The Greatest Allrounder Ever?

[NZTailender]

Hadlee's advantage was the Kiwi tactic of 'lets-prepare-the-greenest-pitch-we-can-find-and-wait-for-Paddles-to-nuke 'em'.
This is perhaps why i'd say Martin Crowe's record is not as good as it should be : I don't consider him to be in the same echelon as Lara-Tendulkar-Viv-Gavaskar but he should atleast be considered as good as Lloyd, Kanhai, Harvey etc. group

And yet Hadlee's bowling average away from home is better in exactly half matches played home/away.

Statistically, Pakistan was his blip on the radar away from home - an average of 44 from 3 matches (10 wickets). He averaged 53 with the bat in Pakista, though. So I guess he enjoyed batting there more than bowling

His records in the other sub-continent nations are fine, though. 31 @ 22 in India and 27 @ 12 in SL.

Just something I didn't really know about Hadlee (his bowling away from home). I guess it could be (depending on your opinion) a misconception that he got most of wickets on green tops at home.

Hadlee away.

 

[Craig]

Preaching to the masses.

Somebody give him award next week.

 

[C_C]

Just something I didn't really know about Hadlee (his bowling away from home). I guess it could be (depending on your opinion) a misconception that he got most of wickets on green tops at home.

It wasnt so much that he was ineffective away from home : he was quite good at it as his record indicates.
However, at home it was ridiculously easy for him to take wickets : he just pretty much had to show up.Some people i've spoken to who've seen Hadlee a lot commented that he was a significantly better bowler away from home and many a time he picked up good figures at home, his performance was quite 'conservative'.

I think it effects your overall performance positively if you got to 'take it easy' on half the matches you played.
Remember one thing : cricket in those days were not played for records. Records were trivia that 'came up' as amusing tid-bit from commentators and there were no public craze or media hype behind records. All this hype about records today no doubt preys on the mind of the players.
This craze started happening in cricket in the mid 90s when the # of matches being played suddenly started to explode (primarily ODI cricket but its cricket nonetheless) and Lara was the most high profile casualty of it. When Sobers broke Bradman's record for top score or when Hanif batted for 11 hours to score 300+ after following on, there was no hype compared to when Lara scored 501* and 375.
Players back then were less concerned with records and it is evident in the way they played. For eg, Viv's vulnerability was early on his innings due to rashness. However, he never abandoned his rash beginnings unless when the team needed him. Often the WI would be left chasing 150 in the 4th innings or be so far ahead from 1st innings that they'd declare with 150 more on the board. All Richards had to do was hang around those matches and record a nice and juicy 55*-60* to boost his average. Same with Hadlee.
A lot of the times he bowled at home, he just had to turn his arms over and grab a 3-fer or 5-fer for next-to-nothing.
Note that i am not holding it against Hadlee specifically either.
I think all great players have their unique advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Goughy]

Obviously Sobers should be on the list but I dont understand the venom with which people attacking those that dont think he was the greatest.

Ill take it upon myself to defend them a little.

It doesnt matter that he bowled 3 types. At the end of the day he was a very average Test bowler. People may have good things to say about him bowling but it doesnt stand comparison to the bowling of the others.

It just depends where you put your emphasis. Botham was an average Test batsman but for a period the greatest pure allrounder in history, Imran had periods when he was brilliant at one or the other, Kapil and Hadlee were bowlers that could bat (Dev more so than Hadlee).

To many (including myself) great bowler/average bat ranks above great bat/average bowler in the allrounder stakes. I can really put my finger on why but it just feels like that way in my mind.

If you place a great deal of emphasis on the bowling ability of an allrounder (as many do) then it is not unfair to doubt Sobers as the #1. Kallis is simliar. In 200 test matches combined, Sobers and Kallis had 0 10 wkt games. Someone like Botham (whos powers wained considerably) had 4 on his own to go with 14 test centuries.

