CW50 2nd Edition - No 09

[smash84]

Boycott hasn't said he was the best bowler here - but he has said he was the best on one dimension of bowling and what a dimension to be rated the best in. The knocks on Hadlee was his aggresson level. And I suspect that Boycott had this in mind and this stopped him from giving him an unqualified nod of approval. One of the Chappel brothers commented that if it was a deck with low bounce hadlee wouldn't dare bowl a bouncer while Imran while nearly kill himself trying to extract bounce for his bumpers. Likewise when I WATCHED him which I am beginning to suspect you may not have (have you watched him live?) - he could have retorted with more bouncers after being thumped if he had a bit more pace especially in the twilight of his career.

I agree that he is an ATG - and I rated him only on his bowling if that relieves some of your frustration. He is a great mainly due to his bowling and his batting is just a handy bonus.

For those who saw him live you got to watch someone who could swing and seam the ball (on a helpful pitch) both ways at will deliberately. Which is a dead odds with someone like Ishant Sharma who relies on the ball randomly hit the seam and getting a surprise when it moves.

ugh........you shouldn't have used him in comparison with Hadlee .....

 

[kyear2]

Hurricane basically hit on my two main drawbacks, one is that some say that he was one dimensional and two if he was faced with an un helpful pitch he didnt seem to have a plan B, but on a helpful wicket he was a handful and in that regard I rate him and Murali similarly. I have watched him, though not in person and do rate him a great bolwer (he was in my top 25, think at 24), but some of the others did what he did at a greater pace and had more aggression and versatility.
As hurricane also said, his batting was a bonus, but an extra 10 runs an innings wouldn't make me pick hime over some one I consider to be a better bowler, so not punishing him for his batting (as has been suggested), but dont think it was that good, unlike Imran's, to be a factor.

 

[smash84]

Hurricane basically hit on my two main drawbacks, one is that some say that he was one dimensional and two if he was faced with an un helpful pitch he didnt seem to have a plan B, but on a helpful wicket he was a handful and in that regard I rate him and Murali similarly. I have watched him, though not in person and do rate him a great bolwer (he was in my top 25, think at 24), but some of the others did what he did at a greater pace and had more aggression and versatility.
As hurricane also said, his batting was a bonus, but an extra 10 runs an innings wouldn't make me pick hime over some one I consider to be a better bowler, so not punishing him for his batting (as has been suggested), but dont think it was that good, unlike Imran's, to be a factor.

So you are from the Ian Chappell school of thought?

"Lillee could do everything that McGrath could, and he could do it 10 miles quicker"

 

[silentstriker]

But did he?

 

[smash84]

But did he?

pose this question to Ian Chappell

 

[Burgey]

Lillee and McGrath were two very different bowlers.

 

[Prince EWS]

So you are from the Ian Chappell school of thought?

"Lillee could do everything that McGrath could, and he could do it 10 miles quicker"

If true, all it means is that Lillee should've slowed himself down, as whatever McGrath was doing was more effective.

Obviously it isn't true though.

 

[Hurricane]

but some of the others did what he did at a greater pace and had more aggression and versatility.
.

Agreed on the aggression. And as for his pace yes and no.

Although that youtube clip we have all seen World Cricket Records - First Speed Test Competition In History - YouTube

shows Hadlee finishing I think last...I think however to the batsman he bowled to he was perceived as being quick enough.

I form this view mainly on a comment Larry Gomes made to me in person
Me: "How fast was Hadlee"
Larry Gomes: "He was fast, Lillee fast, Willis just fast. At that speed they are just fast."

(Gomes agreed to play some games for my club side while he did some coaching at one stage).

 

[Burgey]

If true, all it means is that Lillee should've slowed himself down, as whatever McGrath was doing was more effective.

Obviously it isn't true though.

Lillee did slow himself down. But after ian Chappell finished up for the most part.