Glenn McGrath vs Richard Hadlee

[Gob]

How can you find the records of bowlers based on the batsmen dismissed batting by position?

can't find it on statsguru

 

[TheJediBrah]

How can you find the records of bowlers based on the batsmen dismissed batting by position?

can't find it on statsguru

Howstat

 

[Immenso]

Don't know if Hadlee got to bowl in 2 innings as much as McGrath. Still that adjustment will not allow Hadlee to get numbers for any batters close to what McGrath has for Tendulkar and Lara.

Yeah. Apart from less chances to bowl twice at an opposition twice.

Clicked on the scoreboard link of one of the Hadlee dismiss Chappell matches.

Hadlee. Bowled 28 out of the team's 87 overs in innings 1, then his team's weak batting meant he was was back out their 42 overs later to bowl at them again in a small chase situation. Not an issue Marshall and McGrath often had to deal with.

I said earlier in thread that I can't really separate Hadlee and McGrath from having watched them both play a lot. Both had great ability to hone in on a batsman's weakness.

But, that batsman dismissed stat was not something I had discovered before on statsguru, so has been an interesting thread.

 

[Migara]

Lillee vs Akram there were metrics

Dennis Lillee easily for me.

• Lillee was a better matchwinner. He took 6 tenfors in 31 wins vs Wasim's 2 tenfors in 41 wins.
• Lillee more impactful. He took a lot more big hauls, including significantly more 10 fors and almost the same number of 5 fors in 34 less matches.
• Lillee took far more wickets per match - over 5 wpm vs under 4 wpm is a big difference over a long career. If Lillee had maintained his wickets per match over the same number of matches as Wasim, he would have ended up with well over 100 more wickets.
• Lillee took a far higher proportion of top order wickets. Wasim very rarely ran through a top order and his proportion of lower order wickets is among the highest of the great fast bowlers.
• Lillee led his attack for almost his whole career. Wasim had Waqar who was statistically a better bowler for the first half of their careers.

 

[h_hurricane]

The last post in this thread was made exactly 17 years back. An interesting read.

Is McGrath a chucker?

Is this thread meant to be inflamatory?

www.cricketweb.net

 

[Bolo.]

Surprised by Hadlee's numbers, thought it would be better. Marshall's are more comparable to McGrath in this respect.

Hadlee wouldnt have had too much chance to bowl at many of those guys twice. Over rates, being in a weak batting team and slow scoring. All of them after the top 2 basically batted 4-5 (yes, even Viv vs NZ), and all played for stronger teams than NZ.

 

[Bolo.]

McGrath had dismissed Kallis five times (didn't check but remember it was put up on the graphics once). Could dismiss Inzmam witha tomato. Younis faced him in UAE in 02 and in Aus 04/05 and McGrath had him several times regardless Younis did not make any useful contributions. Same with Chandrapaul who's best series against Aust happened post Mc/Warne era and McGrath and Warne were the standout reason. No idea how much he bowled to Flower. Sangakkara faced him twice in tests i think and was dismissed cheaply at least once. As i said earlier, the only standout domination of McGrath i could think of was Vaughan from 02/03 and Lara 99 and to an extent 03

There is an actual reason for people to believe that he did indeed got the best of the opponents in big occasions. One of the best examples i could think of was Dravid in 04. Dravid had a massive series barely few months back against a McGrath less attack and Aus didn't look like they knew how to get him out. Returning to the side, McGrath knocked him twice in the first two tests very cheaply and set that series up.

This is obviously flawed but one thing you can do is pick the best players of pace that you think and compare there records vs Australia with and without McGrath. That could give you some idea

He does seem to have been extremely good vs the best players in the opposition. You would expect this from an ATG quick, but it sounds like he is still ahead of the curve.

I have no idea how to balance his quality vs the best in comparison to someone like Hadlee though. The fact that they were typically out twice in matches Mcgrath played (whether or not he got them) vs typically out once in Hadlees games (ditto) leaves much less opportunity to get their wickets, but at the same time Hadlee had little competition to take their wickets.

And no, almost nobody dominated him, even compared to bowlers of similar quality. One or two players doing it in a massively long career means nothing. He just wasn't as much of a weapon as bowlers of similar quality in unhelpful circumstances.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah, it's hard to find a series where he wasn't the best bowler on either side in a tour. Was player of the series in all but one series NZ won IIRC.

If you are looking for an exception though, this is a glaring one: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-new-zealand-2nd-test-63344/full-scorecard

Big fan of the way that you find a unicorn of a game, in which he failed with the ball in a win, but he still managed a matchwinning performance (just with the bat instead).

 

[ankitj]

Big fan of the way that you find a unicorn of a game, in which he failed with the ball in a win, but he still managed a matchwinning performance (just with the bat instead).

Still finished with most wickets on either side in the series.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=252;type=series

Edit: and highest batting average for his side with 3 fifties. Haha

 

[Starfighter]

Big fan of the way that you find a unicorn of a game, in which he failed with the ball in a win, but he still managed a matchwinning performance (just with the bat instead).

Speaking of that unicorn of a game, can you imagine a bowler like Cairns cleaning up like that in the modern game?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Still finished with most wickets on either side in the series.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=252;type=series

Edit: and highest batting average for his side with 3 fifties. Haha

Greatest allrounder after Sobers and Procter ?

 

[stephen]

Hadlee wouldnt have had too much chance to bowl at many of those guys twice. Over rates, being in a weak batting team and slow scoring. All of them after the top 2 basically batted 4-5 (yes, even Viv vs NZ), and all played for stronger teams than NZ.

