Neil Pickup said:
Utter rubbish! Hadlee's wicket count is as high as it is because he had so little support from other Kiwi bowlers in that era (a la Murali today).
One of the greats? Yes. The greatest? Be off with you.
Neil, what you fail to realise - through ignorance or bias - was that because there was very little bowling support opposition batsmen frequently blocked out Hadlee and scored runs from the pie-throwers at the other end. This made Hadlee work bloody hard for his wickets.
Hadlee only played against quality opposition, unlike Murali who has plundered BAN, ZIM, and WI wickets in recent times. Not sure he ever played Zimbabwe. New Zealand's batting during his era was never dominant, so he didn't have the luxury of defending large totals that created pressure on the opposition batsmen.
For these reasons, and his excellent average, I believe Hadlee was the greatest bowler in cricketing history. It is ridiculous to say Bradman was more than 40% better than any bowler, as these are totally different skills.
While I agree Bradman was the greatest cricketer of all time, he played in an era where the following occured:
- Umpires would have been frightened to give him out
- Close decisions on run-outs, stumpings, and catches were all given in favour of the batsmen
- Playing long tours (6 tests) against the same opposition (usually England with the same bowlers) allows great players to build such prolific averages
- Very few GREAT bowlers during his period (partially due to his dominance)
I believe Viv Richards or Greame Pollock may have achieved a similar average under such conditions.