Richard Hadlee vs Dale Steyn

[Chrish]

And Steyn’s SR is out of this world. Definitely a statistical anomaly in covered wicket era.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hard choice but I'll take the one who averaged 17 in Australia over the one who who averaged 28.

 

[Line and Length]

Two great bowlers. I'd give Hadlee the edge .... just.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Is Had Lee the daddy of Brett and Shane?

 

[Midwinter]

Hadlee can bowl left arm spin.

Point Hadlee.

 

[srbhkshk]

Point Steyn.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Steyn was terrible for Essex*, so I'll obviously hold that against him.

*As I recall. Cue someone pulling up the statistics and proving me wrong.

 

[Starfighter]

Steyn was terrible for Essex*, so I'll obviously hold that against him.

*As I recall. Cue someone pulling up the statistics and proving me wrong.

Nah, you're right. Six matches, 14 wickets at 59.85 at 4.2 an over.

 

[subshakerz]

And Steyn’s SR is out of this world. Definitely a statistical anomaly in covered wicket era.

Yes, but his run rate was unusually higher also, meaning if he wasn't taking wickets he was getting tonked around. I prefer someone like Hadlee who keeps things tight even if he takes a bit longer to take a wicket.

 

[Himannv]

Hadlee for me although there isn't much in it.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't even know where you're going with this. You were comparing Steyn to contemporaries Anderson and Harris, neither of whom played for South Africa last time I checked, presumably implying that this makes Steyn better as Hadlee had Marshall etc. as contemporaries.
But now you're talking about value to own side. A bowler averaging 26 is much more valuable to a side where everyone else averages 40 than a bowler averaging 21 where everyone else averages 23, does that make the first bowler better?
Secondly, the average of the non-Hadlee NZ bowlers in matches where Hadlee played was 37.04, while the equivalent for Steyn was 31.71, and Hadlee took 35.7% of the wickets while Steyn took 28.5%. Steyn had far more competent support right through his career.
Overall your own metrics, when you're not contradicting yourself, prove that Hadlee was significantly more valuable.

Home/away split doesn't really support this.

yeah i was a bit jumbled in my wording last night.

hadlee had lots of equals in his time. steyn had very few. i don't think steyn had few equals because everybody collectively forgot how to bowl.

steyns bowler value in his era is probably second only to mcgrath. value in your era isn't the only way to split bowlers, but when you have two equals except for a vast disparity in one aspect then i think steyn's achievements in his era are more impressive than hadlee's in his.

one nod i'll give to the hadlee era, to argue with my own points, is the amatuer era had no DRS (in fact you could argue there was anti-DRS in some countries...) and far less pitch homogenization.

both are top 5 of all time, but if i was not kiwi, could i make the same arguments i make for mcgrath being #1 and not give the same credit to steyn and put him around #3? no, i couldn't.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Hadlee for me, 2nd best bowler I have seen only bettered by Marshall.

 

[subshakerz]

yeah i was a bit jumbled in my wording last night.

hadlee had lots of equals in his time. steyn had very few. i don't think steyn had few equals because everybody collectively forgot how to bowl.

steyns bowler value in his era is probably second only to mcgrath. value in your era isn't the only way to split bowlers, but when you have two equals except for a vast disparity in one aspect then i think steyn's achievements in his era are more impressive than hadlee's in his.

one nod i'll give to the hadlee era, to argue with my own points, is the amatuer era had no DRS (in fact you could argue there was anti-DRS in some countries...) and far less pitch homogenization.

both are top 5 of all time, but if i was not kiwi, could i make the same arguments i make for mcgrath being #1 and not give the same credit to steyn and put him around #3? no, i couldn't.

I mean, there is no universal law saying that each era must produce the same number of all-time great bowlers, is there? I don't see why Steyn should get greater credit if there were fewer at ATG level in his era, unless you are suggesting that it was just more difficult to bowl somehow.

 

[Flem274*]

I mean, there is no universal law saying that each era must produce the same number of all-time great bowlers, is there? I don't see why Steyn should get greater credit if there were fewer at ATG level in his era, unless you are suggesting that it was just more difficult to bowl somehow.

yes

everyone and their mum was running around averaging 50 in steyn's day, for a variety of factors including improved average batsmanship, flatter decks, helmets, #bigbats etc. not many bowlers were averaging under 25 and i don't think it's because humans got less talented at or forgot how to bowl. steyn's achievement is slightly more impressive than hadlee's imo, so i give him the nod just.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah the ~00 bullies averaging 45+ just off the top of my head -

Younis
Yousuf
Misbah
Jayawardene
Sanga
Samaraweera
Ponting
Clarke
Hayden
Katich
Symonds
Hussey
Sehwag
Tendulkar
Dravid
Ganguly
Laxman
Strauss
Cook
KP
Trott
Kallis
Smith
ABdV
Amla
Chanders
Lara

During Hadlees time it was

Miandad
Taylor
Chappells
Walters
Border
Richards
LLoyd
Richardson
Greenidge
Azharuddin
Gavaskar
Greatbach

I haven't looked up the averages and the overlap between careers but I think this is reasonably accurate

 

[Slifer]

Yeah the ~00 bullies averaging 45+ just off the top of my head -

Younis
Yousuf
Misbah
Jayawardene
Sanga
Samaraweera
Ponting
Clarke
Hayden
Katich
Symonds
Hussey
Sehwag
Tendulkar
Dravid
Ganguly
Laxman
Strauss
Cook
KP
Trott
Kallis
Smith
ABdV
Amla
Chanders
Lara

During Hadlees time it was

Miandad
Taylor
Chappells
Walters
Border
Richards
LLoyd
Richardson
Greenidge
Azharuddin
Gavaskar
Greatbach

I haven't looked up the averages and the overlap between careers but I think this is reasonably accurate

Tbf back in Hadlee's time there were fewer teams: no RSA, very new to tests SL, no Zim or Ban. But I agree, bowling was probably a little easier back in the 80s.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Akram
Marshall
Hadlee
Steyn

So, Hadlee.

Its like The Terminator vs Judgement Day.

 

[subshakerz]

Tbf back in Hadlee's time there were fewer teams: no RSA, very new to tests SL, no Zim or Ban. But I agree, bowling was probably a little easier back in the 80s.

Was bowling easier in the 80s, or is just that there happened to be less ATG bowlers in the 2000s and therefore batting was easier then?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Much flatter wickets in the 2000s too IMO

 

[Slifer]

Was bowling easier in the 80s, or is just that there happened to be less ATG bowlers in the 2000s and therefore batting was easier then?

Good question. I tend to lean towards there just being fewer atg bowlers in the 2000s...