No.3
Sir Richard Hadlee (New Zealand) 964
Quality Points: 830
Career Points: 135
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv-QOuf8Xik
Career: 1973-1990
Wickets: 431
Gold Performances: 7
7/23 vs. India at Wellington 1976 (17.93)
6/26 vs. England at Wellington 1978 (16.73)
5/34 vs. West Indies at Dunedin 1980 (15.49)
6/68 vs. West Indies at Dunedin 1980 (15.54)
6/51 vs. Pakistan at Dunedin 1985 (15.95)
9/52 vs. Australia at Brisbane 1985 (20.77)
6/50 vs. West Indies at Christchurch 1987 (16.58)
Silver Performances: 17
Bronze Performances: 13
Overall Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 21.95 (22.30) 49.56 (50.85) 6.08 (rank 5)
50 Innings Peak Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings (1984-1988): 17.70 42.03 7.84 (rank 4)
Non-Home Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 21.53 47.98 6.31 (rank 7)
Quality Opposition Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 22.33 50.44 5.94 (rank 11)
New Zealand's greatest cricketer. Knighted whilst still playing, Sir Richard Hadlee led New Zealand into the modern age, turning them from also-rans into a top 3 nation. With Hadlee scathing through batting lineups like a skilled surgeon, New Zealand didn't lose a test series at home from 1980 until he retired. They also won their first series in Australia and England when Hadlee, in his mid-thirties, hit his peak, taking 68 wickets in 9 matches from November 1985 to August 1986. From 1980 until his retirement at the age of 39 he took 324 wickets in 60 matches (19.59 47.24 6.76). He is so close to being the only bowler ranked in the top 10 for every criteria.
I often think that Hadlee would be rated even higher than he is by cricket writers and followers of the game if he had played in marquee series such as the Ashes. He would be held in extremely high regard if he managed to take Australia to Ashes glory in 1985 or helped Australia to draw to West Indies at home in 1988/89. And of course he would have taken even more wickets with the amount of cricket on offer. But this is mere conjecture on my part.
It cannot be disputed that he has a high PPI due to not having as much competition for wickets as Steyn, McGrath or Marshall. However, Chatfield, Cairns, and co. were not poor bowlers and in any case batting sides would usually try to see out the strike bowler whilst attacking (and getting out) to the supporting acts. They couldn't see out Hadlee.
The irony is not lost on me. Trust me, unlike most Australian posters in this site, I have actually seen cricket not broadcast by Channel 9, instead of relying on second hand descriptions of what it's like and fronting.
.
