McGrath vs Hadlee

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Akram
HADLEE
Marshall
Murali
Steyn
Lillee
McGRATH

As a bowler
Hadlee > Mcgrath

As a player
Hadlee >> Mcgrath

 

[Thala_0710]

As I just pointed, looking from series to series, I will disagree there. Donald had an advantage over SRT, but given he was brilliant in both the full series vs McGrath and did good in a separate game with an injury, I can't place McGrath ahead. You could argue of average, but I think in such small sample sizes, a match to match analysis works better.

Yeah I agree here. In a bowler vs batsman h2h, the sample size is too small to go just by averages. In tests, I don't think Mcgrath "had" Tendulkar. It was an even contest with both sides getting victories over the other, through the course of careers.

 

[sayon basak]

Akram
HADLEE
Marshall
Murali
Steyn
Lillee
McGRATH

As a bowler
Hadlee > Mcgrath

As a player
Hadlee >> Mcgrath

Now you are underrating McGrath and way overrating Akram. McGrath is obviously better than someone dodging SC series.

 

[subshakerz]

As I just pointed, looking from series to series, I will disagree there. Donald had an advantage over SRT, but given he was brilliant in both the full series vs McGrath and did good in a separate game with an injury, I can't place McGrath ahead. You could argue of average, but I think in such small sample sizes, a match to match analysis works better.

Yes. McGrath never dominated Tendulkar in a series. He did for Lara especially in Aus. Tho Lara has the 99 series.

And I dispute that Donald even had an edge over Tendulkar.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes. McGrath never dominated Tendulkar in a series. He did for Lara especially in Aus. Tho Lara has the 99 series.

And I dispute that Donald even had an edge over Tendulkar.

I didn't meant like Donald dominated Sachin or anything, he has enough great innings while facing him; but overall can say against each other I will give the edge to Donald. But between SRT and McGrath it's a death draw.

 

[subshakerz]

I didn't meant like Donald dominated Sachin or anything, he has enough great innings while facing him; but overall can say against each other I will give the edge to Donald. But between SRT and McGrath it's a death draw.

Donald dismissed prime Tendulkar once a series in three series. Tendulkar scored moderately. I don't recall Tendulkar particularly struggling against Donald. Would call it a draw.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Now you are underrating McGrath and way overrating Akram. McGrath is obviously better than someone dodging SC series.

Akram is the most complete fast bowler. No other bowler in history would have been labeled as an under achiever after taking 400+ wickets under 25 avg.

People forgetting the challenges he had to face when evaluating him.
Akram's stats are identical to Marshall's career stats if we exclude the extra years in Akram career.
Akram had very poor fielding support.
An undisciplined team.
Often Bowled from the junk end even in his prime.
He didn't rely on fielders / WK to take wickets ( there is no point in that anyway ), he took them bowled / LBW.
Being a subcontinent player is disadvantage for a pacer.
Ask the batsmen of his generation to rate the best bowlers they faced.. Who is going to be the easy winner?
Imagine him playing for Australia, supported by score board pressure, very good batsmen, quality fielders.. Healy, Mark Waugh, Ponting.. Etc

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Two incredible bowlers but I have to give it to McGrath just for his big match performances

 

[Arachnodouche]

Didn't see Hadlee play. Obviously a great bowler but I tend to favor bowlers who have to actively vie for wickets with their peers as opposed to lone laborers like Hadlee and Murali. Cuts both ways though in terms of pressure/lack thereof created from the other end, so whatever. I do know McGrath would be one of the first two names I'd have in my ATG XI. His method was/is timeless.

 

[Slifer]

Yes. McGrath never dominated Tendulkar in a series. He did for Lara especially in Aus. Tho Lara has the 99 series.

And I dispute that Donald even had an edge over Tendulkar.

Mcgrath dismissed Sachin at a higher rate than he did Lara . That is an undisputed fact. He owned lara in 1996-97 but otherwise, Lara did just fine against him.

 

[Coronis]

Akram is the most complete fast bowler. No other bowler in history would have been labeled as an under achiever after taking 400+ wickets under 25 avg.