So I did some fact checking on this. It turns out that Hadlee bowled in approximately 1.7 innings per test. Most of the other high wicket taking quicks averaged around 1.8. However, a few of them averaged similarly to Hadlee. Imran and Wasim both had a very similar number of innings/ test. As did Kapil. Botham actually only bowled in 1.6 innings per test. Murali is in the 1.7 ballpark.

By comparison, Marshall had a ratio of 1.86, McGrath 1.95, Warne 1.88.

The worst I could find was Chandra who averaged around 1.67.

So yes, Hadlee was on the lower side of the innings/ test ratio, but I'm really not sure it makes a huge difference to his wpm figure.

Assuming the rate he took wickets remained the same he would hypothetically have taken an extra 64 wickets in his career if his ratio was 2 innings/ test. Which works out to 5.8 wpm instead of 5.0 wpm. That sounds like a lot but nobody has ever actually hit that ratio and every bowler who has gotten close over a reasonable number of tests was in an ATG side. For comparison, Marshall's wpm would increase from 4.4 to 4.7.

Note that I don't think this extrapolation is at all accurate, it's to see the upper limit of what he might have achieved in different circumstances.

 

[Migara]

So I did some fact checking on this. It turns out that Hadlee bowled in approximately 1.7 innings per test. Most of the other high wicket taking quicks averaged around 1.8. However, a few of them averaged similarly to Hadlee. Imran and Wasim both had a very similar number of innings/ test. As did Kapil. Botham actually only bowled in 1.6 innings per test. Murali is in the 1.7 ballpark.

By comparison, Marshall had a ratio of 1.86, McGrath 1.95, Warne 1.88.

The worst I could find was Chandra who averaged around 1.67.

So yes, Hadlee was on the lower side of the innings/ test ratio, but I'm really not sure it makes a huge difference to his wpm figure.

Assuming the rate he took wickets remained the same he would hypothetically have taken an extra 64 wickets in his career if his ratio was 2 innings/ test. Which works out to 5.8 wpm instead of 5.0 wpm. That sounds like a lot but nobody has ever actually hit that ratio and every bowler who has gotten close over a reasonable number of tests was in an ATG side. For comparison, Marshall's wpm would increase from 4.4 to 4.7.

Note that I don't think this extrapolation is at all accurate, it's to see the upper limit of what he might have achieved in different circumstances.

You would have noticed that some of the above has many unfinished innings compared to others,

 

[stephen]

You would have noticed that some of the above has many unfinished innings compared to others,

I didn't go into that level of depth. I feel like that's captured well enough in the overall statistic. I was more interested in seeing the range of difference between the extremes. I imagine that McGrath probably has close to the highest ratio of innings/ test. So the practical range is roughly 1.7 - 1.9 innings/ test.

 

[The Sean]

You seem to be under the impression that McGrath came marginally ahead of Hadlee in that vote because the vast majority of people ranked McGrath very slightly higher. Having quickly looked through that thread, your view does not reflect the reality of the voting patterns. On first glance, it appears 13 people ranked McGrath ahead of Hadlee and 10 put Hadlee ahead of McGrath. So again, a very slight overall advantage to McGrath, but certainly no strong consensus that McGrath is slighty ahead. In other words, the voting patterns in that thread were indeed perfectly consistent with the results of this vote and do not support your perception.

Fair enough - which tallies well with my "just my perception which may be mistaken" stance on things.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Hadlee:

Batter	Mat	Dis	Mat/Dis
CG Greenidge (WI)	10​	6​	1.66​
SM Gavaskar (INDIA)	8​	4​	2.00​
GS Chappell (AUS)	13​	6​	2.16​
IVA Richards (WI)	7​	3​	2.33​
AR Border (AUS)	16​	6​	2.66​
Javed Miandad (PAK)	11​	4​	2.75​

McGrath:

Batter	Mat	Dis	Mat/Dis
Younis Khan (PAK)	6​	5​	1.20​
V Sehwag (ICC/INDIA)	5​	4​	1.25​
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	9​	6​	1.50​
BC Lara (ICC/WI)	24​	15​	1.60​
JH Kallis (ICC/SA)	14​	6​	2.33​
R Dravid (ICC/INDIA)	12​	5​	2.40​
KC Sangakkara (SL)	2​	0​	-​

McGrath wins IMO.

shouldn't innings/dismisal be a fairer comparison

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Mcgrath never had to bowl against the greatest batting lineup of his era.

Richards here gets a lot of stick for not facing the best bowling lineup of his era. But Mcgrath always seems to escape scrutiny in this regard.

 

[sunilz]

Mcgrath never had to bowl against the greatest batting lineup of his era.

Richards here gets a lot of stick for not facing his the best bowling lineup of his era. But Mcgrath always seems to escape scrutiny in this regard.

McGrath would have made mockery of Australia line up just like Indian batting line up.
What makes you believe that he wouldn't have done well against Ponting, Waugh, Hayden and Gilchrist on Australian tracks with pace and bounce when he did se well against Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman on Indian tracks in 2001 and 2004?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

McGrath would have made mockery of Australia line up just like Indian batting line up.
What makes you believe that he wouldn't have done well against Ponting, Waugh, Hayden and Gilchrist on Australian tracks with pace and bounce when he did se well against Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman on Indian tracks in 2001 and 2004?

I really believe the more aggressive Australian style of batting is way more effective against Mcgrath than the more conservative. Plus Australian batting lineup is way more complete - less weak links and more left handers.

 

[sunilz]

I really believe the more aggressive Australian style of batting is way more effective against Mcgrath than the more conservative. Plus Australian batting lineup is way more complete - less weak links and more left handers.

There is no evidence to suggest that their batting approach would have been more successful against McGrath considering both Amrose and Steyn won a series in OZ.
Donald was the only ATG bowler from 90s who probably struggled in Aus . That was more due to Steve Waugh's strong defence rather than attacking approach.