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.

Edit: Richie Benaud confirms Hadlee beating the bat "constantly" at just past the 9 minute mark on the video at

 

[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.

 

[Coronis]

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

Pakistan (35.77)
West Indies (35.05)
India (34.59)
Australia (33.98)
New Zealand (30.07)
England (29.97)
Sri Lanka (25.99)

comparison with bowling..

West Indies (25.96)
New Zealand (30.60)
Pakistan (31.28)
Australia (33.67)
England (36.14)
India (36.54)
Sri Lanka (39.32)

 

[thierry henry]

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.

The more relevant stats would be NZ’s stats in the 1980s vs in the 1970s. My point was that NZ was a much better side in the 80s than the 70s and Hadlee was also vastly improved in the 80s vs the 70s. This would put Hadlee roughly in the category OP was talking about as opposed to being an example of a bowler who achieved despite being in a poor team.

I haven’t broken down NZ’s overall 80s stats in any detail though. I would be surprised if it was simply a case of ‘generally poor side elevated to 2nd/3rd in the world by Hadlee alone’ but hey, I haven’t crunched the numbers.

 

[thierry henry]

Also my point was partly tongue in cheek as 80s NZ obviously weren’t as good as the ATG teams. Nevertheless I didn’t expect such firm pushback on the idea that NZ were decent then.

 

[Starfighter]

Also my point was partly tongue in cheek as 80s NZ obviously weren’t as good as the ATG teams. Nevertheless I didn’t expect such firm pushback on the idea that NZ were decent then.

I'm not pushing back on the idea that NZ were better then (although their batting average in the eighties and nineties was the same, and 00s higher. Make of that what you will). I'm specifically saying there's nothing there proving the OP's idea that it would have somehow made Hadlee's figures better analogous to his assertion about Marshall and McGrath.

 

[kyear2]

Pakistan (35.77)
West Indies (35.05)
India (34.59)
Australia (33.98)
New Zealand (30.07)
England (29.97)
Sri Lanka (25.99)

comparison with bowling..

West Indies (25.96)
New Zealand (30.60)
Pakistan (31.28)
Australia (33.67)
England (36.14)
India (36.54)
Sri Lanka (39.32)

So no more "score board pressure" than Pakistan and Imran would have had then?

 

[thierry henry]

I'm not pushing back on the idea that NZ were better then (although their batting average in the eighties and nineties was the same, and 00s higher. Make of that what you will). I'm specifically saying there's nothing there proving the OP's idea that it would have somehow made Hadlee's figures better analogous to his assertion about Marshall and McGrath.

OP referred to general team strength and contrasted that with Hadlee being in a weaker team. I don’t understand how saying Hadlee was actually in a decent team in the 80s, and was much more individually successful in a more successful team in the 80s vs a weaker team in the 70s, isn’t applicable both in (a) undermining the assumption that Hadlee was in a poor team and (b) supporting the premise that individual bowling performance is improved when in a stronger team.

 

[Coronis]

The more relevant stats would be NZ’s stats in the 1980s vs in the 1970s. My point was that NZ was a much better side in the 80s than the 70s and Hadlee was also vastly improved in the 80s vs the 70s. This would put Hadlee roughly in the category OP was talking about as opposed to being an example of a bowler who achieved despite being in a poor team.

I haven’t broken down NZ’s overall 80s stats in any detail though. I would be surprised if it was simply a case of ‘generally poor side elevated to 2nd/3rd in the world by Hadlee alone’ but hey, I haven’t crunched the numbers.

Specifically looking at bowling stats. (alright I’m confused because statsguru is giving some conflicting wicket totals for teams vs total aggregate fsr but whatever) oh wait nvm so that’s runouts I guess? So I’ll use bowling purely.

NZ in the 70’s

524 @ 38.95

Excluding Hadlee

417 @ 41.21

NZ in the 80’s

828 @ 30.38

Excluding Hadlee

539 @ 36.33

So yeah NZ bowling was significantly better in the 80’s even outside of Hadlee, roughly equivalent to India’s. Their batting was also a bit better due to Crowe and others emerging. (Hadlee himself averaged 20 in the 70’s vs 30 in the 80’s).

He didn’t do it single handedly, but he was obviously a huge factor

 

[Coronis]

So no more "score board pressure" than Pakistan and Imran would have had then?

An average of 60 runs or so

 

[Starfighter]

OP referred to general team strength and contrasted that with Hadlee being in a weaker team. I don’t understand how saying Hadlee was actually in a decent team in the 80s, and was much more individually successful in a more successful team in the 80s vs a weaker team in the 70s, isn’t applicable both in (a) undermining the assumption that Hadlee was in a poor team and (b) supporting the premise that individual performance is improved when in a stronger team.

Hadlee was much more successful then because he was a better bowler. He said himself he wasted his early career. You simply cannot exclude individual development as a factor.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

The OP was asserting that teams like NZ have weaker batting units and therefore more regular pressure on bowlers like Hadlee compared with Marshall and McGrath who had the luxury of consistent high first innings totals giving them a cushion and scoreboard pressure.

Do you agree with that?

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not pushing back on the idea that NZ were better then (although their batting average in the eighties and nineties was the same, and 00s higher. Make of that what you will). I'm specifically saying there's nothing there proving the OP's idea that it would have somehow made Hadlee's figures better analogous to his assertion about Marshall and McGrath.

My point is that Marshall and McGrath had the added advantage of more runs to play with and added pressure of massive totals.

 

[Migara]

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.

Getting to the tail by a single bowler don't work all the time. By a pack works almost all the time. And the one on song blasts the tail.

 

[kyear2]

Getting to the tail by a single bowler don't work all the time. By a pack works almost all the time. And the one on song blasts the tail.

Could Murali had got the wpm that he has, the number of wickets that he has, bowling with a stronger unit?

 

[Migara]

Could Murali had got the wpm that he has, the number of wickets that he has, bowling with a stronger unit?

No he cannot. But the ones he get would be hell of a lot cheaper. Instead of 800, would have ended up with 650, and instead of 22.5 per wicket, 20.5.

 

[kyear2]

No he cannot. But the ones he get would be hell of a lot cheaper. Instead of 800, would have ended up with 650, and instead of 22.5 per wicket, 20.5.

And what's the origin or source of Murali's greatness. His greatest claim to be the greatest. 800 wickets.

And no, don't think we can definitively say what his average would have been, but for sure we can say that the number would have been less.

And despite the negative of only having Vaas as great support, he did have better home conditions that probably anyone. He sure as hell had better home conditions than Marshall and McGrath.

These things balance out.