Coronis
International Coach
lol
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)
- Thread starter Bolo.
- Start date
smash84
The Tiger King
Coronis
International Coach
Are you implying I think Marshall is clearly ahead of Lara? Or are you implying that I blindly believe my takes are correct?
smash84
The Tiger King
I think both
Coronis
International Coach
Sadly, neither is correct. I believe there is a minimal gap between Marshall/McGrath/Hadlee as bowlers (as I believe most of us do) which is why Hadlee’s clearly superior batting comes into play.I think both
And yeah with my own takes I understand that some e.g Viv for example aren’t necessarily objectively correct or right but I won’t begrudge anyone for rating him highly or say its “ridiculous” or “absurd” to have him above certain contemporaries or others no matter how much I might personally disagree.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Hadlee is clearly superior is a batting position and with an output that matters less than the small gap in a much more impactful primary discipline.
kyear2
International Coach
I don't think he's in a different tier, but do believe he's clearly ahead and it's not a hairs width. I have McGrath and Hadlee much closer together but with McGrath clearly ahead as well.
The higher the hypothetical level the more these differences matter (as referenced by someone earlier) and honestly the 3rd name I'll select in an AT team or ranking would be the one I believe is the best bowler ever, why is that controversial.
We have got to such a point with over rating all rounders and the impact the batting has that some like @shortpitched713 thinks Pollock is the 3rd or 4th best player ever, any by this add everything together logic, he might be, and we all know he isn't.
We have two main disciplines, batting and bowling and somehow unless you can double on your contemporaries, our ranking system has turned into an all rounder list.
And it's not even about impact, how many games have you won with your batting, how critical was it, would it be to your team's success.
I've often disagreed with the members of the forum, you included, about the impact of various disciplines. I've watched countless matches when a slip cordon's support of the bowlers were critical to victories, I would argue as much if nor much more than Pollock's or Hadlle's big innings contributed to wins. Yet, do we factor that to Kallis's, Ponting's, Hammond's ratings? Chappell, Smith, Lara? So it's not about impact or contributing to wins, it's about numbers added to each other.
We wouldn't have been the dominating unit we were without our cordon, we managed though to make so without a bowling allrounder, same exact scenario with the dominating Australian unit. And please don't say they would have helped, of course they may have, but it wasn't critical.
Varied off track a bit, but there's a disconnect and we have for to the point where we generally over rate bowling all-rounders and definely the impact.
I love Hadlee, I have him either 5th or 6th all time (behind Hobbs as well), and that also alternates with McGrath, who despite being a rabbit, I believe also had that little something extra and .... tbh (admittedly)a bit unfair (along with Maco) led two teams to being the best ever.
In summary, who would have the biggest impact on my team to play every and anywhere, the guys who I want more than anyone else who would lead me to victory. The Don, Sir Garry and Maco.
And note, I'm not trying to conceive anyone, I'm just explaing my position.
kyear2
International Coach
You can insinuate what ever you want, I can justify any of the two you are referencing.
As you can your top 3 of Bradman, Imran and whoever. If I wanted to make a absolute bullet prof team that covered every base, I too would chose Imran, especially if I rated him the same way you do. Lower order batting, reverse swing, disciplinarian v/c. He and Smith are perfect utility players.
smash84
The Tiger King
I actually wasn't sure what you meant when you compared Marshall and Lara. I thought it was some non serious question tbh
Swamp Witch Hattie
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Marshall's best bowling in an innings in first-class cricket was 8-71. When Hadlee toured India in 1988, his first tour game was against West Zone at Rajkot. In his only bowling innings there, Hadlee took 9-55 on a flat wicket. That's right, folks, crippled-up, broken-down, clapped-out, dilapidated, ancient 37-year-old Hadlee who had carried his team's bowling for 12 years up to that point (later to become 14 years) as opposed to merely spearheading it for six years from 1983-89 managed a better performance on a dead wicket than Marshall could achieve in his entire first-class career even on the liveliest of pitches. I suspect that Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome was beginning to rear its ugly head but the maestro was not to be denied. You can read about this legendary feat at https://www.mid-day.com/news/opinio...-hadlee-floored-rajkot-and-west-zone-23335196.
Swamp Witch Hattie
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I'm not going to mention how Marshall completely outshone Hadlee, Imran and others during the 1987 MCC Bicentenary match on a dead wicket because that wouldn't fit into my agenda but the truth is, Marshall wasn't a bad bowler either.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I think we're mischaracterizing my opinion. I think Shaun Pollock is in the pantheon of the top 10 pace bowlers of all time. That's the real reason he is one of the best players ever for me, when you combine his batting. Not because he "does enough" with both disciplines combined.
Your other point, about primary skillsets being more important, I don't even necessarily disagree with. My own list, you'll note contains only bowlers, and to some extent that is me being a bit of a provacateur, but I genuinely believe that bowlers are capable of having a bigger impact ( given they stay more or less healthy ), over the course of multiple series/years, etc.
In how one ranks those bowlers against one another, of course the bowling will come much higher on the list in first place, but the batting certainly makes an impact too ( even tailenders can have the ability to change matches, we've all seen it ). I actually completely disagree with the "all-rounder" concept that just adds the disciplines and elevates a player like say Botham over much better bowlers from the same era. Ultimately how well a bowler does in an "all-rounder" ranking is a bit of a trivia, as it doesn't accurately reflect the real value.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
The non Sobers team comfortably; XI Sobers aren't good enough bowlers and who knows what kind of keeper (though I guess he won't really be bad at it).
How much would I need to weaken them by to make the Sobers team favourites? If I took out Kallis and Lindwall and replaced them with Mark Waugh and Craig McDermott would that tighten it up?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Is your point that Hadlee is better on flat wickets than Marshall?
Swamp Witch Hattie
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
No, I was just taking the mickey. Marshall was possibly (probably?) the best bowler on a dead wicket that there's ever been (although Hadlee could bowl well on them, even superbly at times). Hadlee got lucky in the Rajkot game with a ball that swung and with other bowlers not as likely to take wickets off him. Marshall was better on a dead wicket but I would give the edge to Hadlee on a wicket with some life in it due to his slightly better control.
Swamp Witch Hattie
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Is there a difference between a flat wicket and a dead wicket? I've always taken them to mean the same thing because when a person is dead, medical monitoring equipment shows a flat line.