Marshall vs Hadlee (overall cricketers)

[kyear2]

lol I never said you pressured me? Like in the post I quoted, you asked “Does anyone ask Coronis to justify ranking Viv 15th?” and yes, yes you did lol

We all ask someone to justify a hot take or one we personally disagree with, iirc its a big part of these ATG/Player Comparison discussion.

But that's my point, I'm being asked to change votes, and multiple posts about my selections. I asked hey, how come you rate Viv so low. I never said you're wrong and kept going after you.

 

[subshakerz]

Ummm, so they have to be close to be rated above?

Hammond is pretty close.

I'll just leave that here.

Ugh, they have to be close for secondary disciplines to be seen as relevant to rate ahead.

 

[subshakerz]

But that's my point, I'm being asked to change votes, and multiple posts about my selections. I asked hey, how come you rate Viv so low. I never said you're wrong and kept going after you.

Keep your votes, just change your reasons for your votes.

When you say, 'I rate XYZ because he was winner' it doesnt help yourself or anyone else.

 

[kyear2]

Keep your votes, just change your reasons for your votes.

When you say, 'I rate XYZ because he was winner' it doesnt help yourself or anyone else.

There are many reasons to rate McGrath as a bowler above Hadlee. Most of the forum does, pretty sure you do as well. Don't know what you're going for tbh.

 

[kyear2]

Keep your votes, just change your reasons for your votes.

When you say, 'I rate XYZ because he was winner' it doesnt help yourself or anyone else.

I don't need to.

Why do you rate Imran as the 2nd or 3rd best player ever?

 

[shortpitched713]

Honestly, if you think Hadlee is 50/50 with McGrath including batting, thats just so disconnected from cricket reality I find it hard to take seriously. They have a 20 run difference in batting while being very hard to separate as bowlers, unlike Marshall IMO. This isn't close. Hadlee is obviously a better cricketer.

It's almost like you never watched a game where lower order batting played a role.

I would probably go Hadlee too, but some people ( myself included ) do think that McGrath is the GOAT bowler, and might also see him as significantly better than the ball than Hadlee, enough to make the difference.

I'm probably going Hadlee, but I don't think it's so obvious and straightforward.. Comparisons between specialist bowlers and bowling all-rounders rarely are.

 

[Coronis]

I don't need to.

Why do you rate Imran as the 2nd or 3rd best player ever?

Cos he’s a smooth criminal.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't need to.

Why do you rate Imran as the 2nd or 3rd best player ever?

Pretty sure I wont seriously give the argument 'Imran was a winner'.

Was Hadlee a loser?

 

[subshakerz]

I would probably go Hadlee too, but some people ( myself included ) do think that McGrath is the GOAT bowler, and might also see him as significantly better than the ball than Hadlee, enough to make the difference.

I'm probably going Hadlee, but I don't think it's so obvious and straightforward.. Comparisons between specialist bowlers and bowling all-rounders rarely are.

If that is the case, no issues. But Kyear specifically says there isnt much at all between them as bowlers yet refuses to see batting as a key dealbreaker. Bizarre.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

But you're thinking I'm putting down one or the other. I have one 5th and one 6th all time, and the last I typed it out Hadlee was ahead.

But McGrath, just had those little nuances as a bowler that's enough to be ahead of Paddles for me, and yes there is a huge difference in batting, and I have no way to prove this...

But if I had to pick two guys to play for me for a decade I'm going with Maco and Pidgeon, I can't make it make sense to you I just think they are winning more games with the ball for me than Hadlee is with the extra batting and I just want those two bowling together.

But yes, to be clear, as cricketers, Hadlee would likely have to be ahead.

Hadlee has a stupendous bowling record in test wins:





That's better than anybody else in test cricket history with 100 or more wickets in wins. And he did it over 16 years (longer than Marshall's (12 years eight months) and McGrath's (13 years two months) entire test careers). I concede that you said "for a decade".

In the March 1974 win over Australia, Hadlee took 3-59 and 4-71.

In the March 1990 win over Australia, Hadlee took 5-39 and 2-70.

Do you think that Marshall could have carried New Zealand for 14 years until he was 39 like Hadlee (1976-90) when he was finished at 33 despite terrific support and a significantly lighter workload? I don't. That tells me that Hadlee had something as a bowler which Marshall did not have. And that's a plus in Hadlee's favour. He has a number of metrics over Marshall, it isn't just one-way traffic. In the 1987 Boxing Day test against Australia, here are Hadlee's bowling stats (I believe it was a decent batting track):

44 overs, 5-109 and 31 overs, 5-67

Hadlee was nearly 36 1/2 years old here, over three years older than Marshall was when he retired as a test bowler. And in that first innings, he bowled 44 overs, i.e. 264 balls. Marshall never bowled more than 222 balls in his entire test career (Hadlee's maximum was 344 balls). Hadlee bowled more balls per innings in this test match (225) than Marshall bowled in any single bowling innings in his entire test career.

