Did Marshall and McGrath have it easier?

[kyear2]

For reference, in the 80’s.

Windies 35.05 batting average (2nd)
NZ 30.07 batting average (5th)

Windies 25.96 bowling average (1st)
NZ 30.60 bowling average (2nd)

Who was the top 5 in terns of batting average? And the numbers?

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Just wanted to check this lol

17 tests won by NZ in the 80’s, Hadlee’s performances in those

11/102 vs Windies 1980
4/127 vs India 1981
7/101 vs Australia 1982
4/60 vs SL 1983
6/81 vs SL 1983
0/89 vs England 1983
8/44 vs England 1984
8/43 vs SL 1984
10/102 vs SL 1984
6/126 vs Pakistan 1985
8/110 vs Pakistan 1985
15/123 vs Australia 1985
11/155 vs Australia 1985
4/108 vs Australia 1986
10/140 vs England 1986
9/151 vs Windies 1987
10/88 vs India 1988

The one where he took 0 wickets was dominated by Lance Cairns (7/24, 3/70) Hadlee did contribute a solid 75 and 6*.

Pretty amazing to think New Zealand beat every other team at least twice in the 80’s,

Hadlee bowled 47 overs in that match for a very low economy rate of 1.89, beat the bat countless times, and just couldn't buy a wicket. An online report on the match (can't find it now) said that while Cairns took 10 wickets, it could just as easily have been Hadlee. I don't know now whether Hadlee going wicketless was just bad luck or whether something else was going on, e.g. bowling a bit short or landing the ball TOO well on the seam so that the movement missed the edge rather than catching it.

 

[thierry henry]

All these NZ/Hadlee stats could also be seen as supporting OP's point that when the team is better, the strike bowler does better. No-one denies that Hadlee was a beast in the 80s, but the rest of the NZ team had also clearly improved, at least from dire to middling.

Anyway I am not at all invested in downplaying Hadlee's achievements, but even the stats meant to hype him up still show an improvement in the rest of the team alongside an improvement in Hadlee. I think it's pretty obvious our 80s crop of players was an improvement on most of what came before and after it.

 

[Xix2565]

The bigger benefit for Marshall/McGrath was the added pressure from the other bowling end rather than their batting lineups. It's a lot easier to make big scores when your bowling attack keeps bowling teams out for lower scores.

 

[Starfighter]

All these NZ/Hadlee stats could also be seen as supporting OP's point that when the team is better, the strike bowler does better. No-one denies that Hadlee was a beast in the 80s, but the rest of the NZ team had also clearly improved, at least from dire to middling.

Do they? The bowling average of the NZ bowlers who weren't Hadlee during his career was 37. In comparison, from the start of 1960 up to the start of Hadlee's career, NZ's bowlers were averaging 32.7, respectable when the overall average for that period was 32.2,and despite their very poor batting. None of the stats being presented here are making a case for NZ's batting being better during Hadlee's career making his own stats better. Unless you start off agreeing with the OP's premise, which is begging the question.