• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Choose the two opening bowlers for Post Packer World XI

Who are the TWO opening bowlers for the Post Packer Dream XI?


  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Pardon? I thought he only gained that recognition post-packer when he had to redefine his bowling and used more seam and variation instead of high-octane speed.
He always possessed those skills, but post-Packer he used more variation out of necessity because he'd lost the edge of his express pace.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Marshall and McGrath. The fact that McGrath's managed to have an average as good as 21 in a batsman friendly era is pretty special IMO.
I don't think that this can be emphasized enough. McGrath was a cut above all the other bowlers of his generation and maintained an average that is among the best in history in an era of featherbed pitches and quite a number of batsmen who averaged over fifty.

Best option to partner Marshall with the new ball IMO.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
It wouldn't be a travesty if he did end up there, but it would be peculiar given how much better McGrath was than Hadlee.
By what standard is McGrath much better, I actually find it hard to distinguish between them. I give him credit for playing well in a more batting-friendly era, but you would also have to give Hadlee credit for playing in a less-than-champion side. It's easier being a bowler if you are assisted by a great fielders and high batting totals, no doubt.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
By what standard is McGrath much better, I actually find it hard to distinguish between them. I give him credit for playing well in a more batting-friendly era, but you would also have to give Hadlee credit for playing in a less-than-champion side. It's easier being a bowler if you are assisted by a great fielders and high batting totals, no doubt.
Well by "much" I mean "I'd take either in my team right now, but given a choice between the two I'd pick McGrath for his bowling any time".

McGrath was probably the most accurate bowler of all time. He excelled at taking top order wickets and often did not get a chance to clean up the tail to boost his average. He bowled in an era where there was a grand total of two other quick bowlers to average under 25 (Bond and Pollock) where pitches were flatter than at any time in living memory, in an era where there have been Yousef, Kallis, Sangakara, Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Flower, Sehwag, Smith and Pietersen with career averages over 50.

He was pivotal in Australia finally winning in India, and was the backbone of the Australian bowling attack in its era of domination. He also maintained an economy rate of under 2.5 in an era when batsmen have struck at around 60 instead of 40 as was previously the case.

McGrath took more wickets than any other fast bowler in history.

Hadlee on the other hand, while a class above his team mates was not clearly the best quick of his era (and given the debate over him and Lillee, it is unclear whether he was the second best quick of the era). I do agree that he was responsible for most of New Zealand's wins of the time, which counts for him. However he took a higher proportion of tail end wickets than McGrath did.

Hadlee was a brilliant bowler. McGrath was a genious bowler.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Agree with McGrath being better. But it's hard to build a case that any of these top bowlers are "much" better than the others IMO.

Hadlee bowled 42 overs and McGrath 39. It's not really a huge split so I don't exactly get how much more Hadlee got to bowl at tailenders if much more at all. He had to spend most of his time on the upper order - because he had very little wicket-taking help - so if he was taking tailenders he was taking them very quickly.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Agree with McGrath being better. But it's hard to build a case that any of these top bowlers are "much" better than the others IMO.

Hadlee bowled 42 overs and McGrath 39. It's not really a huge split so I don't exactly get how much more Hadlee got to bowl at tailenders if much more at all. He had to spend most of his time on the upper order - because he had very little wicket-taking help - so if he was taking tailenders he was taking them very quickly.
also, this being a team, with these two guys being so close - even for argument's sake if we say mcgrath is slightly better (which i dont think is true) - i would still choose hadlee for being a much much superior batsman. even if he is 95% of mcgrath the bowler (he is probably 100% of mcgrath) he is at least 500% of mcgrath as a batsman. so from a team building point of view choosing hadlee makes better sense. if we conducted a poll between the two as to who is a better bowler then we can get into choosing one over the other. as wholesome cricketer it is hadlee hands down.

of course, from the same team perspective, you can ignore hadlee's batting considering there are so many great batsmen above him. but that is correct only if mcgrath's bowling is clearly superior to hadlee's and if hadlee's batting alone makes him a better player. here is it not the case. both are equal as bowlers and one is a much better bat. why cant i choose him?
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree with McGrath being better. But it's hard to build a case that any of these top bowlers are "much" better than the others IMO.