Hadlee first became the ICC #1 test bowler after his 48th test match (March 1984) and from then until he retired, he played 39 tests. He was ranked #1 after 33 of them and #2 after the other six. Marshall first became the ICC #1 test bowler after his 34th test match (December 1984) and from then until Hadlee retired (so we see the overlap), he played 35 test matches. He was ranked #1 after 12 of them, #2 after 22 of them and #3 after the other one. Hadlee did better than Marshall in the rankings when they were both at their best (I appreciate that it takes the rankings a little time to catch up on the performances and that inactivity can hurt you). After Hadlee's final test, his ranking was #1 with 879 points. Marshall was second with 862 points despite being nearly seven years Hadlee's junior.

I'm not saying that Hadlee was a better bowler or greater bowler (there may be a distinction) than Marshall, I'm really not. But you could make an argument that he was just as you could make an argument the other way. It just depends on what you are looking at and how you weight the various metrics.

 

[kyear2]

Pretty sure I wont seriously give the argument 'Imran was a winner'.

Was Hadlee a loser?

Do you know what's infuriating about you, I gave multiple posts detailing my opinions, but you would.prefer to focus on one line to try to prove a point.

That's prime trolling.

 

[kyear2]

If that is the case, no issues. But Kyear specifically says there isnt much at all between them as bowlers yet refuses to see batting as a key dealbreaker. Bizarre.

I have said on multiple occasions that I have Hadlee ahead of McGrath, but it's close. What more do you need?

 

[smash84]

Hadlee has a stupendous bowling record in test wins:

View attachment 39930

View attachment 39931

That's better than anybody else in test cricket history with 100 or more wickets in wins. And he did it over 16 years (longer than Marshall's (12 years eight months) and McGrath's (13 years two months) entire test careers). I concede that you said "for a decade".

In the March 1974 win over Australia, Hadlee took 3-59 and 4-71.

In the March 1990 win over Australia, Hadlee took 5-39 and 2-70.

Do you think that Marshall could have carried New Zealand for 14 years until he was 39 like Hadlee (1976-90) when he was finished at 33 despite terrific support and a significantly lighter workload? I don't. That tells me that Hadlee had something as a bowler which Marshall did not have. And that's a plus in Hadlee's favour. He has a number of metrics over Marshall, it isn't just one-way traffic. In the 1987 Boxing Day test against Australia, here are Hadlee's bowling stats (I believe it was a decent batting track):

44 overs, 5-109 and 31 overs, 5-67

Hadlee was nearly 36 1/2 years old here, over three years older than Marshall was when he retired as a test bowler. And in that first innings, he bowled 44 overs, i.e. 264 balls. Marshall never bowled more than 222 balls in his entire test career (Hadlee's maximum was 344 balls). Hadlee bowled more balls per innings in this test match (225) than Marshall bowled in any single bowling innings in his entire test career.

Hadlee first became the ICC #1 test bowler after his 48th test match (March 1984) and from then until he retired, he played 39 tests. He was ranked #1 after 33 of them and #2 after the other six. Marshall first became the ICC #1 test bowler after his 34th test match (December 1984) and from then until Hadlee retired (so we see the overlap), he played 35 test matches. He was ranked #1 after 12 of them, #2 after 22 of them and #3 after the other one. Hadlee did better than Marshall in the rankings when they were both at their best (I appreciate that it takes the rankings a little time to catch up on the performances and that inactivity can hurt you). After Hadlee's final test, his ranking was #1 with 879 points. Marshall was second with 862 points despite being nearly seven years Hadlee's junior.

I'm not saying that Hadlee was a better bowler or greater bowler (there may be a distinction) than Marshall, I'm really not. But you could make an argument that he was just as you could make an argument the other way. It just depends on what you are looking at and how you weight the various metrics.

Great post with a lot of great context added in. Which is why i said that I am surprised that this poll is closer than I thought it would be. I was expecting less votes for Marshall.

 

[ankitj]

When you look at series by series, you'd see Hadllee was player of the series in all series that NZ won except those where such an award was not given.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you know what's infuriating about you, I gave multiple posts detailing my opinions, but you would.prefer to focus on one line to try to prove a point.

That's prime trolling.

