Serani Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 He took 31 wickets at 22 in six Tests in India. Yes but 6 tests is not most of his career. NZ practically tailored there tracks for Hadlee because they knew that was the only way they could be competitive.
Lurker Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Yes but 6 tests is not most of his career. NZ practically tailored there tracks for Hadlee because they knew that was the only way they could be competitive. Dude, he has better record away from NZ than at home. Do check it out.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Yeah, it's a bit like the 'Akram bowled on flat tracks' argument.
Serani Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Dude' date=' he has better record away from NZ than at home. Do check it out.[/quote'] Yes I know his record is exceptional, I just think he relied on conditions more than his counterparts at the time.
The Outsider Posted June 30, 2011 Author Posted June 30, 2011 I know that and it is evident from my reply in that thread : "because there is no connection between how fast you can run and how fast you can bowl". Back to square one : Why did you bring in Lindwalls athleticism when there is no proven connection that being athletic will make you a fast bowler? Again, you are missing the point - I am not saying there is no connection between bowling fast and athleticism, either. Athleticism can enhance a bowlers' ability to bowl fast - look at some of wonderful fast bowlers of recent times, Imran, Steyn, Holding. So if I see people with jhadoos fitness like Munaf and Nehra bowling 85 mph, why can't a supremely fit guy like Lindwall bowl 90 mph? Hope you got my point this time.
The Outsider Posted June 30, 2011 Author Posted June 30, 2011 Yes but 6 tests is not most of his career. NZ practically tailored there tracks for Hadlee because they knew that was the only way they could be competitive. Naah...you got it wrong. They coerced other boards, with all the financial and political might that NZ had and still do, to tailor tracks for Hadlee when he played away series. That's why he ended up with a better away record.
Cricket Tragic Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 That is like saying a batsman isn't very good even though he scored runs in tough conditions because he also scored runs on flat tracks.
The Outsider Posted June 30, 2011 Author Posted June 30, 2011 Because I have seen supremely fit guys who cant bowl much higher than 80 MPH. For me to take the Athleticism factor seriously there needs to be a strong co-relation. There is none here. ( and this I said in that thread as well ). Fast bowling is a complicated art. Of course, there are many factors in bowling fast - tell me whenever have I denied it? So let's see what have we got here in favor of Lindwall bowling fast (~90 mph) : 1. Each and every observer labeling him as a genuine quick. 2. Each and every batsman who faced him labeling him as a genuine quick. 3. Sobers' testimony that he was as quick as Lillee having faced both (hope you agree that Lillee was a genuine quick). 4. He was a supremely fit athlete. 5. He had a very smooth run up and bowling action. Now, can you tell me what we have against his bowling fast - if you are going to cite video evidence then can you explain your methodology to calculate the speed based on the video and if possible share the software you used to download and analyze it at the millisecond level - even then it would be impossible to have baseline without knowing the actual frame rate and video speed of the footage.
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 We dont? Thats news to me. Hadlee is always one of the first names for worlds greatest fast bowlers list didn't found his name in the thread related to best fast bowler made by RoRo.
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Don't know about you' date=' but lots and lots of people talk about him as one of the greatest fast bowler ever. Being from NZ, perhaps did not help get him the hype but most avid cricket fans would agree that there really isn't much to choose between him and the 4 you mentioned. Personally, I would rate him ahead of Ambrose and Donald.[/quote'] I asked from you.... I only saw him in repeat telecast of world championship..
ravishingravi Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 7rybPvBa3Oc&feature=related seems harmless to me. At 75-80 mph really pretty pathetic.
ravishingravi Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 w-f5pfBgpNE&feature=related How quick was this
The Outsider Posted June 30, 2011 Author Posted June 30, 2011 I asked from you.... I only saw him in repeat telecast of world championship.. I don't think I was antagonistic - if I was, then apologies. Hadlee became one of the smartest bowlers you would ever see after 1980 or so - a bit like Steyn is today. He knew when to go flat out, when to cut back on speed, when to concentrate on swing, when to concentrate on seam and cut. His bowling during the '87 series in India was exemplary. There was all this hype about India is going to beat NZ comfortably on turning tracks, but the manner in which Hadlee used cutters during that series was on par with how Gillespie and McGrath used the technique in 2004. He could really crank it up on dead wickets if needed - in the very next test after the 10 wicket haul at Bombay he bowled quick on a dead wicket.
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 7rybPvBa3Oc&feature=related seems harmless to me. At 75-80 mph really pretty pathetic. I found English pacer Harold larwood very quick with this slingy kind of action, did u watch his bowling of body line series that looked quick
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I don't think I was antagonistic - if I was, then apologies. Hadlee became one of the smartest bowlers you would ever see after 1980 or so - a bit like Steyn is today. He knew when to go flat out, when to cut back on speed, when to concentrate on swing, when to concentrate on seam and cut. His bowling during the '87 series in India was exemplary. There was all this hype about India is going to beat NZ comfortably on turning tracks, but the manner in which Hadlee used cutters during that series was on par with how Gillespie and McGrath used the technique in 2004. He could really crank it up on dead wickets if needed - in the very next test after the 10 wicket haul at Bombay he bowled quick on a dead wicket. Ok...thanks
Lurker Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 didn't found his name in the thread related to best fast bowler made by RoRo. Well what can I say about that. RoRo is my hero so I can not possibly go against him. He single handedly dismantled two of greatest bats of 80s, Richards and Sunny, with stats so.....
Lurker Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Because I have seen supremely fit guys who cant bowl much higher than 80 MPH. For me to take the Athleticism factor seriously there needs to be a strong co-relation. There is none here. ( and this I said in that thread as well ). Oh that part is easily explainable. You are an intellactually dishonest person who enjoys sadistic pleasures online by spending hours spitting ad-nauseum. If it was not the case you would be smart enough to realize a LOT of fast bowlers over the years have been supreme athlete. Jeff Thomson, arguably fastest ever, was a great athlete who played quite a few other sports. Michael Holding, argued by many to be the fastest ever, competed in 400m. Many of the greats, Kapil Dev (although not fastest) were athletes that would run for hours. Same with Imran Khan. You can keep adding to the list. Does that mean athletism alone would make a fast bowler? Obviously not. Does that mean being athletic helps? You bet your rear end. Fast bowling is a complicated art. Everything is a complicated art dude. You think batting is easy?? Some of the greatest batsmen have been short blokes, Gavaskar, SRT, Bradman etc. Do you think that means every short batsman - Arun Lal, Ashok Malhotra, Ajay Sharma - should be great bats or what?? xxx
The Outsider Posted June 30, 2011 Author Posted June 30, 2011 Does that mean athletism alone would make a fast bowler? Obviously not. Does that mean being athletic helps? You bet your rear end. Thank you! If BB still doesn't get the point about my reference to Lindwall's athleticism then :wall:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now