Who's better, Lillee or Hadlee?

[Migara]

I've not seen both of them live in action. But hav seen many recording of them. Both were great bowlers. Beautifulactions, pace, bounce, movement, aggression, they had every thing. But, who's the better bowler?

 

[archie mac]

I've nit seen both of them live in action. But hav seen many recording of them. Both were great bowlers. Beautifulactions, pace, bounce, movement, aggression, they had every thing. But, who's better?

Hadlee thought Lillee the best ever. Speed wise Lillee was quicker. I think if you broke them up into four parts, Lillee was the better at the first and 2nd parts, but Hadlee was the better in the latter parts, as he seemed to improve with age

 

[Craig]

Hard to go past Manoj Prabhakar for mine.

 

[Ikki]

Lillee. Faster, more complete and could do both: strike in a partnership and bowl long hauls and take wickets. His performances against the best are also stunning. IMO, the best fast bowler of all time. Hadlee himself thought Lillee the best ever and would aspire to be like him.

I'll try to dig up one of Francis' old posts on the matter. He made a very good case.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are we talking as bowlers or as cricketers? If it's the former it's very close, but if it's the latter it's Paddles by miles.

EDIT: Just read poll question. Still voting Paddles tho. Think he was the better performer for longer. At their peaks it was probably DKL just, but he was never lightening again after he broke his back.

 

[Migara]

Tests   Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	4w	5w	10
Hadlee	86	150	21918	9611	431	9/52	15/123	22.29	2.63	50.8	25	36	9
Lillee	70	132	18467	8493	355	7/83	11/123	23.92	2.75	52.0	23	23	7

Hadlee has a better average, strike rate and economy rate than Lillee.

How they took wickets according to the batting position

RJ Hadlee
DK Lillee

Lillee have taken marginally more top order wickets than Hadlee.

Here is a break down of their performances against each team.

DK Lillee

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10	
v England	1971-1982	29	57	8516	3507	167	7/89	11/138	21.00	2.47	50.9	11	4	
v India	1981-1981	3	6	891	452	21	4/65	8/169	21.52	3.04	42.4	0	0	
v New Zealand	1977-1982	8	14	1770	740	38	6/53	11/123	19.47	2.50	46.5	4	1	
v Pakistan	1972-1984	17	30	4433	2161	71	6/82	10/135	30.43	2.92	62.4	5	1	
v Sri Lanka	1983-1983	1	2	180	107	3	2/67	3/107	35.66	3.56	60.0	0	0	
v West Indies	1973-1982	12	23	2677	1526	55	7/83	10/127	27.74	3.42	48.6	3	1	


in Australia	1971-1984	44	84	11534	5482	231	7/83	11/138	23.73	2.85	49.9	15	4	
in England	1972-1981	16	32	4815	1974	96	7/89	11/159	20.56	2.45	50.1	6	2	
in New Zealand	1977-1982	5	8	1134	495	22	6/72	11/123	22.50	2.61	51.5	2	1	
in Pakistan	1980-1980	3	4	612	303	3	3/114	3/114	101.00	2.97	204.0	0	0	
in Sri Lanka	1983-1983	1	2	180	107	3	2/67	3/107	35.66	3.56	60.0	0	0	
in West Indies	1973-1973	1	2	192	132	0	-	-	-	4.12	-	0	0	


in Americas	1973-1973	1	2	192	132	0	-	-	-	4.12	-	0	0	
in Asia	1980-1983	4	6	792	410	6	3/114	3/107	68.33	3.10	132.0	0	0	
in Europe	1972-1981	16	32	4815	1974	96	7/89	11/159	20.56	2.45	50.1	6	2	
in Oceania	1971-1984	49	92	12668	5977	253	7/83	11/123	23.62	2.83	50.0	17	5	


home	1971-1984	44	84	11534	5482	231	7/83	11/138	23.73	2.85	49.9	15	4	
away	1972-1983	26	48	6933	3011	124	7/89	11/123	24.28	2.60	55.9	8	3

