Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Ikki]

We are forgetting an important piece of 'sports psychology' here - that is, to consistently perform well in a side that rarely wins is a difficult thing to do!

In other words, it takes a special kind of disciplined mind like Hadlee's not to lose morale, and always succeed on the field against the odds. This mental discipline does add extra weight to his performances IMO.

It goes the other way too: having to keep high standards in a team, where you might be replaced if you have a few off series, is also psychologically draining. Or, worse, that even if you play a blinder you will still attract criticism for not winning (this being if you are in a good team). The standards are higher than merely performing well yourself.

Whereas if you are in a weak side you can bowl in the knowledge that your place is rarely, if ever, going to be under threat and that as long as you bowl well then regardless of the team result you aren't going to be blamed.

Just saying, most of the minuses for bowling by yourself tend to have equal positives.

However, there is one thing that as far as I know there is no converse to if you are in a good side. While lone-wolf bowlers will pick up better/more hauls due to their lack of competition, they will also bare the brunt of a bad performance more than bowlers in good sides. Conversely, while a great bowler in a good side may have to share his wickets around in good performances; he won't be continuously bowled if he is having an off day.

The difference is, though, that we are talking about all-time great bowlers. Their off-days are far fewer than their good days. This means that a great bowler in a bad side will get to take advantage of far more good days than a great bowler in a good side. This is why IMO those bowlers in lone-wolf situations actually end up with better records.

 

[Ikki]

Hadlee, like Murali were great top tier bowlers, but as the only stanouts for their teams, the home pitches were made for them and even though Hadlee proformed better away from home than Murali, when the pitches didn't suit him he was much less effective and he wasn't as versatile or adaptive as Marshall, Lillee or even Ambrose and thats why he isn't mentioned as the best bowler ever.

I think that is a point of critique and introduces a good discussion about their bowling... but lets not be disingenuous here...both Hadlee and Murali are regularly mentioned in the "best bowler ever" discussion. They are great bowlers despite their limitations.

I just don't think they should be getting any extra points for bowling by themselves, and if anything it could perhaps go the other way. In guys like Chatfield and Vaas they had good foils: they'd keep it tight and keep the pressure but weren't big wicket-takers themselves.

 

[the big bambino]

Waqar never toured Australia at his prime
Wasim has good record in Australia
Imran has excellent record in Australia if you don't consider his performance in 1976(before transforming into a deadly fast bowler) & 1990(well past his prime).In 1983-1984, when he was at peak he had 2 play 2 matches in Australia as specialist batsman due to injury.

fmd bhupinder; he played Oz from 1990-2002. A period of time where he averaged 23.56 in tests. Just when was he meant to have been "past it" in that time frame?

Btw in the same year he 1st toured Australia he picked up 5 michelles in 6 home tests against NZ and WI.

 

[smash84]

Never said they weren't flat. What I am saying is if he was so sucessfull on those flat pitches, why was he so less effective away from home in more helpfull conditions? 19 -25 is a big difference, was just wondering.

You make it sound like an average of 25 is bad?

 

[kyear2]

I think that is a point of critique and introduces a good discussion about their bowling... but lets not be disingenuous here...both Hadlee and Murali are regularly mentioned in the "best bowler ever" discussion. They are great bowlers despite their limitations.

I just don't think they should be getting any extra points for bowling by themselves, and if anything it could perhaps go the other way. In guys like Chatfield and Vaas they had good foils: they'd keep it tight and keep the pressure but weren't big wicket-takers themselves.

Never said Murali, but never heard any historian, peer or analyst say that Hadlee is the greatest fast bolwer ever. But I did say that he is a top tier ATG bowler.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

AWTA, bowling on a weak team may not be great for winning a lot of games, but it greatly benefits them statistically with little competition for wickets especially the tail. Hadlee, like Murali were great top tier bowlers, but as the only stanouts for their teams, the home pitches were made for them and even though Hadlee proformed better away from home than Murali, when the pitches didn't suit him he was much less effective and he wasn't as versatile or adaptive as Marshall, Lillee or even Ambrose and thats why he isn't mentioned as the best bowler ever.

As a batsman he is a bit over rated and even he didn't see himself as an All Rounder like Imram, Botham and Dev, but a bowler who could bat a bit, talent wise him and Marshall were just about equal, He just applied himslef more as it was required more often and quite frankly 2 hundreds in 86 games doesn't make one an all rounder.

I don't completely agree with the fact that the stand out player from a weak team "greatly" benefits from the fact that there is no support on the other end. It's the same argument on the contrary. It's not easy to do the job alone when it comes to picking up wicket. There is too much burden and pressure on one's shoulder to deliver everytime he enters a cricket field. Hadlee has a champion record away from home too. His average is even better away from home and also has a better strike rate than home. So the notion of not adapting away from home is not true I think. Also it should be noted that, I don't think he is the greatest all rounder ever or I'm presenting the case for his all round ability. It's just the overall result he produced with his performance is outstanding and stands out on its own.

 

[smash84]

Never said Murali, but never heard any historian, peer or analyst say that Hadlee is the greatest fast bolwer ever. But I did say that he is a top tier ATG bowler.

