Glenn McGrath vs Richard Hadlee

[Fuller Pilch]

Well these two bowlers are generally considered 2nd and 3rd behind Marshall (and Hadlee was world no 1 for more weeks than Marshall was). I thought it would be closer. Hadlee was faster and did a lot more with the ball. McGrath was more of a metronome.

 

[Bolo.]

Definitely McGrath. I think he's better than Marshall too. Unparalleled record of dismissing 1 top-order batsmen and the 2 best batsmen in the opposition. As others have mentioned did all this in supposedly one of the 3 most difficult places as a bowler 4 during a batting-friendly era.

If anyone's going to come close though, it's Hadlee

1. Yip. Comfortably the best ever IMO. But need to remember that a bowler who is better at dismissing middle order bats is more valuable, cos its a rarer and harder skill. But at the same time, I have no idea who I would call the best at that, let alone comfortably, so massive points to Mcgrath.

2. Needs its own reply. Too long

3. Needs its own thread, and it has little to do with how good Mcgrath was. Honestly, just look at his incredible away record. It is a much better reflection of his quality than the fact that he is one of many with a great home record.

4. Definitely. And widely acknowledged, for good reason (there is a very justifiable reason he is leading Hadlee in this pole, despite having a worse record), but arguably too much so. See Burgey ranting about about how easy an era Donald played in, despite 70% of his playing career overlapping with Mcgraths.

 

[Bolo.]

2. McGrath was good against the best bats in the opposition.

The most often repeated statement on CW ever. Its probably true when the best bats were in the top 3. See point 1. And probably wrong when the best bats were lower in the order. See Lara. Crap against aus in top 3, amazing against them batting lower. Other than the new ball or cracking pitches, I dont think he was much of a threat to quality players of pace and bounce. I only ever watched him live against RSA, but the only reason he ever seemed to get wickets with an old ball was cos people needed to try score some runs off someone who was not Warne. I feel like this is a myth that had its origins in him 'picking a bunny', who was always someone in the top 3, and certainly not usually the best bat in the team.

Other than Sachin, who was weak as hell against his style of bowling, I cant remember this ever being true. I have no idea what his record against particular bats was like, but of the over 9000 people who have repeated this of CW, a bunch of you must have seen him consistently rip through guys like Kallis (at 4), Inzi/Y Khan, Flower, Chanders etc. I assume he did well vs Thorpe cos of how good his record is vs England is and badly against Sanga, struggling to think of best quality bats from other teams.

Can we actually examine this statement instead of accepting it as true cos you have heard it on CW a million times?

 

[trundler]

Owned Inzi FWIW

 

[Flem274*]

McGrath is the GOAT in my book, with Marshall second and Hadlee third or fourth with Steyn. Happy for any ordering of those four though.

 

[Bolo.]

Owned Inzi FWIW

Y Khan?

Edit: NVM. He would have probably only played Khan in UAE (where Mcgrath averaged 7) or at home. Must have crushed him too.

 

[smash84]

for some reason I remember Donald owning Saeed Anwar, could be wrong and that might be an ODIs thing

 

[subshakerz]

Give me a bowler like Marshall who can crank up the pace on dead wickets versus metronomes like McGrath and Hadlee. On seaming and bouncy tracks they should all do well.

 

[Bolo.]

for some reason I remember Donald owning Saeed Anwar, could be wrong and that might be an ODIs thing

Most of the (in particular) openers from Donalds era were very lost against pace on bouncy wickets like RSA. It isnt much of a reflection on the quality of the bowler or bat unless the bat did well. SC/SENA divide was a bit more extreme then, cos they were so unused to it.

This aside, all the openers were getting wrecked by the quicks in those days anyway. So many quality quicks. Pretty much all the openers were averaging sub 40.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I saw McGrath hurry an awful lot of batsmen. Always thought he was quicker than he appeared on the speed gun. 135-140 kph allied to his height, accuracy, and seam meant batsmen were rarely comfortable facing him.

 

[Gob]

2. McGrath was good against the best bats in the opposition.

The most often repeated statement on CW ever. Its probably true when the best bats were in the top 3. See point 1. And probably wrong when the best bats were lower in the order. See Lara. Crap against aus in top 3, amazing against them batting lower. Other than the new ball or cracking pitches, I dont think he was much of a threat to quality players of pace and bounce. I only ever watched him live against RSA, but the only reason he ever seemed to get wickets with an old ball was cos people needed to try score some runs off someone who was not Warne. I feel like this is a myth that had its origins in him 'picking a bunny', who was always someone in the top 3, and certainly not usually the best bat in the team.

Other than Sachin, who was weak as hell against his style of bowling, I cant remember this ever being true. I have no idea what his record against particular bats was like, but of the over 9000 people who have repeated this of CW, a bunch of you must have seen him consistently rip through guys like Kallis (at 4), Inzi/Y Khan, Flower, Chanders etc. I assume he did well vs Thorpe cos of how good his record is vs England is and badly against Sanga, struggling to think of best quality bats from other teams.

Can we actually examine this statement instead of accepting it as true cos you have heard it on CW a million times?

Contradicting much?

Who are these quality players of fast bowling btw? I honestly can't think of many batsmen who dominated him. Lara despite getting out like million times did dominate him on his day. KP went okay and Vaughan was probably the best if we are taking sample sizes. Also lol at taking the second greatest batsman out of the equation

As for the second point, reverse swing. He obviously kept it tight when the pitch was really flat but eventually got it to reverse. You can't average 21 in India with out getting the ball to reverse

 

[stephen]

Contradicting much?

