Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)

[Bolo.]

Two mediocre bowlers. Let's discuss

 

[Coronis]

zero surprises on this poll

 

[trundler]

zero surprises on this poll

Came here to say this

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hadlee's allround mediocrity >> Marshall's simple mediocrity.

 

[Jumno]

Hadlee.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee if we are serious.

 

[Slifer]

Im as biased as they come but come on, Hadlee is imo, negligibly worse as a bowler but better batsman.

 

[smash84]

I am surprised that Marshall has 4 votes in this.

 

[subshakerz]

Anyone not voting Hadlee should explain.

 

[Coronis]

Anyone not voting Hadlee should explain.

@kyear2 its your time man

 

[ataraxia]

This result is absolutely bonkers. How can one think Hadlee > Marshall but McGrath > Imran, and why is that opinion shared by half of CW?

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 its your time man

It's close and if it would be any bowler it would be Hadlee.

Hadlee is definitely in the top tier, but I still think Marshall was the better bowler and if I could only choose one for any team I would chose the guy I would back to destroy any team in an conditions. Think with his skill set, pace and ability to read batsmen's weaknesses, he's the one I want.

Plus, Maco was no mug with the bat.

So to keep this short, the only players in the history of the game I'm taking over Maco is Bradman and Sobers and it's close.

Yes Hadlee's batting was better, but how much better and how impactful? Victories?

 

[kyear2]

Anyone not voting Hadlee should explain.

In another post u spike about just looking at numbers with regards to Sutcliffe etc, this is the same.

We like to look at combined numbers whether it adds value or not.

This is why I rate some secondary skills over others, even if it doesn't look as flashy on a spread sheet.

Plus you yourself is always saying that Maco is the only bowler really separates himself from the others. I could find the post for you.

 

[Coronis]

It's close and if it would be any bowler it would be Hadlee.

Hadlee is definitely in the top tier, but I still think Marshall was the better bowler and if I could only choose one for any team I would chose the guy I would back to destroy any team in an conditions. Think with his skill set, pace and ability to read batsmen's weaknesses, he's the one I want.

Plus, Maco was no mug with the bat.

So to keep this short, the only players in the history of the game I'm taking over Maco is Bradman and Sobers and it's close.

Yes Hadlee's batting was better, but how much better and how impactful? Victories?

Well I know in 84 vs England he took 8 wickets, but he scored a 99 in the first innings - top scoring for his team and outscoring both of England’s innings.

 

[subshakerz]

In another post u spike about just looking at numbers with regards to Sutcliffe etc, this is the same.

We like to look at combined numbers whether it adds value or not.

This is why I rate some secondary skills over others, even if it doesn't look as flashy on a spread sheet.

Plus you yourself is always saying that Maco is the only bowler really separates himself from the others. I could find the post for you.

Being clearly best doesn't make you streets ahead.

However, for some strange reason I totally forgot about Marshalls own batting skills. It does make him have a good case versus Hadlee. In fact, switching my vote.

 

[kyear2]

Well I know in 84 vs England he took 8 wickets, but he scored a 99 in the first innings - top scoring for his team and outscoring both of England’s innings.

I never claimed he couldn't bat, I'm saying it wasn't enough for me to chose him.over Maco who I know we both believe was the greatest bowler ever.

 

[kyear2]

Being clearly best doesn't make you streets ahead.

However, for some strange reason I totally forgot about Marshalls own batting skills. It does make him have a good case versus Hadlee. In fact, switching my vote.

Yes, McGrath vs Hadlee is way tougher to justify because one was a pure rabbit, that isn't the case here.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, McGrath vs Hadlee is way tougher to justify because one was a pure rabbit, that isn't the case here.

I have Marshall ahead of Hadlee by a slight but notable bit as a bowler. I would take Marshalls extra bowling prowess over the marginal batting benefit.

Marshall vs Imran though is a case where the batting margin is significant enough to go in the other direction.

 

[kyear2]

I have Marshall ahead of Hadlee by a slight but notable bit as a bowler. I would take Marshalls extra bowling prowess over the marginal batting benefit.

Marshall vs Imran though is a case where the batting margin is significant enough to go in the other direction.

And we will agree to disagree.

 

[ankitj]

Marshall's batting getting overrated now.