He probably doesn't get the kudos he deserved because he wasn't quite as flashy and glamorous as say Lillee. The same way McGrath is often overlooked by most analysts

 

[akilana]

Murali and Hadlee had it tougher. I have no doubt inmy mind Marshall's overall record will look little worse if he replaced Hadlee in NZ team. The great advantage in being in a good team is that, it almost always makes eough runs for you to take 20 wickets. One of the other advantage is that there's always pressure on the opposition and they will crumble by themselves. I mean big totals puts scoreboard pressure on the opposition. Having some great bowlers bowl with you give you the confidence to continue in the attacking mode without any worry, knowing that if you can't take out a batsman then the other bowler will. Unlike what some said, bowlers never compete, they complement each other. There are 20 wickets to take on every match with 4 bowlers to take them all. Lol competition. The reason why making runs against Australia was tougher than SL's is because you can get past a great bowler but it's tougher to get past two great bowlers. If Murali had an Ambrose like bowler bowling with him, his record will look much better. If someone who's adept at playing spin got going, Ambrose will take him out and will make Murali's job easier.
Murali's record is bad in India but if there was another bowler that takes wickets, then Murali would't have to bowl lot of overs at set batsmen and allow his record to get worse. If someone like Mcgrath comes and destroys the top order then Murali only has to bowl at lesser batsmen that are under pressure to score runs.

 

[akilana]

Lol at Vaas being nentioned as someone who'd make the opposition worry.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Never said Murali, but never heard any historian, peer or analyst say that Hadlee is the greatest fast bolwer ever. But I did say that he is a top tier ATG bowler.

Two examples :-

he is in my mind still the greatest player the game has ever seen. - James Mortimer

Overall on pure statistical performance analysis, Richard Hadlee is the best pace bowler of the modern era. - Ananth Narayan

 

[Ikki]

Murali and Hadlee had it tougher. I have no doubt inmy mind Marshall's overall record will look little worse if he replaced Hadlee in NZ team. The great advantage in being in a good team is that, it almost always makes eough runs for you to take 20 wickets. One of the other advantage is that there's always pressure on the opposition and they will crumble by themselves. I mean big totals puts scoreboard pressure on the opposition. Having some great bowlers bowl with you give you the confidence to continue in the attacking mode without any worry, knowing that if you can't take out a batsman then the other bowler will. Unlike what some said, bowlers never compete, they complement each other. There are 20 wickets to take on every match with 4 bowlers to take them all. ....

Hadlee took 10+ wickets in a match only 9 times in his career. The idea that that not having 20 wickets to aim for hindered him is kind of spurious. The lacking another innings to bowl point is legitimate, but it only goes so far. Marshall, for instance, was only 5% more likely to see a second innings than Hadlee was. Hadlee bowls more per match than Marshall to boot.

If Murali had an Ambrose bowler he'd have taken less wickets and he'd probably have a worse record as a result.

And yes, bowlers do compete with each of wickets as there is only a finite number of wickets to take. One bowler taking a wicket means a wicket less any other bowler can take.

Lol at Vaas being nentioned as someone who'd make the opposition worry.

The irony is I said completely the opposite. I said he kept it tight and was a very economical bowler who didn't take wickets. This meant that pressure could be built while Murali would take more wickets. Similar to the Chatfield-Hadlee dimension.

I recall when an interviewer asked Hadlee he himself said that if you bowl long enough at the right spots you'll get wickets.

 

[marc71178]

Hadlee took 10+ wickets in a match only 9 times in his career.

Geez, only 9 times - that's terrible when you consider only 2 players have done it more often.

You're so full of ****e and numbers that it's almost parodying yourself now.

 

[Spikey]

cant believe PEWS shot Kallis in the back and voted for WG Grace

 

[akilana]

cant believe PEWS shot Kallis in the back and voted for WG Grace

That's a disgrace

 

[Satyanash89]

Hadlee took 10+ wickets in a match only 9 times in his career.

While I sort of get what you're trying to say about Hadlee and Murali benefitting slightly due to lack of competition for wickets, this was just hilarious

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

To bowl at the right spot consistently for longer period of time takes a lot of special skill esp for a fast bowler when body can easily break down. Hadlee might have got more opportunities to bowl at opposition but still you got to put the ball in the right place continuously for which he must get credit if anything

 

[Plumbinfront]

Says the poster trying to write-off 13 years worth of poor bowling in this very thread.

More rubbish. I never tried to write off anything. I only pointed out your double standards, bias and irrelevance of the meaningless stats you posted.

 

[H4G]

Never said they weren't flat. What I am saying is if he was so sucessfull on those flat pitches, why was he so less effective away from home in more helpfull conditions? 19 -25 is a big difference, was just wondering.

25 is still an ATG average,stop bashing alltime greats without any reason.

 

[H4G]

The point is their records were much better at home than away, regardless of how you deem their Australia record.

Wasim has almost same record home & away, while the record of others despite being better away from home still falls into the category of ATG,for example Imran's away average of 25.Same stands true for Waqar

 

[Satyanash89]

What I am saying is if he was so sucessfull on those flat pitches, why was he so less effective away from home in more helpfull conditions? 19 -25 is a big difference, was just wondering.

25 is still a superb average anyway, so the difference doesn't really matter at all. The problem with such stats is that, ironically, you might have rated Imran higher if he had performed slightly worse at home. Say he averaged 22 at home and 25 away.. a difference of 3 is hardly worth pointing out. The fact that he did so brilliantly at home somehow seems to work against him

If his home average was say 18-19, and away he averaged 30+, you would have a point. Here, it's just irrelevant because he was obviously very good away as well. The fact that he was absolutely godlike in home conditions isn't a negative