Hadlee's All-time XI

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Mike Holman » Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:16:13


I just heard Richard Hadlee selecting his all-time XI on thew BBC
World Service.

Hobbs
B Richards
Bradman
V Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Warne
Lillee

Underwood

He did a small statistical analysis. This team averages 500 with the
bat, but, assuming two wickets for each the five main bowlers, let the
opposition score 268. Bradman's XI averaged 439 with the bat, but
would get the opposition out for 234. Both sides therefore win by ten
wickets.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Shishir Path » Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:58:46

Quote:

> I just heard Richard Hadlee selecting his all-time XI on thew BBC
> World Service.

> Hobbs
> B Richards
> Bradman
> V Richards
> Tendulkar

Imagine Richards and Tendulkar in a 4th wicket partnership, after Sir
Don has already posted his double hundred.  God, these guys would have
***ed any bowling attack!  225 runs in post-lunch session of day 2.

Cheers,

Shishir

Quote:
> Sobers
> Botham
> Knott
> Trueman
> Warne
> Lillee

> Underwood

> He did a small statistical analysis. This team averages 500 with the
> bat, but, assuming two wickets for each the five main bowlers, let the
> opposition score 268. Bradman's XI averaged 439 with the bat, but
> would get the opposition out for 234. Both sides therefore win by ten
> wickets.

> Cheers,

> Mike


 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Bob Dube » Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:14:54

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:16:13 +0000, Mike Holmans

Quote:

>He did a small statistical analysis. This team averages 500 with the
>bat, but, assuming two wickets for each the five main bowlers, let the
>opposition score 268. Bradman's XI averaged 439 with the bat, but
>would get the opposition out for 234. Both sides therefore win by ten
>wickets.

Sir Richard's side certainly has a lot more batting than Sir Donald's
- Botham at 7 and Knott at 8. But he has perhaps compromised the
bowling by leaving himself out.

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:26:04


Quote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:16:13 +0000, Mike Holmans

> >He did a small statistical analysis. This team averages 500 with the
> >bat, but, assuming two wickets for each the five main bowlers, let the
> >opposition score 268. Bradman's XI averaged 439 with the bat, but
> >would get the opposition out for 234. Both sides therefore win by ten
> >wickets.

> Sir Richard's side certainly has a lot more batting than Sir Donald's
> - Botham at 7 and Knott at 8. But he has perhaps compromised the
> bowling by leaving himself out.

I was a bit surprised to see him not select himself.  I know it's not really
done to pick yourself in such teams, but I wouldn't normally expect RJH to
let such things worry him.  Seriously though, it does look a trifle light in
the pace bowling department for an all-time XI.  OK, both Sobers and Botham
justify inclusion as all-rounders, but to have Botham as third seamer seems
daft to me.  It's all very well to say the side would win by 10 wickets, but
compared with Bradman's side, Hadlee's team would draw more matches.

Andrew

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Jason Derb » Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:08:27


Quote:

> I was a bit surprised to see him not select himself.  I know it's not
really
> done to pick yourself in such teams, but I wouldn't normally expect RJH to
> let such things worry him.  Seriously though, it does look a trifle light
in
> the pace bowling department for an all-time XI.  OK, both Sobers and
Botham
> justify inclusion as all-rounders, but to have Botham as third seamer
seems
> daft to me.  It's all very well to say the side would win by 10 wickets,
but
> compared with Bradman's side, Hadlee's team would draw more matches.

> Andrew

Out of interest. Could you please post Bradman's side.

Cheers,
Jason.
--
"We live in the midst of the incomprehensible which is also detestable."
                                                      -Joseph Conrad

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by CricketConnoisse » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 00:11:20

Quote:

> I just heard Richard Hadlee selecting his all-time XI on thew BBC
> World Service.

> Hobbs
> B Richards
> Bradman
> V Richards
> Tendulkar
> Sobers
> Botham
> Knott
> Trueman
> Warne
> Lillee

> Underwood

> He did a small statistical analysis. This team averages 500 with the
> bat, but, assuming two wickets for each the five main bowlers, let the
> opposition score 268. Bradman's XI averaged 439 with the bat, but
> would get the opposition out for 234. Both sides therefore win by ten
> wickets.

> Cheers,

> Mike

So, Hadlee's XI actually goes ahead by 27 runs. (I assume the runs are
per innings) which would mean Hadlee's XI goes ahead by 54 runs per
match.

Regards,

CC

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Rats » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 05:32:41

Quote:
> But he has perhaps compromised the
> bowling by leaving himself out.

That he has.
That he has.
 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Mad Hami » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:02:52

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:08:27 +0800, "Jason Derby"

Quote:



>> I was a bit surprised to see him not select himself.  I know it's not
>really
>> done to pick yourself in such teams, but I wouldn't normally expect RJH to
>> let such things worry him.  Seriously though, it does look a trifle light
>in
>> the pace bowling department for an all-time XI.  OK, both Sobers and
>Botham
>> justify inclusion as all-rounders, but to have Botham as third seamer
>seems
>> daft to me.  It's all very well to say the side would win by 10 wickets,
>but
>> compared with Bradman's side, Hadlee's team would draw more matches.

>> Andrew

>Out of interest. Could you please post Bradman's side.

