Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
Scyld Berry's list is utter garbage and ranks #1 of the 30 worst lists of all time. It's obvious he has some sort of problem with Hadlee. Here's what he says about him:
Compare the above with what he says about the other 29 bowlers:
(this link is for those who don't have a Telegraph subscription; thanks @IcarianStyles)
For EVERY SINGLE ONE of the other 29 bowlers, he either says something about the balls they bowl (yorker, inswinger, speed, etc.) and/or mentions some important Test (or ODI) performance or performances of theirs. For Hadlee, he does NEITHER of these things which is just ridiculous as Hadlee was quite a versatile bowler with goodness knows how many significant Test performances, some of them legendary.
Also, examine the language he uses in connection with Hadlee:
"Arguably the most efficient of all fast-medium bowlers on a pitch which offered something."
"Not having a partner of anything like equal calibre was a hindrance and an advantage in that the biggest slice of pie was always going to be his."
Regarding the first comment (which was a backhanded compliment), did Hadlee occasionally struggle on dead pitches? Yes, but most if not all bowlers sometimes do. Hadlee was an excellent all-wickets bowler who could take wickets on any type of surface.
Regarding the second comment, yes, he mentions "hindrance" but the bulk of the sentence and specifically, the ending is taking away from the bowler. As a writer, Scyld Berry would know what sort of impression that would leave in the minds of the readers. Hadlee being a lone wolf pacer for NZ for something like FOURTEEN years while bowling at a very high level of quality is a great achievement which I doubt could have been duplicated by many (if any) of the other 29 bowlers on the list, and for Scyld Berry to try to downplay that with a clearly negative connotation is pretty low stuff. That there is some truth to the "pie aspect" of the second comment doesn't change the fact that it's nasty writing.
Both comments involve giving but then taking away at the ends of the sentences.
I also wonder whether this writer deliberately put Hadlee at 16th, i.e. one position below halfway, because he did the same thing back in 2017 with his list of the top 40 cricketers of the previous 40 years:
(thanks, @BazBall21!)
This 2017 list has Hadlee at 21, again, one position below halfway. Coincidence? IMO Hadlee fully deserves to be in the GOAT bowler conversation, based on his results at Test level.
Compare the above with what he says about the other 29 bowlers:
(this link is for those who don't have a Telegraph subscription; thanks @IcarianStyles)
For EVERY SINGLE ONE of the other 29 bowlers, he either says something about the balls they bowl (yorker, inswinger, speed, etc.) and/or mentions some important Test (or ODI) performance or performances of theirs. For Hadlee, he does NEITHER of these things which is just ridiculous as Hadlee was quite a versatile bowler with goodness knows how many significant Test performances, some of them legendary.
Also, examine the language he uses in connection with Hadlee:
"Arguably the most efficient of all fast-medium bowlers on a pitch which offered something."
"Not having a partner of anything like equal calibre was a hindrance and an advantage in that the biggest slice of pie was always going to be his."
Regarding the first comment (which was a backhanded compliment), did Hadlee occasionally struggle on dead pitches? Yes, but most if not all bowlers sometimes do. Hadlee was an excellent all-wickets bowler who could take wickets on any type of surface.
Regarding the second comment, yes, he mentions "hindrance" but the bulk of the sentence and specifically, the ending is taking away from the bowler. As a writer, Scyld Berry would know what sort of impression that would leave in the minds of the readers. Hadlee being a lone wolf pacer for NZ for something like FOURTEEN years while bowling at a very high level of quality is a great achievement which I doubt could have been duplicated by many (if any) of the other 29 bowlers on the list, and for Scyld Berry to try to downplay that with a clearly negative connotation is pretty low stuff. That there is some truth to the "pie aspect" of the second comment doesn't change the fact that it's nasty writing.
Both comments involve giving but then taking away at the ends of the sentences.
I also wonder whether this writer deliberately put Hadlee at 16th, i.e. one position below halfway, because he did the same thing back in 2017 with his list of the top 40 cricketers of the previous 40 years:
(thanks, @BazBall21!)
This 2017 list has Hadlee at 21, again, one position below halfway. Coincidence? IMO Hadlee fully deserves to be in the GOAT bowler conversation, based on his results at Test level.
