Glenn McGrath vs Richard Hadlee

[Flem274*]

Hadlee for me. Played for a weak team, but that didn't stop him from being one of the greatest ever. Arguably the finest bowler ever and I am not exaggerating it.

One interesting co-incidence.

Hadlee's stats between the same age as Mcgrath's debut and retirement is as below.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

He averaged 21.65 which almost exactly matches with Mcgrath's career average of 21.64

Flawed reasoning imo. Hadlee's team in the 80s was one of the strongest of the era. Sure he himself had a large say in that, but so did Crowe, Jones, Wright, Reid and Smith.

 

[Immenso]

I watched a lot of these 2 play. Hadlee in the 80s and then when satelite tv came in the 90s plenty of McGrath. I cant separate them.

 

[ankitj]

Flawed reasoning imo. Hadlee's team in the 80s was one of the strongest of the era. Sure he himself had a large say in that, but so did Crowe, Jones, Wright, Reid and Smith.

What kind of kiwi are you

 

[Flem274*]

What kind of kiwi are you

an always right one

 

[OverratedSanity]

Flawed reasoning imo. Hadlee's team in the 80s was one of the strongest of the era. Sure he himself had a large say in that, but so did Crowe, Jones, Wright, Reid and Smith.

Eh in a comparison with McGrath it's pretty obvious Hadlee was a way bigger reason nz were good. McGrath was arguably the most important Australian player but for Hadlee it was inarguable he was the number 1 guy . Doesn't necessarily mean Hadlee was better of course.

 

[Flem274*]

Eh in a comparison with McGrath it's pretty obvious Hadlee was a way bigger reason nz were good. McGrath was arguably the most important Australian player but for Hadlee it was inarguable he was the number 1 guy . Doesn't necessarily mean Hadlee was better of course.

What you say is fair, but the exaggeration of the guy I replied to was not. Hadlee doesn't have to play for 2010s West Indies to be top 5 ever.

Most important Australian player is an interesting one. Ponting had equals and a couple of betters. Warne had an equal and guys one rung lower. McGrath was the best but Pollock was also great and fit Shoiab was a force of nature. Bond also great but never fit.

Gilchrist had no peer, and probably turned that side from great to unfair.

 

[h_hurricane]

What you say is fair, but the exaggeration of the guy I replied to was not. Hadlee doesn't have to play for 2010s West Indies to be top 5 ever.

Most important Australian player is an interesting one. Ponting had equals and a couple of betters. Warne had an equal and guys one rung lower. McGrath was the best but Pollock was also great and fit Shoiab was a force of nature. Bond also great but never fit.

Gilchrist had no peer, and probably turned that side from great to unfair.

Heh, my point was that Hadlee averaged similar to Mcgrath playing for a weaker team (relative of course) which is tougher. Had he averaged 25 playing for the same 80's NZ team, I would not have rated him as high.
By the way, do agree with you that the 80's NZ team had their moments. Won a series against Aus in mid 80s and a test in India in late 80s. Also won against the all conquering WI once at home(I think).

 

[Slifer]

What you say is fair, but the exaggeration of the guy I replied to was not. Hadlee doesn't have to play for 2010s West Indies to be top 5 ever.

Most important Australian player is an interesting one. Ponting had equals and a couple of betters. Warne had an equal and guys one rung lower. McGrath was the best but Pollock was also great and fit Shoiab was a force of nature. Bond also great but never fit.

Gilchrist had no peer, and probably turned that side from great to unfair.

Agreed. But Australia imo, got where they were as the best in the business mostly because of Glenn McGrath. Gilchrist, as you said took them to the next level ie atg side.

 

[subshakerz]

Flawed reasoning imo. Hadlee's team in the 80s was one of the strongest of the era. Sure he himself had a large say in that, but so did Crowe, Jones, Wright, Reid and Smith.

Hadlee was the number one reason they were decent away and unbeatable at home in the 80s. You take Hadlee away from NZ and they were a bottom tier team.

