Ravi Shastri? During the 1980's he averaged 33 with the bat and 39 with the ball, despite making 1000 runs and taking 100 wickets. Would you call him a genuine all-rounder? There is no denying that Hadlee's feats during the 80's were amazing and his statistics back that up (averaging 30 with the bat and 19 with the ball), but you can't exclude 17 years of his Test career and base your judgement on a decade of play.
His Test average of 27 isn't good enough to say that he would have warranted selection as a batsmen alone, no matter how well he hit the ball. Ball striking is largely irrelevant when judging a Test player, as is shown by Shahid Afridi and Ricardo Powell. Compare them to somebody like Paul Collingwood, who nudges and nurdles around and there can be no doubt whatsoever as to who the better Test batsmen is. An average of 38 for Nottinghamshire is good but Imran Khan averaged 43 for Worcestershire and Kapil Dev averaged 42 for both Worcestershire and Northamptonshire, so that puts it in perspective a bit more.
It's all well and good saying that Sir Richard Hadlee could hit the ball hard and time it very well, but that matters very little when judging a Test batsmen if his production isn't as great as some others. Many players have played many fine 'match-winning' knocks, and Hadlee is amongst them, but they don't make a career. BTW, good to see you posting with a fair amount of depth. Not often you make posts of more than a few lines, which is a shame.
but just put me on ignore would you?