Lillie VS Hadlee

[Scallywag]

Well if Viv Richards who absolutely dominated Lillee can say he is one of the best he's ever faced, then why cant the reverse be true ?

Richards only averaged 41 against Australia.

 

[Top_Cat]

stats can distort reality in sports like Soccer, Baseball,Ice Hockey etc. However, cricket's statistics are very concise and extensive. I think a deep inspection of statistics is FAR more valid than the opinions of so-n-so.

Actually, baseball has to be the most stats-intensive sport I've personally ever encountered. Way more so than cricket. The stats in cricket are more meaningful (in my opinion) but there are numbers for just about everything in baseball.

Stats aren't everything in rating players, people. For example, would anyone honestly rate Mark Waugh as merely an average Test cricketer despite an average of around 'only' 41? I mean, if the numbers are to be believed, Boonie, Mark Taylor, Justin Langer, etc. are superior players. Anyone who's watched Mark Waugh bat would know that's not the case. Yes the others had superior performances but Mark Waugh was a super-naturally gifted underachiever at the end of the day.

And let's face it, Mustaq Ahmed's career performances rank not in the same universe as Warnie but as far as natural talent goes, who would dare say Mushie wasn't at least AS talented as Warnie? Some would in fact say he was more talented. But his performances in no way match Warne's. I guess it depends on what your priorities as far as measurement of a player goes are.

 

[Deja moo]

The same Gavaskar that Lillee absolutely dominated?

How did you get to that conclusion ?

 

[C_C]

Richards only averaged 41 against Australia.

Care to post Richard's stats against AUS ? I can garantee you its NOT 41.

The fact remains that for Gavaskar and Miandad to be disparaging in their assessment of Lillee contradicts the reality of their performances against him.

Gavaskar's performance against Lillee is definately not great but it was not bad either. As for Miandad,he certainly didnt do too bad against Lillee. Besides, we are talkin opinions here, arnt we ? Well going by opinions, Lillee is a pile of rubbish bowler according to Gavaskar and Miandad...and they are certainly more qualified to talk about it than us, so we shouldnt doubt that( this is employing the ridiculous reasoning employed by the anti-stat brigade here).

'

1. Richards did not absolutely dominate Lillee. He finished ahead on points but Lille had his share of victories;

Well if you include the World series cricket confrontations, Richards definately had the upper hand on Lillee.

2. Whether or not Lille took his wicket, the mental damage was done to Gavaskar by him.

a highly speculative statement.
3 matches in his career vs IND that too when he played near the end of gavaskar's career and dismissed him twice outta six innings(his partner pascoe had more success) makes it a tall claim.
Especially since Gavaskar handled the four prong without too much trouble...Lillee is one man, four prong were almost four of him.

And if the reality is that your scores are all made on green-tops out of totals of 100 whilst the other person's are made on "roads" out of average totals of 600, into which garbage can will you consign your stats then

you clearly twist my example here.
My point was to illustrate that it is irrelevant to what so-n-so hotshot ex great thinks. Whats relevant is what the FACTS are.

 

[C_C]

Stats aren't everything in rating players, people. For example, would anyone honestly rate Mark Waugh as merely an average Test cricketer despite an average of around 'only' 41? I mean, if the numbers are to be believed, Boonie, Mark Taylor, Justin Langer, etc. are superior players. Anyone who's watched Mark Waugh bat would know that's not the case. Yes the others had superior performances but Mark Waugh was a super-naturally gifted underachiever at the end of the day.

as far as tests go, Mark Waugh was an average test cricketer.
I agree he was more talented and far attractive to watch than Boonie, Taylor and Langer but end of the day he underachieved and what matters is your achievements. Not what you could've might've should've achieved but what you DID achieve.
As per your previous post T_C, i will answer it later

 

[Deja moo]

2. Whether or not Lille took his wicket, the mental damage was done to Gavaskar by him.

Seems a tall claim mate. Take a look and tell me how you interpreted it. I'd really like to know.

 

[Scallywag]

Care to post Richard's stats against AUS ? I can garantee you its NOT 41.

.

You are right C_C Richards only averaged 41 against Pakistan 43 against NZ and 44 against Australia.

 

[Scallywag]

In fact Richards was Hadlees bunny, Richards could only manage to average 19 in NZ having a weakness against fast bowling.

 

[C_C]

In fact Richards was Hadlees bunny, Richards could only manage to average 19 in NZ having a weakness against fast bowling.