I'm not trolling. You asked why we are on your case, we say it's your rating criteria, you ask for an example, I give your latest phony argument about 'winners'. Please follow.

I have said on multiple occasions that I have Hadlee ahead of McGrath, but it's close. What more do you need?

Isn't it obvious? For you to admit lower order batting matters as a point of principle in ATG discussions.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee has a stupendous bowling record in test wins:

View attachment 39930

View attachment 39931

That's better than anybody else in test cricket history with 100 or more wickets in wins. And he did it over 16 years (longer than Marshall's (12 years eight months) and McGrath's (13 years two months) entire test careers). I concede that you said "for a decade".

In the March 1974 win over Australia, Hadlee took 3-59 and 4-71.

In the March 1990 win over Australia, Hadlee took 5-39 and 2-70.

Do you think that Marshall could have carried New Zealand for 14 years until he was 39 like Hadlee (1976-90) when he was finished at 33 despite terrific support and a significantly lighter workload? I don't. That tells me that Hadlee had something as a bowler which Marshall did not have. And that's a plus in Hadlee's favour. He has a number of metrics over Marshall, it isn't just one-way traffic. In the 1987 Boxing Day test against Australia, here are Hadlee's bowling stats (I believe it was a decent batting track):

44 overs, 5-109 and 31 overs, 5-67

Hadlee was nearly 36 1/2 years old here, over three years older than Marshall was when he retired as a test bowler. And in that first innings, he bowled 44 overs, i.e. 264 balls. Marshall never bowled more than 222 balls in his entire test career (Hadlee's maximum was 344 balls). Hadlee bowled more balls per innings in this test match (225) than Marshall bowled in any single bowling innings in his entire test career.

Hadlee first became the ICC #1 test bowler after his 48th test match (March 1984) and from then until he retired, he played 39 tests. He was ranked #1 after 33 of them and #2 after the other six. Marshall first became the ICC #1 test bowler after his 34th test match (December 1984) and from then until Hadlee retired (so we see the overlap), he played 35 test matches. He was ranked #1 after 12 of them, #2 after 22 of them and #3 after the other one. Hadlee did better than Marshall in the rankings when they were both at their best (I appreciate that it takes the rankings a little time to catch up on the performances and that inactivity can hurt you). After Hadlee's final test, his ranking was #1 with 879 points. Marshall was second with 862 points despite being nearly seven years Hadlee's junior.

I'm not saying that Hadlee was a better bowler or greater bowler (there may be a distinction) than Marshall, I'm really not. But you could make an argument that he was just as you could make an argument the other way. It just depends on what you are looking at and how you weight the various metrics.

All fair points except not sure if as relevant with Marshall. He was part of a world-class pace quartet and assembly line so highly unlikely he could bowl that much per test or have as long as a career as Hadlee before being replaced.

Fair to compare Marshall and Hadlee's peaks though.

 

[smash84]

All fair points except not sure if as relevant with Marshall. He was part of a world-class pace quartet and assembly line so highly unlikely he could bowl that much per test or have as long as a career as Hadlee before being replaced.

Fair to compare Marshall and Hadlee's peaks though.

Why couldn't he maintain a great standard for longer given that his workload was much lower?

 

[subshakerz]

Why couldn't he maintain a great standard for longer given that his workload was much lower?

Did he need to? He played 13/14 years. Isn't that enough? He dipped slightly towards the end just like Hadlee.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Why couldn't he maintain a great standard for longer given that his workload was much lower?

I'm a huge Hadlee fan (he was one of my sports heroes growing up) but to be fair, Marshall's total bowling workload was greater than Hadlee's:

Marshall:



Hadlee:



10.6% more first-class deliveries and 38.0% more List A deliveries while bowling at a greater pace. 96,977 vs. 83,706 total deliveries or 15.9% more. This never occurred to me while writing my earlier post. Marshall, like Hadlee, was a total professional and bowled his guts out for Hampshire. His 1982 season with them saw him take 134 wickets at 15.73 and he won the PCA Player of the Year award.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm a huge Hadlee fan (he was one of my sports heroes growing up) but to be fair, Marshall's total bowling workload was greater than Hadlee's:

Marshall:

View attachment 39934

Hadlee:

View attachment 39933

10.6% more first-class deliveries and 38.0% more List A deliveries while bowling at a greater pace. 96,977 vs. 83,706 total deliveries or 15.9% more. This never occurred to me while writing my earlier post. Marshall, like Hadlee, was a total professional and bowled his guts out for Hampshire. His 1982 season with them saw him take 134 wickets at 15.73 and he won the PCA Player of the Year award.

Wow. Marshall GOAT.