Morris
Richards
Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Tallon
Lindwall
Lillee
Bedsar
O'Reilly
Grimmett
Hammond (12th)
--
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Ken Higg » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:19:11

Quote:

> I was a bit surprised to see him not select himself.  I know it's not really
> done to pick yourself in such teams, but I wouldn't normally expect RJH to
> let such things worry him.  Seriously though, it does look a trifle light in
> the pace bowling department for an all-time XI.  OK, both Sobers and Botham
> justify inclusion as all-rounders, but to have Botham as third seamer seems
> daft to me.  It's all very well to say the side would win by 10 wickets, but
> compared with Bradman's side, Hadlee's team would draw more matches.

> Andrew

I'd think that Sir Richard could've gotten away with picking himself in place of
Botham.
But I don't see the pace dept. as being a problem, Trueman & Lillee are genuine
world beaters. Botham & Sobers would provide more than a useful change, assuming
we're talking Botham of his golden days and Sobers in his non spinning days.

Higgsy

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:51:56


Quote:


> > I was a bit surprised to see him not select himself.  I know it's not
really
> > done to pick yourself in such teams, but I wouldn't normally expect RJH
to
> > let such things worry him.  Seriously though, it does look a trifle
light in
> > the pace bowling department for an all-time XI.  OK, both Sobers and
Botham
> > justify inclusion as all-rounders, but to have Botham as third seamer
seems
> > daft to me.  It's all very well to say the side would win by 10 wickets,
but
> > compared with Bradman's side, Hadlee's team would draw more matches.

> > Andrew

> I'd think that Sir Richard could've gotten away with picking himself in
place of
> Botham.
> But I don't see the pace dept. as being a problem, Trueman & Lillee are
genuine
> world beaters. Botham & Sobers would provide more than a useful change,
assuming
> we're talking Botham of his golden days and Sobers in his non spinning

days.

I agree that the bowling attack is good enough to bowl most sides out.
However for an all-time XI, I would expect to see the best attack which
could be mustered.  Botham was good enough at a certain stage of his
career...

Amdrew

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Jai Nataraja » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 09:05:16

I think both Sobers and Botham is a luxury and Hadlee could have picked
himself or Malcolm Marshall (I would leave out Lillee/Hadlee for
Underwood/Marshall in the XI on the subcontinent)

jai

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Mad Hami » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:51:59



Quote:
>I think both Sobers and Botham is a luxury and Hadlee could have picked
>himself or Malcolm Marshall (I would leave out Lillee/Hadlee for
>Underwood/Marshall in the XI on the subcontinent)

You may actually want to look at what Hadlee did in India in tests...
--
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by Jai Nataraja » Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:56:28


Quote:
> You may actually want to look at what Hadlee did in India in tests...

No, I thought about that and he was also pretty good against the weak SL of
those days. But somehow the bristling menace of Marshall in '83 remains
unforgettable :) Even Roberts for that matter was fabulous

Now Lillee OTOH has a very very major gap in his resume in the
subcontinent - 6 wkts in 4 tests. I can't forgive that and it's strange that
Hadlee should have ignored it.

Botham has great stats batting and bowling, touring primarily at his peak.
Not easy to leave him out but then, Imran doesn't figure either.

jai

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by CricketConnoisse » Sun, 16 Dec 2001 02:57:59

Quote:

> I just heard Richard Hadlee selecting his all-time XI on thew BBC
> World Service.

> Hobbs
> B Richards
> Bradman
> V Richards
> Tendulkar
> Sobers
> Botham
> Knott
> Trueman
> Warne
> Lillee

> Underwood

> He did a small statistical analysis. This team averages 500 with the
> bat, but, assuming two wickets for each the five main bowlers, let the
> opposition score 268. Bradman's XI averaged 439 with the bat, but
> would get the opposition out for 234. Both sides therefore win by ten
> wickets.

> Cheers,

> Mike

With all due respect to Hadlee and Bradman Tendulkar should not be in
an all time XI.  My reason's are made quite clear in the post "Useless
average by Tendulkar." Tendulkar is a great player but has failed to
prove himself in a few things. (Some beyond his control and some due
to his own style of play). Anyway, a great player who has not faced
the best (during his playing days) should never come in an all time
list. The reasons are clear in my post. You should read it. As I have
stated he is a great player but to put someone in an all time list
(especially someone who has not faced some of the best bowlers in
thier prime during his playing days) is a bit premature.

Regards,

CC

 
 
 

Hadlee's All-time XI

Post by CricketConnoisse » Sun, 16 Dec 2001 03:01:55

Quote:


> > I just heard Richard Hadlee selecting his all-time XI on thew BBC
> > World Service.

> > Hobbs
> > B Richards
> > Bradman
> > V Richards
> > Tendulkar

> Imagine Richards and Tendulkar in a 4th wicket partnership, after Sir
> Don has already posted his double hundred.  God, these guys would have
> ***ed any bowling attack!  225 runs in post-lunch session of day 2.

> Cheers,

> Shishir

Tendulkar is a great player. There is no doubt about that. However, to
put him in an all time XI was not correct. Everyone is entitled to
their own opinions. However, if you want to read something interesting
as to why I state this read the post "Useless average by Tendulkar."
You will maybe understand why I state that Tendulkar should not be put
in an all time XI. This is not Tendulkar bashing etc. As I have stated
earlier. He is a great player but should not be put in an all time XI.

Regards,

CC

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > Sobers
> > Botham
> > Knott
> > Trueman
> > Warne
> > Lillee

> > Underwood

> > He did a small statistical analysis. This team averages 500 with the
> > bat, but, assuming two wickets for each the five main bowlers, let the
> > opposition score 268. Bradman's XI averaged 439 with the bat, but
> > would get the opposition out for 234. Both sides therefore win by ten
> > wickets.

> > Cheers,

> > Mike