RJ Hadlee

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10	
v Australia	1973-1990	23	41	6099	2674	130	9/52	15/123	20.56	2.63	46.9	14	3	
v England	1973-1990	21	35	5853	2399	97	6/26	10/100	24.73	2.45	60.3	8	2	
v India	1976-1990	14	24	3106	1493	65	7/23	11/58	22.96	2.88	47.7	4	2	
v Pakistan	1973-1989	12	20	2949	1448	51	6/51	8/110	28.39	2.94	57.8	4	0	
v Sri Lanka	1983-1987	6	11	1405	473	37	5/29	10/102	12.78	2.01	37.9	2	1	
v West Indies	1980-1987	10	19	2506	1124	51	6/50	11/102	22.03	2.69	49.1	4	1	


in Australia	1973-1987	12	21	3373	1373	77	9/52	15/123	17.83	2.44	43.8	10	3	
in England	1973-1990	14	25	4115	1746	70	6/53	10/140	24.94	2.54	58.7	6	1	
in India	1976-1988	6	10	1367	689	31	6/49	10/88	22.22	3.02	44.0	2	1	
in New Zealand	1973-1990	43	75	10663	4615	201	7/23	11/58	22.96	2.59	53.0	15	3	
in Pakistan	1976-1976	3	5	602	447	10	5/121	5/157	44.70	4.45	60.2	1	0	
in Sri Lanka	1984-1987	4	7	940	332	27	5/29	10/102	12.29	2.11	34.8	2	1	
in West Indies	1985-1985	4	7	858	409	15	4/53	4/68	27.26	2.86	57.2	0	0	


in Americas	1985-1985	4	7	858	409	15	4/53	4/68	27.26	2.86	57.2	0	0	
in Asia	1976-1988	13	22	2909	1468	68	6/49	10/88	21.58	3.02	42.7	5	2	
in Europe	1973-1990	14	25	4115	1746	70	6/53	10/140	24.94	2.54	58.7	6	1	
in Oceania	1973-1990	55	96	14036	5988	278	9/52	15/123	21.53	2.55	50.4	25	6	


home	1973-1990	43	75	10663	4615	201	7/23	11/58	22.96	2.59	53.0	15	3	
away	1973-1990	43	75	11255	4996	230	9/52	15/123	21.72	2.66	48.9	21	6

Looking at these stats it shows that Hadlee was better against the best team of the era. Avg of 22.0 vs 27.7. Hadlee was better away from home than on home soil. Hadlee was superb even in the sub continent, while Lillee was far from sucessful in Pakistan and in SL (never played in India, so very vital part of stats are missing).

 

[Burgey]

Nasser Hussein in tests, and Nick Knight in ODIs

 

[Migara]

Nasser Hussein in tests, and Nick Knight in ODIs

How was Manoj Prabhakar?

 

[NZTailender]

I can't believe it's taken me 15 years of following cricket to only just notice that Lillee and Hadlee both have the same last three letters in their names.


I'm a big ****ing 'tard.

 

[Manee]

I can't believe it's taken me 15 years of following cricket to only just notice that Lillee and Hadlee both have the same last three letters in their names.


I'm a big ****ing 'tard.

So does Brett Lee, for the record

 

[Richard]

I can't believe it's taken me 15 years of following cricket to only just notice that Lillee and Hadlee both have the same last three letters in their names.


I'm a big ****ing 'tard.

'Twas the first thing I noticed when I spotted both of them TBH. And was then rather pleased to find-out that they had another similarity - that they were both two of the finest seam-bowlers of all-time.

Anyway, I've always been aware that Hadlee thought Lillee superior to himself. This, I've always maintained, is inevitable - Hadlee modelled himself on Lillee and almost never will the pupil believe himself superior to the master. See the fact that Michael Holding rates Anderson Roberts better than himself, something I imagine near enough no-one else would do.

