• 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.

McGrath vs Hadlee vs Wasim vs Pollock as test cricketers?

Better test cricketer

  • Total voters
    29
  • This poll will close: .
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
sayon basak said:
All of the others are top 10 bowlers, Pollock is barely a top 20. The batting is not enough to overcome the gap in the primary discipline.
Click to expand...
Johan said:
Pollock RPI — 24.2
Hadlee RPI — 23.3
Wasim RPI — 19.7

not enough gap imo, Wasim is def a better bowler, McGrath is far better at bowling imo
Click to expand...
Basically this.

I still go against the tide and rate McGrath ever so slightly higher. I have them ranked 5th and 6th respectively with Pigeon ahead.

Not always about the stats and there are 3 intangibles that places McGrath (fairly or not) ahead.

McGrath - Hadlee - Wasim - Pollock
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
DrWolverine said:
At their peak, WestIndies lost just one test series in 15 years. It was to NewZealand and Richard Hadlee played an important part.

Richard Hadlee took 3-58, 4-75, 5-34, 6-68 and also scored one fifty and a century in that series.

In the last 50 years, NewZealand and Australia have played 13 Test series. The one time they won, it involved Richard Hadlee.

Richard Hadlee in that series :
5-65, 5-65, 6-71, 6-90, 9-52,
111 runs including a fifty.

From 1970-2023, NewZealand have played 24 Tests in India. They won just one match. Hadlee took 10 wickets in that match.

View attachment 45273
Click to expand...
A bit of context context should really go into the first example given, but sure.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Coronis said:
I’m not sure what justification someone could come up with to not vote Hadlee in this.
Click to expand...
McGrath was the better bowler in a tougher era.

He took a higher percentage of top order wickets and overall a higher value of wickets.

And it may come off as ridiculous, but one was the absolute key figure in what was arguably the greatest team ever.

Besides the raw average, not so sure how impactful, or game changing, Hadlee's batting, day in day out, really was.

And unlike apparently everyone else on the forum, and yes I do acknowledge some value, I don't see lower order batting to be the ultimate decider to all things cricket.

At the end of the day, McGrath gives me more confidence to succeed on a larger variety of pitches and conditions, and I think he was the better bowler.

But yes, it's close.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
sayon basak said:
Pretty sure CW is pretty united on the matter. Hadlee is a top 6/7, McGrath is a top 10/11, Wasim is top 15/16 and Pollock is probably top 40 as cricketers.
Click to expand...
I will never understand how the 2nd best bowler is at best top 10 / 11?

Please explain to me me how.

There's at most 1 bowler ahead of him on primary and at most 2 batsmen.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
It's odd. You question me questioning Pollocks batting, but you are able to completely sideline Hadlees batting to rank McGrath ahead of him.

It's not clear if McGrath is even a better bowler. Hadlees batting is a clear tiebreaker.
Click to expand...
I'm not questioning it, I find it hypocritical.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
McGrath was the better bowler in a tougher era.

He took a higher percentage of top order wickets and overall a higher value of wickets.
Click to expand...
Likely because he had more bowlers in his team who could mop up the lower order and tail.

kyear2 said:
And it may come off as ridiculous, but one was the absolute key figure in what was arguably the greatest team ever.
Click to expand...
You were literally arguing the opposite thing in the McGrath vs Marshall thread that McGrath wasn't as essential.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
I rate Pollocks batting with Hadlee and think it's average inflated due to a batting era thats all.

You ignore Hadlees batting completely.
Click to expand...
I don't ignore it, I have him as the 6th greatest cricketer of all time, and ahead of Viv and Tendulkar because of it.

Not nearly ignored.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
And it may come off as ridiculous, but one was the absolute key figure in what was arguably the greatest team ever.
Click to expand...
When it's convenient for you, you choose to downplay McGraths role. When not, you promote him as central. The issue here is you are using your argument against Hadlee, the guy who was much more essential for his team success.

kyear2 said:
McGrath had Warne who (incorrectly, but still) gets most of the credit for dominance, not to mention the greatest batting lineup ever.
Click to expand...
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
You do ignore it against McGrath.

There isn't any other way to look at it.
Click to expand...
Zero context given and I have to choose one of them for my team, I'm choosing McGrath.

Now if Bumrah elevates himself to top tier and makes and AT XI, I may be inclined not to play McGrath and Bumrah together, and play Hadlee instead of McGrath, but outside of that.... It's McGrath, I just think him and Marshall separates himself themselves from Hadlee a little bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top