People forgetting the challenges he had to face when evaluating him.
Akram's stats are identical to Marshall's career stats if we exclude the extra years in Akram career.
Akram had very poor fielding support.
An undisciplined team.
Often Bowled from the junk end even in his prime.
He didn't rely on fielders / WK to take wickets ( there is no point in that anyway ), he took them bowled / LBW.
Being a subcontinent player is disadvantage for a pacer.
Ask the batsmen of his generation to rate the best bowlers they faced.. Who is going to be the easy winner?
Imagine him playing for Australia, supported by score board pressure, very good batsmen, quality fielders.. Healy, Mark Waugh, Ponting.. Etc

No they aren’t.

 

[subshakerz]

Mcgrath dismissed Sachin at a higher rate than he did Lara . That is an undisputed fact. He owned lara in 1996-97 but otherwise, Lara did just fine against him.

Yeah but checking rate difference of 0.345 or whatever isn't really a good measure to determine who was better against McGrath IMO. Even by that measure, Lara has been dismissed by McGrath 9 times in 14 games in Aus, so it's clear he had issues there with the added bounce of Pigeon.

I like to look series by series.

Tendulkar was more consistent against McGrath. Did well in two full back to back series in 99 and 2001. In 99, McGrath dismissed him twice with two dodgy decisions when he seemed comfy against him.

Lara was owned embarassingly by McGrath in 96 and was also kept in check by McGrath in 2000 in Aus. However, Lara had an ATG series in 99 against McGrath so it's fair to give him the advantage but it's not like Tendulkar was weak against McGrath or something.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah but checking rate difference of 0.345 or whatever isn't really a good measure to determine who was better against McGrath IMO. Even by that measure, Lara has been dismissed by McGrath 9 times in 14 games in Aus, so it's clear he had issues there with the added bounce of Pigeon.

I like to look series by series.

Tendulkar was more consistent against McGrath. Did well in two full back to back series in 99 and 2001. In 99, McGrath dismissed him twice with two dodgy decisions when he seemed comfy against him.

Lara was owned embarassingly by McGrath in 96 and was also kept in check by McGrath in 2000 in Aus. However, Lara had an ATG series in 99 against McGrath so it's fair to give him the advantage but it's not like Tendulkar was weak against McGrath or something.

Why full series? They faced off in 3 other tests. But chop and change since it suits you. Anyway Lara as you said, had the edge vs McGrath so that's good enough for me.

Ps please don't bring up dodgy decisions concerning Sachin, that's not unique to him.

 

[kyear2]

Akram is the most complete fast bowler. No other bowler in history would have been labeled as an under achiever after taking 400+ wickets under 25 avg.

People forgetting the challenges he had to face when evaluating him.
Akram's stats are identical to Marshall's career stats if we exclude the extra years in Akram career.
Akram had very poor fielding support.
An undisciplined team.
Often Bowled from the junk end even in his prime.
He didn't rely on fielders / WK to take wickets ( there is no point in that anyway ), he took them bowled / LBW.
Being a subcontinent player is disadvantage for a pacer.
Ask the batsmen of his generation to rate the best bowlers they faced.. Who is going to be the easy winner?
Imagine him playing for Australia, supported by score board pressure, very good batsmen, quality fielders.. Healy, Mark Waugh, Ponting.. Etc

While all of that was true, he was also privy to a tool that gave him advantages.

So kinda of a catch 22.

 

[subshakerz]

Ps please don't bring up dodgy decisions concerning Sachin, that's not unique to him.

It only matters considering there were only a handful of times he got out to McGrath.

 

[subshakerz]

While all of that was true, he was also privy to a tool that gave him advantages.

So kinda of a catch 22.

Yeah but slips impacted the most.

 

[DrWolverine]

While all of that was true, he was also privy to a tool that gave him advantages.

So kinda of a catch 22.

Ball tampering?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why full series? They faced off in 3 other tests. But chop and change since it suits you. Anyway Lara as you said, had the edge vs McGrath so that's good enough for me.

Ps please don't bring up dodgy decisions concerning Sachin, that's not unique to him.

Sachin was playing with an injury in 2 of those, and yet scored a crucial fifty in a close win in the 2nd game.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

No they aren’t.

Akram had better Wicket per innings, Better ER, Better 5fer and 10fer ratio.

Marshall slightly better avg and SR.

 

[Slifer]

Sachin was playing with an injury in 2 of those, and yet scored a crucial fifty in a close win in the 2nd game.

Playing with an injury again is not unique to SRT. Lara played the entire 2000 series vs Australia with a damaged shoulder and hamstring injury. And played in 2002 having dislocated his elbow in late 2001. It happens.