Im not doubting Sobers (or even Kallis) as a quality allrounder, but I dont understand (and never have) why everyone is so keen to bestow the title to Sobers so easily and attack those that disagree

 

[Fiery]

It wasnt so much that he was ineffective away from home : he was quite good at it as his record indicates.
However, at home it was ridiculously easy for him to take wickets : he just pretty much had to show up.Some people i've spoken to who've seen Hadlee a lot commented that he was a significantly better bowler away from home and many a time he picked up good figures at home, his performance was quite 'conservative'.

I think it effects your overall performance positively if you got to 'take it easy' on half the matches you played.
Remember one thing : cricket in those days were not played for records. Records were trivia that 'came up' as amusing tid-bit from commentators and there were no public craze or media hype behind records. All this hype about records today no doubt preys on the mind of the players.
This craze started happening in cricket in the mid 90s when the # of matches being played suddenly started to explode (primarily ODI cricket but its cricket nonetheless) and Lara was the most high profile casualty of it. When Sobers broke Bradman's record for top score or when Hanif batted for 11 hours to score 300+ after following on, there was no hype compared to when Lara scored 501* and 375.
Players back then were less concerned with records and it is evident in the way they played. For eg, Viv's vulnerability was early on his innings due to rashness. However, he never abandoned his rash beginnings unless when the team needed him. Often the WI would be left chasing 150 in the 4th innings or be so far ahead from 1st innings that they'd declare with 150 more on the board. All Richards had to do was hang around those matches and record a nice and juicy 55*-60* to boost his average. Same with Hadlee.
A lot of the times he bowled at home, he just had to turn his arms over and grab a 3-fer or 5-fer for next-to-nothing.

First Sobers bowling was "crap" and now this. Contrary to popular belief, not all test-matches played in NZ are or were on green-tops. Maybe some are due to the climate but that's a broad generalisation. Hadlee did more than roll-his arm over at home. Those sort of comments are a bit insulting and ignorant quite frankly. He was a fine bowler in any conditions and carried New Zealand cricket home and away for over a decade. You are obviously a student of the game so I would have thought you would be able to pay him a bit more credit. Sounds like your "people I've spoken to" are talking through a hole in their *** tbh

 

[vic_orthdox]

To many (including myself) great bowler/average bat ranks above great bat/average bowler in the allrounder stakes. I can really put my finger on why but it just feels like that way in my mind.

Related to the old saying that bowlers win matches, batsman save them? Intimating that bowling all-rounders will "win" you more games than batting all-rounders.

(Admittedly being very generic with "batting" and "bowling" all-rounders)

 

[C_C]

Geez, I've just come from a thread where apparently Sobers bowling was "crap" and now this. Contrary to popular belief, not all test-matches played in NZ are or were on green-tops. Maybe some are due to the climate but that's a broad generalisation. Hadlee did more than roll-his arm over at home. Those sort of comments are a bit insulting and ignorant quite frankly. He was a fine bowler in any conditions and carried New Zealand cricket home and away for over a decade. You are obviously a student of the game so I would have thought you would be able to pay him a bit more credit. I don't know who these "people I've spoken to" but sound like they are talking through a hole in their ***.

I am calling it like it is.
Hadlee was a great bowler, no question about it.
However, he did have his job cut out for him at home and he fairly often sported figures far better than his bowling would indicate.
I dunno why you took offence to the post - actually the notion of ' Kiwis prepared raging greentops at home during 80s in hopes that Hadlee would nuke em' is from Silverfern - a Kiwi website/board of mostly kiwi fans ( rugby figures there too much for my liking ).

This is not criticising Hadlee, this is simply stating it as it was. Viv going nuts while chasing 100 for victory and giving his wicket away is in similar vein.
The point is, they didn't play for records - if they did, Hadlee's figures at home or Viv's figures overall would be significantly better.

 

[Fiery]

The point is, they didn't play for records - if they did, Hadlee's figures at home or Viv's figures overall would be significantly better.

Hadlee's whole career was motivated by records and statistics. He set himself goals, e.g number of wickets he expected throughout each series and throughout his career, and to suggest otherwise is simply ill-informed I'm afraid C_C

 

[andyc]

To many (including myself) great bowler/average bat ranks above great bat/average bowler in the allrounder stakes. I can really put my finger on why but it just feels like that way in my mind.

