Who's better, Lillee or Hadlee?

[subshakerz]

I am neither from New Zealand or Australia, and I find it hard to find a category where Lillee was a better bowler than Hadlee. Lillee had a better attitude as a fast bowler, but in terms of achievements, Hadlee was better. Perhaps if Lillee was not unproven on the subcontinent, I might have given him the edge (performing on all types of pitches is a major criteria for a fast bowler).

Here's a great vid on Hadlee, makes one appreciate him more:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hD6jVE4T6qQ

 

[_Ed_]

Says it all really.

But seriously, Prabhakar.

 

[slugger]

Hadlee was a good bowler and could bat if needed.. however, Lillee bowled so he didnt have to bat.

 

[Craig]

Richard Hadlee - The Great New Zealand Disappointment

Much has been made of his prowess with the ball, however there are some alarming statistics that counter the many claims of brilliance. For example:

Did you know that in his first 3 full test matches Richard Hadlee averaged 119.66 runs per wicket? That's right! In an alarming 3.48837% of all the matches he played in his career he averaged greater than 115 runs per wicket. If we take the 3.48837% and call it the 'Golden Years', it's fair to suggest that anything lying outside this period must indeed be treated as an anomaly, and therefore struck from the record. In stats terms we'll refer to the other 96.5 odd percent of his career as 'extreme variables' - lying outside the reasonable area of expectancy given the results in these three Tests and therefore struck from the record.

Hadlee was a one trick pony, and I implore you not to let the fact that he performed the trick 431 times at an average of 22.29 fool you into thinking otherwise! In his fifth last test he took 2/132...and as the old saying goes - "You're only as good as your fifth last test!".

That makes Hadlee as good as someone who took 2 wickets at an average of 66! Geoffrey Boycott has a test bowling average of 54.57; Mark Taylor - 26.00; Allan Border 39.10.

Read it and weep Richard Hadlee...you were a disgrace to the art of bowling!

 

[weldone]

Statistics wise Hadlee...From every aspect...

 

[weldone]

Says it all really.

Who's the writer?

 

[bagapath]

In victorious tests this is what three undisputed champions achieved with their fast bowling.

Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 22 44 5808 2261 173 9/52 13.06 2.33 33.5 17 8
DK Lillee (Aus) 31 61 7923 3709 203 7/83 18.27 2.80 39.0 17 6
MD Marshall (WI) 43 86 9678 4264 254 7/22 16.78 2.64 38.1 17 4

taking 5fers is not the same as scoring centuries in tests since you have to take 20 wickets to win a match no matter what. so a good bowling contribution is a little more direct than hundreds scored with the bat in victories. it is different in drawn games where a batting performance could be much more important in saving a game.

by that token hadlee has been more directly responsible for more victories for his team (warne has taken 27 5fers in 92 victories)

i am not using this only stat to cast my vote. but since i find lillee more exciting and charismatic but hadlee more successful in every statistical possibility, i had to resort to this to break the block in my mind. i am voting for hadlee. i hope someone opens a poll for "who is your favourite, lillee or hadlee?". i will think equally hard and probably vote for lillee.

 

[Debris]

I am actually throwing any stats out the window on this one because I am old enough to remember them both play. I can't remember anyone ever thinking Hadlee the better bowler at the time.

As far as stats go, Lillee spent probably his prime years playing WSC which tended to have a negative effect on his stats.

 

[Richard]

I am actually throwing any stats out the window on this one because I am old enough to remember them both play. I can't remember anyone ever thinking Hadlee the better bowler at the time.

Very unwise. Throwing stats out of the window, taking no notice whatsoever of them, is never a good idea. Not that many people think Atherton a better batsman than Hayden either, but I've never been terribly bothered by what "everyone" thinks.

As far as stats go, Lillee spent probably his prime years playing WSC which tended to have a negative effect on his stats.

His choice.

 

[Debris]

Very unwise. Throwing stats out of the window, taking no notice whatsoever of them, is never a good idea. Not that many people think Atherton a better batsman than Hayden either, but I've never been terribly bothered by what "everyone" thinks.

His choice.

I don't completely ignore stats but sometimes they lie.

According to statistics, John Benaud was a better player than Richie.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't completely ignore stats but sometimes they lie.

According to statistics, John Benaud was a better player than Richie.

No, not really. There aren't enough stats to make a judgment on how good John Benaud was at the Test level, even if you made the unwise decision to go by purely by stats.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Very unwise. Throwing stats out of the window, taking no notice whatsoever of them, is never a good idea. Not that many people think Atherton a better batsman than Hayden either, but I've never been terribly bothered by what "everyone" thinks.

To believe that Atherton is better than Hayden you would have to throw stats completely out the window.

 

[Ikki]

Viv regarded Chandrashekar o be the most difficult to handle. Does it make Chandra > Lillee? Your argument is plain stupid.

Viv said Lillee was the best of the fast bowlers. Lillee's contemporaries like Hadlee and and Imran also said it (not sure if Marshall said it too). What you just said has nothing to do with what I just said.

 

[Richard]

To believe that Atherton is better than Hayden you would have to throw stats completely out the window.

No you wouldn't.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No you wouldn't.

Of course, I forgot. You go to your God the Statsguru and conveniently find a period where Atherton averaged 41 and then compare it with Hayden's early Test career.

 

[Richard]

No, not just his early Test career - his entire Test career. But anyway, I really don't fancy doing all this again, nor I suspect does anyone else. Nor is StatsGuru any help at all in deciphering why I don't think Hayden is very good, as it requires technical analysis and having watched people bowl at him.

BTW, I don't need StatsGuru to find the times in question in Atherton's career either, I only need it to work-out his averages. I found-out why various times should be included, excluded and quarantined by reading his book and watching his career unfold.

 

[Jono]

It's not that somebody was modest - meaning only one - most of the bowlers, and batsmen (Like Viv) in Lillee's era regarded him as the best ever.

And most of the bowlers of this era (post 1990) have said that Tendulkar and Lara are the best they've ever bowled to, yet you say Ponting was better.

Inconsistent.

 

[Richard]

Hypocritical, in fact, one might say.

I wouldn't, myself, but I'd say it took some nerve to call someone else who did the exact same a hypocrite.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No, not just his early Test career - his entire Test career. But anyway, I really don't fancy doing all this again, nor I suspect does anyone else. Nor is StatsGuru any help at all in deciphering why I don't think Hayden is very good, as it requires technical analysis and having watched people bowl at him.

BTW, I don't need StatsGuru to find the times in question in Atherton's career either, I only need it to work-out his averages. I found-out why various times should be included, excluded and quarantined by reading his book and watching his career unfold.

So you're throwing stats completely out the window then, something which in the same paragraph you said is "never a good idea."

 

[Richard]

No, I'm not throwing them out of the window.

I've watched Hayden, many times, and thought "hmm, he doesn't look that good against the swinging ball does he?". Then I've looked at the stats and the context they come in and found that they wholly support that idea.

I've also watched Atherton over his career (be it the meaningful part or the entire wretched thing that has a small amount of stuff in there that shouldn't have been which causes misrepresentative conclusions to be drawn about the rest) and thought "he was a pretty damn good Test batsman, wasn't he?" Then read his book and found-out that there were times when he played that he shouldn't have. Then I've gone and looked at some stats and seen that his career average with these shouldn't-have-played times knocked-out sums-up the impression I always got of him far more accurately than does his banal career average that those who look only at a CricInfo player page or something spoon-fed them by a TV presenter see.