I wouldnt read too much into that....Richards vs Hadlee includes that infernal series in 79/80 when umpires were attrociously in favour of the NZ side.....Weakness against Hadlee implies weakness against the swinging ball..but considering that Richards annihilated swing bowlers like Botham and did pretty well against Kapil, that doesnt fly.
But Richards was weaker against swing than raw pace.
Imran Khan scalped him most when he was swinging the ball rather than bowling brutally fast in the late 70s onward phase (even though he was massively more successful against most others).

But this isnt about discussing Richards, this is about Lillee vs Hadlee...
i clearly think that Lillee isnt in the same class as Hadlee/Marshall/imran Khan/Ambrose.

 

[Scallywag]

I wouldnt read too much into that....Richards vs Hadlee includes that infernal series in 79/80 when umpires were attrociously in favour of the NZ side.....Weakness against Hadlee implies weakness against the swinging ball..but considering that Richards annihilated swing bowlers like Botham and did pretty well against Kapil, that doesnt fly.
But Richards was weaker against swing than raw pace.
Imran Khan scalped him most when he was swinging the ball rather than bowling brutally fast in the late 70s onward phase (even though he was massively more successful against most others).

But this isnt about discussing Richards, this is about Lillee vs Hadlee...
i clearly think that Lillee isnt in the same class as Hadlee/Marshall/imran Khan/Ambrose.

Sorry C_C I didnt realise it was the cheating NZ umpires that got Richards out, so how many of his dismissals were in actual fact LBWs.


If you care to check the records C_C Richards has never been given out LBW in New Zealand.

 

[social]

Seems a tall claim mate. .[/URL]

Fairly simple really - I watched it.

Cricket's actually far more enjoyable on TV than Cricinfo.

 

[SJS]

Fairly simple really - I watched it.

Cricket's actually far more enjoyable on TV than Cricinfo.

and more educative too

 

[Deja moo]

Fairly simple really - I watched it.

Cricket's actually far more enjoyable on TV than Cricinfo.

So averaging 35 against a bowler with just 2 dismissals is mental damage ?

 

[C_C]

Sorry C_C I didnt realise it was the cheating NZ umpires that got Richards out, so how many of his dismissals were in actual fact LBWs.


If you care to check the records C_C Richards has never been given out LBW in New Zealand.

Actually nevermind on that...Viv didnt play that infernal series.

Fairly simple really - I watched it.

Cricket's actually far more enjoyable on TV than Cricinfo.

Well i watched the 99 series in AUS vs WI and i thought that McGrath got wickes bowling codswallop that series......i watched Prasad take his 10-fer and thought he bowled mediocrely....
that doesnt change teh FACT that its all opinions that are contradictory to the FACTS.
I dont care how you do it, if you can score runs and take wickets better than mr X, you are better. end of story.

 

[marc71178]

That post is total crap and well wide of the mark. I included all instances of them bowling at least 30 overs and going for at least 3.3 an over while taking no more than 3 wickets.

So why those cut offs and not something smaller then?

 

[marc71178]

Fine, sorry I was wrong. I still think this isn't enough but that's as irrelevant as your original post on Warne vs Murali to a Lillee vs Hadlee thread.

Well half of the thread has been McGrath vs Marshall anyway!!!

 

[social]

I dont care how you do it, if you can score runs and take wickets better than mr X, you are better. end of story.[/QUOTE]

If that were true, the role of selector would be redundant. A computer would simply pick a team by reference to statistics.

Such a process might work in X-Box cricket but it is more than likely doomed to failure in the real world.

 

[SJS]

I wouldnt read too much into that....Richards vs Hadlee includes that infernal series in 79/80 when umpires were attrociously in favour of the NZ side.....

SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURE

Particularly since Viv Richards didnt play in New Zealand till 7 years later in 1986-87 !!

Now this is the limit. Kiwis take the cake. Umpires cheat years in advance.

 

[C_C]

SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURE

Particularly since Viv Richards didnt play in New Zealand till 7 years later in 1986-87 !!

Now this is the limit. Kiwis take the cake. Umpires cheat years in advance.

Perhaps if you got off your high horse and keep yer sarcasm in check for long enough to bother reading, you'd see that i've already retracted that statement.

 

[C_C]

If that were true, the role of selector would be redundant. A computer would simply pick a team by reference to statistics.

Selection is a bit more complex than that as you dont always pick the best performer, as you balance long term goals with short term goals. That is the reason why Michael Clarke got his break over Brad Hodge for example.