Because a bowler who can bat is more useful than a batsman who can bowl. The bowler will get plenty more chances to bat than the batsman will get to bowl.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because a bowler who can bat is more useful than a batsman who can bowl. The bowler will get plenty more chances to bat than the batsman will get to bowl.

It depends on the balance of the team though, I guess. Take this into consideration:

1. Batsman
2. Batsman
3. Batsman
4. Batsman
5. Batting Allrounder
6. Batsman
7. Batting Allrounder
8. Wicket Keeper
9. Bowling Allrounder
10. Bowler
11. Bowler

Possibly a bit unlikely as far as team selection goes, but I'm sure I've seen South Africa and New Zealand do similar in tests in the last ten years. The batting allrounders (well, at least one of them) will be getting a lot more opportunity to peform an allround role bowling at second change and batting in the top 7 than bowling allrounder bowling at first change at batting 9.

 

[C_C]

At the end of the day he was a very average Test bowler.

If he was a 'very average bowler', then so is Gillespie or Vettori.
I've already explained why Sobers's bowling record is not indicative of his bowling prowess, since he quite clearly, liked batting more than bowling.
He was the mainstay of the WI batting for a decade along with Kanhai but he wasn't the mainstay of the bowling and as a result he didn't bowl much on friendly conditions.
How do you think Kallis's figures would look if he bowled only 10-overs-an-innings in the last two series on seaming wickets but bowled 30-40 overs in the searing heat of India or an utterly flat Adelaide Oval ?

Botham was an average Test batsman but for a period the greatest pure allrounder in history, Imran had periods when he was brilliant at one or the other, Kapil and Hadlee were bowlers that could bat (Dev more so than Hadlee).

Kapil a bowler who could just bat ?!?
I am sorry but he along with Botham were the best pure allrounder of their generation. Kapil did it for longer without fading away and did it with far less support/favourable than the other three.

To many (including myself) great bowler/average bat ranks above great bat/average bowler in the allrounder stakes. I can really put my finger on why but it just feels like that way in my mind.

True.
But this is not a perfect balance between a great batsman and average bowler and just as equally a great bowler and average batsman.
Sobers was a better batsman than Botham/Imran/etc. were as bowlers.
As i said, Sobers routinely figures in the top 5 batsmen of alltime while of those bowlers, only Hadlee makes it in conistently.
This also pays a massive disservice to the fact that Sobers was also a great fielder at covers, one of the best slip fielder ever and second at leg slip/short leg only to Eknath Solkar.
This is not just a hybridized Lara-Vaas versus a hybridized McGrath-Astle.
This is more like a hybridized Lara-Vaas-Ponting(fielding)-Mark Waugh(catching) vs hybridized McGrath-Astle.

Given the value Sobers brought as a fielder, he'd win over any allrounder easily.

 

[adharcric]

Obviously Sobers should be on the list but I dont understand the venom with which people attacking those that dont think he was the greatest.

Ill take it upon myself to defend them a little.

People are not attacking "those that dont think he was the greatest" but rather those that were clueless enough to leave him out of the options in such a poll.

 

[C_C]

Hadlee's whole late(as in last 3-4 years) career was motivated by records and statistics. He set himself goals, e.g number of wickets he expected throughout each series and throughout his career, and to suggest otherwise is simply ill-informed I'm afraid C_C

I'd agree with the ammended comment (in bold)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You are insulting a good bowler like Ntini(having wickets/match ratio of 4.11) by comparing him with rubbish bowlers like Sobers(having wickets/match ratio of 2.52 only).Sobers is definitely one of the most worst bowlers in history of cricket because evem Mohammad Sami(having wickets/match ratio of 2.56) has a better wickets/match ratio than him.Sober's wkts/match ratio is not lot better than that Ajit Agarkar also.

So,Sobers might be one of your favourite players but don't insult other good bowlers by comparing them with the crap of Sobers.