Who are these quality players of fast bowling btw? I honestly can't think of many batsmen who dominated him. Lara despite getting out like million times did dominate him on his day. KP went okay and Vaughan was probably the best if we are taking sample sizes. Also lol at taking the second greatest batsman out of the equation

As for the second point, reverse swing. He obviously kept it tight when the pitch was really flat but eventually got it to reverse. You can't average 21 in India with out getting the ball to reverse

I don't know what Smith or Sobers have to do with McGrath's bowling.

 

[TheJediBrah]

1. Yip. Comfortably the best ever IMO. But need to remember that a bowler who is better at dismissing middle order bats is more valuable, cos its a rarer and harder skill. But at the same time, I have no idea who I would call the best at that, let alone comfortably, so massive points to Mcgrath.

McGrath's rate at getting out no. 4-7 is as good as anyone's anyway, and better than Hadlee's.

 

[Bolo.]

Contradicting much?

Who are these quality players of fast bowling btw? I honestly can't think of many batsmen who dominated him. Lara despite getting out like million times did dominate him on his day. KP went okay and Vaughan was probably the best if we are taking sample sizes. Also lol at taking the second greatest batsman out of the equation

As for the second point, reverse swing. He obviously kept it tight when the pitch was really flat but eventually got it to reverse. You can't average 21 in India with out getting the ball to reverse

I am not contradicting myself. I am stating what I know from watching and reading about cricket, which are not the same thing.

I asked an honest question. I am not cherrypicking the names I chucked out there, they just seemed to be the best from teams of his era. I am not married to an opinion. Hence the questions, and me posting stuff that contradicts the line of questioning.

I just dont like something being accepted as a truism without it being questioned. What Trunder (and my best guess for YK in response) is suggesting is that the original idea is sound. What you are suggesting a player I hadnt thought of is that it is overblown (i dont count vaughn, not the best bat in his team, and pieterson going ok does not support the OP.)

 

[Bolo.]

McGrath's rate at getting out no. 4-7 is as good as anyone's anyway, and better than Hadlee's.

What do you mean by rate? SR? WPM? This confuses me.

 

[Line and Length]

Give me a bowler like Marshall who can crank up the pace on dead wickets versus metronomes like McGrath and Hadlee. On seaming and bouncy tracks they should all do well.

I can only agree with "metronome" as a description of McGrath. He was relentless and tested batsmen's patience and concentration. Hadlee could either bowl fiery spells or, if the situation demanded, adopt a more (dare I say it) line and length approach.

 

[kyear2]

1. Yip. Comfortably the best ever IMO. But need to remember that a bowler who is better at dismissing middle order bats is more valuable, cos its a rarer and harder skill. But at the same time, I have no idea who I would call the best at that, let alone comfortably, so massive points to Mcgrath.

2. Needs its own reply. Too long

3. Needs its own thread, and it has little to do with how good Mcgrath was. Honestly, just look at his incredible away record. It is a much better reflection of his quality than the fact that he is one of many with a great home record.

4. Definitely. And widely acknowledged, for good reason (there is a very justifiable reason he is leading Hadlee in this pole, despite having a worse record), but arguably too much so. See Burgey ranting about about how easy an era Donald played in, despite 70% of his playing career overlapping with Mcgraths.

Try not to bring other names into player comparisons. But what separated Marshall from McGrath was that he had way more ways to gets batsmen out. Even on dead pitches as in India in '83, he cranked up the pace, while he could swing it like anyone else if the conditions warranted it. It's also hard to find examples of batsmen taking him to the shed as you do with others.

And again, no slight to McGrath, he's no. 2 and at absolute worst top 3 or 4 in my book.

 

[Gob]

I am not contradicting myself. I am stating what I know from watching and reading about cricket, which are not the same thing.

I asked an honest question. I am not cherrypicking the names I chucked out there, they just seemed to be the best from teams of his era. I am not married to an opinion. Hence the questions, and me posting stuff that contradicts the line of questioning.

I just dont like something being accepted as a truism without it being questioned. What Trunder (and my best guess for YK in response) is suggesting is that the original idea is sound. What you are suggesting a player I hadnt thought of is that it is overblown (i dont count vaughn, not the best bat in his team, and pieterson going ok does not support the OP.)

Who are your quality players of pace? I watched fair bit of McGrath so I can give my opinion on that and maybe later find a way to check it with stats

 

[Bolo.]

guys like Kallis (at 4), Inzi/Y Khan, Flower, Chanders etc. I assume he did well vs Thorpe cos of how good his record is vs England is and badly against Sanga, struggling to think of best quality bats from other teams.

Who are your quality players of pace? I watched fair bit of McGrath so I can give my opinion on that and maybe later find a way to check it with stats

 

[Gob]

guys like Kallis (at 4), Inzi/Y Khan, Flower, Chanders etc. I assume he did well vs Thorpe cos of how good his record is vs England is and badly against Sanga, struggling to think of best quality bats from other teams.

McGrath had dismissed Kallis five times (didn't check but remember it was put up on the graphics once). Could dismiss Inzmam witha tomato. Younis faced him in UAE in 02 and in Aus 04/05 and McGrath had him several times regardless Younis did not make any useful contributions. Same with Chandrapaul who's best series against Aust happened post Mc/Warne era and McGrath and Warne were the standout reason. No idea how much he bowled to Flower. Sangakkara faced him twice in tests i think and was dismissed cheaply at least once. As i said earlier, the only standout domination of McGrath i could think of was Vaughan from 02/03 and Lara 99 and to an extent 03

There is an actual reason for people to believe that he did indeed got the best of the opponents in big occasions. One of the best examples i could think of was Dravid in 04. Dravid had a massive series barely few months back against a McGrath less attack and Aus didn't look like they knew how to get him out. Returning to the side, McGrath knocked him twice in the first two tests very cheaply and set that series up.

This is obviously flawed but one thing you can do is pick the best players of pace that you think and compare there records vs Australia with and without McGrath. That could give you some idea