Who was better: Hadlee or McGrath?

[Days of Grace]

Keep this discussion to tests only, please.

The bare stats:

Hadlee:
Matches: 86 (1973-1990)
Wickets: 431 (5.01 wickets per test)
Average: 22.29
S/R: 50.8
5WI: 36 (5 wicket bag in 41% of matches played)
10WM: 9

McGrath
Matches: 124 (1993-2007)
Wickets: 563 (4.54 wickets per test)
Average: 21.64
S/R: 51.9
5WI: 29 (5 wicket bag in 23% of matches played)
10WM: 3

I am esp. interested in people's opinions who have seen both play (which I haven't). Going by stats and what people have said and what I have read, there really seems to be nothing in it. Your thoughts?

 

[Athlai]

Considering Hadlee was single handedly the Kiwi attack I thought this was a no brainer, especially taking batting into account.

 

[silentstriker]

McGrath

 

[Days of Grace]

Just another thing:

Hadlee minus matches against Sri Lanka:
394 wickets @ 23.19

McGrath minus matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh:
552 wickets @ 21.84

Hadlee in subcontinent:
13 matches
68 wickets (5.23 wickets per match)
Average: 21.58


McGrath in subcontinent:
19 matches
72 wickets (3.78 wickets per match)
Average: 23.02

Hadlee home vs. away:
Home: 43 matches, 201 wickets @ 22.96
Away: 43 matches, 230 wickets @ 21.72

McGrath home vs. away:
Home: 66 matches, 289 wickets @ 22.43
Away: 55 matches, 260 wickets @ 21.35

Hadlee in England:
14 matches, 70 wickets @ 24.94

McGrath in England:
14 matches, 87 wickets @ 19.34

 

[Days of Grace]

especially taking batting into account.

Actually, I should state that I am only interested in the bowling merits of each player.

 

[Craig]

Hard to say, I have the majority of McGrath's career (at least 10 years of it) so I would naturally say McGrath, yet you can't ignore Hadlee's record, especially in the sub continent which is the be all and end all of somebody as a cricketer. Hadlee never had the support, but then I suppose that can be argued he had greater chance to pick up more wickets, but this would IMO be out of his hands.

I'm going Hadlee myself, even though comparing era's is so useless. It would be like comparing Clive Lloyd and Stephen Fleming as captains.

 

[Athlai]

Matches Won

Hadlee 13.06
McGrath 19.19

 

[silentstriker]

especially in the sub continent which is the be all and end all of somebody as a cricketer.

Haha, why is that? If a fast bowler does well there, it's pretty impressive, and generally means people will (rightly) rate them higher, but that's about all.

 

[Flem274*]

Hadlee. McGrath feeds off Warne. (just kidding SS)

Nah I have no idea really, I've only seen McGrath. Due to kiwi biasedness and because Hadlee was faster (means nothing I know) I vote for Hadlee.

 

[SJS]

Richard Hadlee by many a mile.

MacGrath wasn't even close. All those wickets notwithstanding.

 

[Craig]

Haha, why is that? If a fast bowler does well there, it's pretty impressive, and generally means people will (rightly) rate them higher, but that's about all.

I was being sarcastic.

It was a subtle reference to how a lot of people rate and don't rate a player if they preform and don't preform on the subcontinent.

 

[Days of Grace]

Richard Hadlee by many a mile.

MacGrath wasn't even close. All those wickets notwithstanding.

you saw both SJS?

Can you expand a little bit?

 

[shortpitched713]

Voted McGrath as well as too close to call. If its only Tests though then I'd go with Hadlee as well as too close to call. There is very little between them, imo and thats clearly reflected in their very similar stats. Hadlee had to carry the NZ attack, so he gets a bit of a bonus for that due to the pressures involved in such a role. From what I've seen of McGrath though he has a great ability to pick up wickets when Australia especially needed them, and I don't know if Hadlee was really known as a much of a clutch player. They were both extremely consistent, though maybe Hadlee was a bit more. Anyway, very difficult to call, but if you put a gun to my head I'd have to go Hadlee.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Can't really differentiate between them, except that Hadlee played on far more helpful decks and McGrath had Warne and two other typically world-class pacers as backup.

Not sure which one mitigates greatness more.

 

[silentstriker]

I was being sarcastic.

It was a subtle reference to how a lot of people rate and don't rate a player if they preform and don't preform on the subcontinent.

Well it is a big part of the international circuit...3 countries, 4 if you count Bangladesh and considering it is generally the hardest place for fast bowlers, it should play a big part. I don't know anyone on this board that says its the only part, or even the most important part.

 

[shortpitched713]

Richard Hadlee by many a mile.

MacGrath wasn't even close. All those wickets notwithstanding.

Interesting. Why exactly?

 

[silentstriker]

Can't really differentiate between them, except that Hadlee played on far more helpful decks and McGrath had Warne and two other typically world-class pacers as backup.

Not sure which one mitigates greatness more.

McGrath did well without Warne and Hadlee did well when he did get flat tracks.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually, I should state that I am only interested in the bowling merits of each player.

In that case, McGrath. Otherwise, Hadlee, by a fair distance.

 

[Ikki]

This is very very very close, but I've watched McGrath's whole career and I must say I am biased. Essentially, the top 5 fast bowlers are all pretty close and any number of arguments can sway their direction.

But I don't think there is any bowler who consistently and cheaply took out the best batsmen of the opposition. I read somewhere Warne and Murali averaged 40-50 against the best, and the best performer, also the anomaly in comparison to all other bowlers was McGrath who averaged 25 against the best. And for an opening bowler, that is massively important.

 

[Julian87]

As a bowler, McGrath, but as a player in general Hadlee.