I've always thought, myself, that Hadlee was much more the complete bowler - had the much better portfolio. He may not have been as quick, but if we're honest the difference between 85-ish mph and 90-ish mph isn't much anyway and as Hadlee's case proves the slightly less pacy bowler can easily be more successful.

I'd have no qualms with anyone who said Hadlee was the second-greatest seam-bowler post-1900. I would have qualms with rating Lillee as such, even though so many do (so many in fact rate him the best), and will never countenance it.

 

[Flem274*]

Hadlee.

Better in every aspect bar pace IMO. And sorry, this may sound one eyed but just because someone is modest and says such and such is better than them it doesn't mean they are. Otherwise their opinion would have to be fact for all facets of life, never mind cricket, really.

 

[Top_Cat]

Once again, depends on what you value in a player. If you want a bloke who'll take on the best batsmen in the opposition line-up and run through top-class line-ups, even when competing for wickets at the other end, Lillee is a strong choice although Paddles did more than his fair share too. If you value consistency across conditions/opponents, Paddles. I've only ever seen highlights so I find it hard to say with any certainty, though.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Hadlee,because he proved his greatness in more more parts of the world and didn't have the support of any other good bowlers.

 

[Flem274*]

Hadlee,because he proved his greatness in more more parts of the world and didn't have the support of any other good bowlers.

This is an interesting point. Others would argue that Lillee or whoever was better because they had more competition for wickets. Now, Chatfield and Cairns both averaged 32. This isn't brilliant but its not bad either. They had a fair amount of 5-fers between them (cbf looking it up atm). They were decent bowlers, not rubbish, not great, just good decent bowlers (though Chatfield in ODIs was an absolute gun).

So really whilst Hadlee was the star (and as an all time great that isn't surprising) the others were good bowlers who nabbed 5-fers at reasonable intervals and ensured that, if Hadlee ever had a rare bad day, they got the job done and when Hadlee was on fire they kept the pressure on at the other end.

 

[bagapath]

i always have lillee in my all time team but my mind has always maintaned hadlee was the better bowler, albeit marginally.

will give it a day before voting

 

[Richard]

This is an interesting point. Others would argue that Lillee or whoever was better because they had more competition for wickets. Now, Chatfield and Cairns both averaged 32. This isn't brilliant but its not bad either. They had a fair amount of 5-fers between them (cbf looking it up atm). They were decent bowlers, not rubbish, not great, just good decent bowlers (though Chatfield in ODIs was an absolute gun).

So really whilst Hadlee was the star (and as an all time great that isn't surprising) the others were good bowlers who nabbed 5-fers at reasonable intervals and ensured that, if Hadlee ever had a rare bad day, they got the job done and when Hadlee was on fire they kept the pressure on at the other end.

I've always believed the "how good was the rest of the attack?" argument is overstated. There are both advantages and disadvantages to being a vastly superior bowler to the rest of your attack. And it's not like Hadlee, as pointed-out, had complete novices around him all career. Early on, in fact, he bowled with as good a bowler as Richard Collinge, plus his brother and IIRR Bruce Taylor too.

 

[Flem274*]

Forgot Collinge. never knew he bowled alongside Bruce Taylor though.

 

[Richard]

I have to say, though, I foresee a pretty depressing case of almost all Aussies voting Lillee and almost all Kiwis voting Hadlee. It'll be more interesting to see who gets the votes from "neutrals".

As of this post, Hadlee was ahead fairly comfortably.

 

[Flem274*]

I have to say, though, I foresee a pretty depressing case of almost all Aussies voting Lillee and almost all Kiwis voting Hadlee. It'll be more interesting to see who gets the votes from "neutrals".

As of this post, Hadlee was ahead fairly comfortably.

Haha, yeah I had a look at who voted. I think we can discount my vote, SSTs vote and Kazo's vote purely because really, would we ever vote for the other?