Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Agreed. A batting average of under 20 and no centuries doesn't stack up. Hadlee's superiority in this area easily compensates for any bowling advantage Marshall might hold.
-
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.
Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)
- Thread starter Bolo.
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Unlike Garner's which is still very underrated.
thierry henry
International Coach
Have we really reached the point where we’re retrospectively Viv-ing Marshall’s batting? Oh he never scored any runs but that was only cos he didn’t try and also he’d fight you behind the grandstand so in conclusion GOAT
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Can't believe @subshakerz fell for it. haha
subshakerz
International Coach
Hadlees batting to me is also somewhat overrated frankly. I don't see him impacting many games at 7/8 as much as Marshall is going to win games in the SC or on flat tracks that Hadlee might not.
To me this comparison would be somewhat like Hammond vs Kallis as cricketers, though a bit tighter since Kallis ain't as near a bat. Kallis being below the level of a proper full-time bowler means his supposed greater superiority in the second discipline is not really what it's being made out to be.
subshakerz
International Coach
Let me clarify on how I review the batting levels of these ARs and Marshall of that period:
Botham: Genuine no.6
Imran: Borderline no.6/7
Kapil: Genuine no.7
Hadlee: Borderline no.7/8
Marshall: Genuine no.8
Hence why I dont see the batting difference between Hadlee and Marshall as making a huge difference in the context of games. In fact, those with mid-20s averages tend to deceive somewhat.
Botham: Genuine no.6
Imran: Borderline no.6/7
Kapil: Genuine no.7
Hadlee: Borderline no.7/8
Marshall: Genuine no.8
Hence why I dont see the batting difference between Hadlee and Marshall as making a huge difference in the context of games. In fact, those with mid-20s averages tend to deceive somewhat.
Chin Music
State Regular
Marshall was simply the greatest bowler that I have watched in my lifetime. Hadlee was brilliant but Macko simply had the ability to overcome any surface in his absolute pomp in a way that Hadlee couldn't. I take that over the notably better batting of paddles.
I don't see why you would factor in Hadlee's batting and ignore Marshall's. The gap between them as bats isn't that big.
Sunil1z
International Regular
So , why wasn’t Marshall considered all rounder ? If his batting was close to Hadlee , shouldn’t he be considered all rounder ?
How can we ignore batting average difference of 9 ?
I'm not saying ignore it. It's the reason I voted for Hadlee. But Marshall is much closer to Hadlee than he is to Chris Martin. I think you are just comparing a useful tail end bat to a very useful one.
Swamp Witch Hattie
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I see that the current voting stands at 6-26 in favour of Hadlee which is what he took against England in 1978. Based on this, I think that the final tally in favour of Hadlee will be 9-52.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
There is a threshold below which secondary skill doesn't matter IMO. No one takes Tendulkar's bowling into account when comparing him with Lara. Even if you did, the gap between batting of Marshall and Hadlee is too large to matter at all.
Swamp Witch Hattie
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
It's now 6-27. Three more idiots and 25 more geniuses need to vote to make my prediction come true.
Coronis
International Coach
You do realise Hadlee was better in the SC than Marshall right?
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Yes.
Its a very small difference, equivalent of the difference between Marshall and Gillespie as bowlers. Negligible.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Don't worry about Pollock vs McGrath. Come to the dark side, and accept that the most valuable post war cricketers list, looks something like this:
Last edited:
Sachin barely bowled, and it's debatable is he typically added value when he did. You bat every time your team Needs runs.
What's the cutoff for disregarding batting? If a bat as weak as Steyn can win a big series with the bat, why should we not credit him for it in relation to a complete spud?
shortpitched713
International Captain
The big brain answer is that there is no cut off. (But realistically you shouldn't be expecting anything from 11s, or mostly even 10s).