Johan
Hall of Fame Member
Is this a subtle way of supporting the Kiwis while also subtly and cruelly reminding them of 14 July 2019?
-
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.
Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
DrWolverine
International Captain
Hadlee had ATG series in NewZealand, Australia, England, India and SriLanka.
He played just one series in WestIndies and had a decent outing there - 15 wkts in 4 Tests.
It is fair to say he was more proven than Ambrose in more conditions and doing it with very little support makes him greater in my opinion.
He played just one series in WestIndies and had a decent outing there - 15 wkts in 4 Tests.
It is fair to say he was more proven than Ambrose in more conditions and doing it with very little support makes him greater in my opinion.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hadlee was a much more skilled bowler than Ambrose in terms of tools and nous.
As destructive in his day.
More accomplished across conditions.
Can match Ambrose's ATG record in Australia.
More of a consistent wickettaker throughout his career.
Hadlee is clearly a better bowler.
As destructive in his day.
More accomplished across conditions.
Can match Ambrose's ATG record in Australia.
More of a consistent wickettaker throughout his career.
Hadlee is clearly a better bowler.
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
Two different levels brother. Though Hadlee yes is greater overall as a bowler.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah. Hadlees might be a bit better actually.
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
How:
Taylor, Slater Waugh brothers, Boon. That's who Ambrose faced in 1995. Thats just one sample and he generally faced nothing weaker. Hadlee faced good lineups in the 70s but he was younger and didn't do that well. Most of his fame was made in the 80s vs attacks you yourself have called middling.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
I've switched up on this.
Ambrose is more "quality", in the sense that if you had an attack of 4 Ambroses they would be able to force a minimal total against any batsmen out of sheer frustration (not to mention fear) of nothing to hit and finding themselves skittled out for little.
But for an actual more realistic situation where you need a man to lead your attack and carry the load himself Hadlee was legendary. His stamina was incredible, and for that impact match after match (and being able to maintain incisiveness for a longer portion of his career) I'd have to give it to Hadlee.
Ambrose is more "quality", in the sense that if you had an attack of 4 Ambroses they would be able to force a minimal total against any batsmen out of sheer frustration (not to mention fear) of nothing to hit and finding themselves skittled out for little.
But for an actual more realistic situation where you need a man to lead your attack and carry the load himself Hadlee was legendary. His stamina was incredible, and for that impact match after match (and being able to maintain incisiveness for a longer portion of his career) I'd have to give it to Hadlee.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
4 Hadlees will bowl them out quicker and for less.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I am talking in Australia.
Hadlee had a poor early career series, a great one in early 80s against a good Aus lineups, probably the greatest series ever in mid 80s and another great series in late 80s against a reasonably good lineup.
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
Quicker probably but how less? Ambrose averages less than Hadlee. And even when Ambrose wasn't as penetrative, he was always hard to score against.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
Do you know how averages work? A while back you were trying to contest the tautology that rate of runs allowed and strike rate combine to create average.
Now you're telling me that a bowling attack composed of lower average bowlers will allow more runs than the attack composed of the higher average players. Like, bruh.
Swamp Witch Hattie
U19 12th Man
4 Hadlees bowling together is not the same as 4 x 1 Hadlee bowling with Chatfield, etc. Each cloned Hadlee would have a smaller workload than the flogged-to-death singleton Hadlee and so each cloned Hadlee would probably have a better average and SR than the singleton Hadlee. Each cloned Ambrose would also get a boost but not as much as the cloned Hadlee because the singleton Ambrose was not thrashed as badly as the singleton Hadlee.
The 4 Ambroses would do better though if the 4 Hadlees were Richard, Dayle, Barry and Walter!
The 4 Ambroses would do better though if the 4 Hadlees were Richard, Dayle, Barry and Walter!
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sure if we assume 4 Ambrose's then yeah it would be a cheaper score.
But keep in mind in reality bats used to play out Ambrose often to attack the other end.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
Where they would find another Ambrose, in our hypothetical.
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
They won't be doing that vs 4 Ambrose's. Somethings got to give.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sure. But I am saying Ambrose in his career benefitted because bats felt they didn't need to attack him.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's very close in Aus. Hadlee has arguably the greatest series ever there, a better average and SR. I think I prefer him.
Ambrose also was somewhat weaker at home than Hadlee.
But overall Hadlee was simply a more penetrative bowler and for much longer in his career.
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
They couldn't attack him. Even in ODIs he had an outstanding economy rate.