Hadlee bowled 42 overs and McGrath 39. It's not really a huge split so I don't exactly get how much more Hadlee got to bowl at tailenders if much more at all. He had to spend most of his time on the upper order - because he had very little wicket-taking help - so if he was taking tailenders he was taking them very quickly.
Actually there is definitely something to his point. McGrath took 142 of his 563 wickets off players batting 8-11, that's 25%. Hadlee took 129 of his 431 wickets off players batting 8-11, 30%. That's a pretty sizeable difference. When you're taking into account the flatness of pitches in McGrath's era, as well as him even having a slightly better average, you have to look at these things.

McGrath has a very real case for being the greatest bowler of all time IMO.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Actually there is definitely something to his point. McGrath took 142 of his 563 wickets off players batting 8-11, that's 25%. Hadlee took 129 of his 431 wickets off players batting 8-11, 30%. That's a pretty sizeable difference. When you're taking into account the flatness of pitches in McGrath's era, as well as him even having a slightly better average, you have to look at these things.

McGrath has a very real case for being the greatest bowler of all time IMO.
I don't really agree with 5% being that much of a difference TBH, but I agree with the rest which is why I rate McGrath above Paddles.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't really agree with 5% being that much of a difference TBH, but I agree with the rest which is why I rate McGrath above Paddles.
Hmm. To put it another way, McGrath took 13 more tail-end wickets than Hadlee, 52 more middle order wickets (batsmen 4-7) and 67 more top-order wickets. It's not massively significant on its own, but in combination with McGrath's general better stats, it's certainly worth mentioning- especially when we're talking about a choice between the two as opening bowlers.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Hmm. To put it another way, McGrath took 13 more tail-end wickets than Hadlee, 52 more middle order wickets (batsmen 4-7) and 67 more top-order wickets. It's not massively significant on its own, but in combination with McGrath's general better stats, it's certainly worth mentioning- especially when we're talking about a choice between the two as opening bowlers.
Well, Hadlee bowled less so he'd take less wickets. He actually had a better SR.

It's hard to compare because Hadlee had to concentrate on all the batsmen because he didn't have teammates that would clean up the tail for him. In a way it's unfair to compare like that because in order for his team to succeed he had to take those wickets and that would disrupt the percentages when looking at the upper/middle/lower order batsmen. IMO the lower-order wicket difference is not much and is pretty much explained by the role each bowler had in their respective sides.

Top order - McGrath by 3.3%
Middle order - McGrath by 1.4%
Lower order - Hadlee by 4.7%

So as opening bowlers they're as close as you get. Compare Hadlee with Malcolm Marshall for instance:

Top order - Hadlee by 3.5%
Middle order - Marshall by 7%
Lower order - Hadlee by 3.5%

And even those can be explained simply by the different role Marshall had in his team and the competition for wickets he had.

I'm not trying to disagree with you. I just don't think the difference is that much.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, maybe.

I think the value of lower-order wickets is understated a bit sometimes. Cleaning up the tail is an extremely valuable skill.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Yep. Look at Australia recently; we've been losing tests we could have won if someone would just clean up the tail.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I think the value of lower-order wickets is understated a bit sometimes. Cleaning up the tail is an extremely valuable skill.
Very very true...In fact whenever a new bowler comes with a lot of praise from everywhere, the first thing I notice very carefully about him is whether he can run through the tail...
 

bagapath

International Captain
everyone had "well-left" my comment on hadlee's batting ability being an extra reason to choose him, considering mcgrath and he are inseparable purely on bowling skills. it is a value addition that will come in handy from a team perspective, especially when your attacking wk-batsman at no.7 needs some lower order support.
 

Top