Bit lacking in comprehension skills? I'm not saying that Sobers was as good a bowler as Ntini. I'm saying that he took, relative to the rest of the world, a similar number of wickets. In the 1960s, Sobers was one of the most prolific bowlers in the world in terms of wicket taking. He was second in his team, and right up there in the world, similar to someone like Ntini. Calling him "a batsman who bowled a bit" is absolutely stupid, because he bowled as much as anyone and took heaps of wickets, he just took them at a higher average than someone like Wes Hall. Jayasuria is a batsman who bowls a bit, Sobers was an all-rounder who was better at batting. There's a major difference.

 

[Prince EWS]

People are not attacking "those that dont think he was the greatest" but rather those that were clueless enough to leave him out of the options in such a poll.

Exactly. I don't have any problem with anyone who doesn't think Sobers was the best allrounder as there are several statistical (and otherwise) arguments to support such. But to leave him off the poll as to suggest that no-one would vote for him or that he shouldn't be considered for such is ludicrous.

 

[Fiery]

I'd agree with the ammended comment (in bold)

You need to read Hadlee's book "At The Double" which explains how he meticulously planned for and achieved, by setting goals, the double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets in county cricket in 1984, 6-7 years before his retirement.

Oh and please don't edit my quotes like that. Something slightly unethical about that

 

[C_C]

Something slightly unethical about that

What ?!
I *informed* you, albeit, indirectly, that i'd ammended your quote and it was in bold !

How exactly is it unethical when i am broadcasting the act of modifying your quote with no intention of misrepresenting you ?!?

Anyways, i apologise.


PS: Yes, latter part of his career. Six years is near the end for a nearly 20 year old career, wouldn't you say ?!? Besides, that even isn't my contention. I don't have a problem with the fact that he might've set himself cricketing targets since he was a toddler. I was alluding more to the concept of he was not into 'looting as many wickets as i can since the conditions are so so good that i can literally take a 7-20 every other innings' mentality.
Anyways, i don't intend to get into this debate- its detracting from the original debate.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm not sure which is funnier, the notion that Sobers isn't a good enough bowler to be considered an all-rounder or that Richard Hadlee is a good enough batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

Obviously Sobers should be on the list but I dont understand the venom with which people attacking those that dont think he was the greatest.

Ill take it upon myself to defend them a little.

It doesnt matter that he bowled 3 types. At the end of the day he was a very average Test bowler. People may have good things to say about him bowling but it doesnt stand comparison to the bowling of the others.

It just depends where you put your emphasis. Botham was an average Test batsman but for a period the greatest pure allrounder in history, Imran had periods when he was brilliant at one or the other, Kapil and Hadlee were bowlers that could bat (Dev more so than Hadlee).

To many (including myself) great bowler/average bat ranks above great bat/average bowler in the allrounder stakes. I can really put my finger on why but it just feels like that way in my mind.

If you place a great deal of emphasis on the bowling ability of an allrounder (as many do) then it is not unfair to doubt Sobers as the #1. Kallis is simliar. In 200 test matches combined, Sobers and Kallis had 0 10 wkt games. Someone like Botham (whos powers wained considerably) had 4 on his own to go with 14 test centuries.

Im not doubting Sobers (or even Kallis) as a quality allrounder, but I dont understand (and never have) why everyone is so keen to bestow the title to Sobers so easily and attack those that disagree

So many players of his generation have sworn by the fact that he was a more than mediocre bowler. He was a very good bowler who was also an all time great batsman. I guess, as CC pointed out, he just did the tougher job. Like, on seaming tracks, for the sake of the balance of the side, he would pack the side with seamers and take it upon himself to provide the spin option and on a turner, he would pick spinners in the side and take it upon himself to bowl seam up. His figures are bad simply because he gave himself the worst chance of picking up wickets so that his side will always have the most balanced bowling line up possible on that particular pitch. Sorry, we got blokes like Imran himself saying Sobers was the best, and we, a bunch of guys who haven't even watched him to be suggesting otherwise, doesn't seem too right to me.

 

[archie mac]

Four pages in and no mention of Keith Miller