 

[subshakerz]

Heh, my point was that Hadlee averaged similar to Mcgrath playing for a weaker team (relative of course) which is tougher. Had he averaged 25 playing for the same 80's NZ team, I would not have rated him as high.
By the way, do agree with you that the 80's NZ team had their moments. Won a series against Aus in mid 80s and a test in India in late 80s. Also won against the all conquering WI once at home(I think).

They also won in England.

 

[a massive zebra]

And in that kind of proportional points allocation vote that is exactly how I'd expect it to play out. What I am saying here is that my perception of CW was that most people seem to think that McGrath is second to Marshall, and very slightly (a smidgen, in your words) ahead of Hadlee. Which would mean that in a head to head vote like this where people just vote for a single winner without proportion or nuance, yes I would have expected McGrath to win more easily.

I'm not even arguing whether that ranking is right or wrong. Rather, making an observation - which may well be mistaken, but it's hard to tell in an anonymous poll - on how I thought CW views things. At the moment Hadlee has 43% of the vote, and based on all I've seen or read from contributors here, I'd not previously have thought that 43% of CW thinks that Hadlee is a greater bowler than McGrath.

You seem to be under the impression that McGrath came marginally ahead of Hadlee in that vote because the vast majority of people ranked McGrath very slightly higher. Having quickly looked through that thread, your view does not reflect the reality of the voting patterns. On first glance, it appears 13 people ranked McGrath ahead of Hadlee and 10 put Hadlee ahead of McGrath. So again, a very slight overall advantage to McGrath, but certainly no strong consensus that McGrath is slighty ahead. In other words, the voting patterns in that thread were indeed perfectly consistent with the results of this vote and do not support your perception.

 

[Flem274*]

Hadlee was the number one reason they were decent away and unbeatable at home in the 80s. You take Hadlee away from NZ and they were a bottom tier team.

Seemed to be a lot of those floating around in the 80s. If Australia claim to be bad, England claim to be bad, India claim to be classic India home and away, Sri Lanka were bad and South Africa kicked out, who is good apart from the West Indies?

There's Pakistan I suppose but no lbws for the home team will help there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No he said they were bad if you took Hadlee away. Its probably true. I remember looking up the list of all tests NZ won in that era and it was extremely difficult to pick out ones where Hadlee didnt put in an amazing performance. The reliance on him was huge.

 

[Flem274*]

No he said they were bad if you took Hadlee away. Its probably true. I remember looking up the list of all tests NZ won in that era and it was extremely difficult to pick out ones where Hadlee didnt put in an amazing performance. The reliance on him was huge.

I know what he said, I'm just interested in who was good given the forums perception of various sides in the 80s

 

[OverratedSanity]

General consensus on top 3 goes WI/Pak/NZ I think.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I know what he said, I'm just interested in who was good given the forums perception of various sides in the 80s

Basically the Windies were a massive bunch of minnow bashers
And they didn’t even win that many games - drew a lot.

Can you say OVERRATED?

 

[subshakerz]

Seemed to be a lot of those floating around in the 80s. If Australia claim to be bad, England claim to be bad, India claim to be classic India home and away, Sri Lanka were bad and South Africa kicked out, who is good apart from the West Indies?

There's Pakistan I suppose but no lbws for the home team will help there.

Both Australia and England were relatively strong from the early 80s and became weaker as the decade went by. But yeah the top teams were WI/Pakistan/NZ.

 

[ankitj]

No he said they were bad if you took Hadlee away. Its probably true. I remember looking up the list of all tests NZ won in that era and it was extremely difficult to pick out ones where Hadlee didnt put in an amazing performance. The reliance on him was huge.

Yeah, it's hard to find a series where he wasn't the best bowler on either side in a tour. Was player of the series in all but one series NZ won IIRC.

If you are looking for an exception though, this is a glaring one: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-new-zealand-2nd-test-63344/full-scorecard

 

[ankitj]

General consensus on top 3 goes WI/Pak/NZ I think.

England was very good too in 80s. Think they would rank above NZ.

Edit: No

 

[OverratedSanity]

England was very good too in 80s. Think they would rank above NZ

England were rubbish after Botham's short peak ended I think. By the end of the decade they were getting demolished by a not a particularly amazing Australia. Probably wouldve lost the 89 ashes 6-0 if not for rain.