Did Marshall and McGrath have it easier?

[Daemon]

Yeah (which is generally the case)

Cries in rubel hossain

 

[sayon basak]

Cries in rubel hossain

And every other BD bowlers. We're the best at producing 50+ averaging bowlers (Rubel stands as the very best)

 

[Migara]

The elephant in the room is that, when you have a pack of bowlers, you tend to arrive at the tail more often, and tail end wickets tend to be cheaper. For a player like Hadlee, he had to arrive at the tail all by himself on most of times. But for McGrath and Marshall there were others to do it. More than McGrath it was Warne who benefited more by having the chance to bowl to the tail more.

 

[Migara]

McGrath averaged a pathetic 23.35 in games played without Warne.

FRAUD
R
A
U
D

Warne would have been half the bowler he was without McGrath.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Warne would have been half the bowler he was without McGrath.

FWIW:

McGrath without Warne:



Warne without McGrath:

 

[kyear2]

The elephant in the room is that, when you have a pack of bowlers, you tend to arrive at the tail more often, and tail end wickets tend to be cheaper. For a player like Hadlee, he had to arrive at the tail all by himself on most of times. But for McGrath and Marshall there were others to do it. More than McGrath it was Warne who benefited more by having the chance to bowl to the tail more.

Murali and Hadlee had to fight to get to the tail, they also got more of said tail.

Warne got most of the tail from McGrath. Also Garner got most of the tail from Maco.

You can check the numbers if you so desire.

It balances out.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Murali and Hadlee had to fight to get to the tail, they also got more of said tail.

Warne got most of the tail from McGrath. Also Garner got most of the tail from Maco.

You can check the numbers if you so desire.

It balances out.

With one notable exception: he never needed McGrath to get Liz Hurley.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Murali and Hadlee had to fight to get to the tail, they also got more of said tail.

Warne got most of the tail from McGrath. Also Garner got most of the tail from Maco.

You can check the numbers if you so desire.

It balances out.

That is true. What is interesting is that Hadlee and Murali got a lot of the tail from themselves.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Murali and Hadlee had to fight to get to the tail, they also got more of said tail.

Warne got most of the tail from McGrath. Also Garner got most of the tail from Maco.

You can check the numbers if you so desire.

It balances out.

Although true, I don't think Garner needed Marshall to get to the tail:



(given your background, I'm sure you've heard this one before but I couldn't resist!)

 

[Coronis]

Murali and Hadlee had to fight to get to the tail, they also got more of said tail.

Warne got most of the tail from McGrath. Also Garner got most of the tail from Maco.

You can check the numbers if you so desire.

It balances out.

Garner’s numbers are actually remarkably well balanced.

85 top order wickets
87 middle order wickets
87 tail wickets

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Garner’s numbers are actually remarkably well balanced.

85 top order wickets
87 middle order wickets
87 tail wickets

It's easier to be well-balanced when you're built like a tripod.

 

[thierry henry]

False premise to this whole conversation re: Hadlee cos NZ in the 80s were literally good. Second highest test win % and third highest win/loss ratio for the decade.

 

[kyear2]

Although true, I don't think Garner needed Marshall to get to the tail:

View attachment 42862

(given your background, I'm sure you've heard this one before but I couldn't resist!)

I hadn't. Just brilliant,

 

[subshakerz]

False premise to this whole conversation re: Hadlee cos NZ in the 80s were literally good. Second highest test win % and third highest win/loss ratio for the decade.

Because of Hadlee. He still had low scores to defend.

 

[subshakerz]

Murali and Hadlee had to fight to get to the tail, they also got more of said tail.

Warne got most of the tail from McGrath. Also Garner got most of the tail from Maco.

You can check the numbers if you so desire.

It balances out.

Except McGrath and Maco had scoreboard pressure.

 

[Coronis]

False premise to this whole conversation re: Hadlee cos NZ in the 80s were literally good. Second highest test win % and third highest win/loss ratio for the decade.

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)

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

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)

This suggests to me that it was NZ's bowling (Hadlee) which was making the difference and not their batting.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You can go through the list of NZ wins from that era and you'd find it ridiculously hard to come up with more than 2-3 games which NZ won without Hadlee absolutely tearing it up.

 

[Coronis]

You can go through the list of NZ wins from that era and you'd find it ridiculously hard to come up with more than 2-3 games which NZ won without Hadlee absolutely tearing it up.

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,

 

[OverratedSanity]

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,

Haha yeah I'd looked this up before. The reliance on Hadlee to win games for NZ was utterly ridiculous. It's amazing that he elevated a decen t but not great set of players to arguably 2nd/3rd best in the world in that era.