• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

All-Time World XIs: Discussion Thread

kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
sayon basak said:
Then why was Hadlee not rated highly? We can't just look at these ratings and then just take them as Gospel without investigating the reason.

And it's stupid to pick Willis over Hadlee. Viv was stupid to pick Willis over Hadlee.
Click to expand...
I'll have to look for the video, but think those were just the first two names he called. He also referenced he was lucky only to have to face Wasim at the tail end of his career.
But it was clear than he, and Gower, and Crowe, and Boycott, and Gooch, and practically everyone from the era rated Marshall and Lillee above him. Gooch and Crowe also rated Wasim ahead and Gower, Roberts.

And yes, all of you are free to say they (the players) are all wrong and you are right, but when it's overwhelming, it comes across as a bit ridiculous. Again, it's not the media, it's the players.

With regards to why he seemingly wasn't rated quite as highly as CW places him, I seen a few reasons listed, but also through recent analytics done here, seen some others.

In particular there's 3 players, possibly 4, but 3 top end players that we seem to rate a bit higher that they were during or even after their careers. Hadlee, Sutcliffe and Barrington. But statguru, so.....
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member

Ian Botham vs Fred Trueman

I have Ambrose in the same tier as well. Maybe higher than almost all of them but same tier. 400 wickets @ below 21, match winner and brilliant vs the best team of era, was never taken apart by anyone, and most importantly, was the best bowler in the world for half a decade. No one in that...
www.cricketweb.net

Also this.

It includes Don Bradman, Garry Sobers, Malcolm Marshall and Sunil Gavaskar, all rating Hadlee as amongst the very best if not the best they have seen/played against.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
sayon basak said:
Peer rating absolutism is as bad as check listing, if not worse.
Click to expand...
Who ever said it was absolute.

I certainly have never said it was, but it has to be a consideration as well, and not an insignificant one.

If a player has either the numbers or the peer ratings, but lacking the other, there's definitely something worth looking at there.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In 2002, Wisden Cricinfo rated Hadlee the no 2 bowler upto that stage.

1. Murali
2. Hadlee
3. Barnes
4. Warne
5. Grimmett
6. McGrath
7. Lillee
8. Marshall
9. Imran
10. Walsh
11. O'Reilly
12. Ambrose
13. Donald
14. Kumble
15. Wasim
16. Trueman
17. Waqar
18. Botham
19. Garner
20. S Pollock
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Coach
Thala_0710 said:
At what point do Spofforth and Lohmann start getting votes
Click to expand...
capt_Luffy said:
Sayon voting for Spoforth for a while now. Next is Waqar, Rabada and Walsh, then Anderson, Roberts and think will go with Dev and Procter. So Spoforth the first name on the next team.
Click to expand...
Real answer: If there are only 8 teams as Luffy said, they are not gonna get voted in. There isn't just enough space. I voted him not because he was the best bowler available, but to make the votes more varied so that Luffy has a hard time counting them.
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Captain
sayon basak said:
Real answer: If there are only 8 teams as Luffy said, they are not gonna get voted in. There isn't just enough space. I voted him not because he was the best bowler available, but to make the votes more varied so that Luffy has a hard time counting them.
Click to expand...
There's going to be more than 8
 
S

Swamp Witch Hattie

U19 12th Man
kyear2 said:
Again it wasn't just pundits who slighted Hadlee because he played for NZ, former players who played against Hadlee just didn't rate him that highly. Even Viv named Marshall and Lillee and when pressed for another name from whom he played against went for (from memory) Willis.
Click to expand...
Viv was biased in favour of bowlers with a double L in their names and resented Hadlee for having practically stolen his last name.

It's not Richard Hadlee who should be questioned here, it's Viv Richards. He barely averaged (batting) 50 in Test cricket (50.23) and needed 20 runs in his last innings to prevent his average from dipping under 50. He averaged just 42.85 over his last 10 years 4 months (his last 78 Test matches, from #44 to #121; by comparison, Hadlee averaged (bowling) 20.11 over his last 12 years 5 months (20.92 against top-tier opposition)). Richards was significantly outscored, out-averaged and out-centuried by three of his own teammates in all-important shared Test wins with them. He managed just two POTS awards spanning a year cf. eight apiece spanning 7 1/2 and 9 1/2 years for Imran and Hadlee respectively. And he scored just 24 centuries in 121 Tests which is a lower rate than non-ATG Crowe's 17 in 77 Tests. IMO, by objective measures, his Test record falls well short of that required for a top-tier ATG, and is certainly inferior to Hadlee's (here and here), and no amount of peer review to the contrary is going to change that. I'm sure it's possible by cherry-picking to lift up Richards and pull down Hadlee but looking at their overall records, it's clear that Hadlee is a level above Richards in Test cricket.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Swamp Witch Hattie said:
Viv was biased in favour of bowlers with a double L in their names and resented Hadlee for having practically stolen his last name.

It's not Richard Hadlee who should be questioned here, it's Viv Richards. He barely averaged (batting) 50 in Test cricket (50.23) and needed 20 runs in his last innings to prevent his average from dipping under 50. He averaged just 42.85 over his last 10 years 4 months (his last 78 Test matches, from #44 to #121; by comparison, Hadlee averaged (bowling) 20.11 over his last 12 years 5 months (20.92 against top-tier opposition)). Richards was significantly outscored, out-averaged and out-centuried by three of his own teammates in all-important shared Test wins with them. He managed just two POTS awards spanning a year cf. eight apiece spanning 7 1/2 and 9 1/2 years for Imran and Hadlee respectively. And he scored just 24 centuries in 121 Tests which is a lower rate than non-ATG Crowe's 17 in 77 Tests. IMO, by objective measures, his Test record falls well short of that required for a top-tier ATG, and is certainly inferior to Hadlee's (here and here), and no amount of peer review to the contrary is going to change that. I'm sure it's possible by cherry-picking to lift up Richards and pull down Hadlee but looking at their overall records, it's clear that Hadlee is a level above Richards in Test cricket.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Since Viv erroneously rated himself very highly, I take zero stock of his opinion on Hadlee.

:ph34r:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top