average of 66! Geoffrey Boycott has a test bowling average of 54.57; Mark Taylor - 26.00; Allan Border 39.10.

Read it and weep Richard Hadlee...you were a disgrace to the art of bowling!

Says it all really.

 

[Zinzan]

Good form ^