• 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.

Hadlee vs. McGrath (the minimalist masters)

Paddles or Pigeon?


  • Total voters
    45

hang on

State Vice-Captain
Paddles vs. Pigeon.

The two bowlers who seemed most alike to me in their cerebral approach to bowling.

Who's the better bowler in your book?

(Even if this has been done before, it might be nice to see it again since McGrath has been on our minds for a while courtesy of a couple of threads!)

Mods, a poll would be lovely. Thanks!
 

smash84

The Tiger King
this question has been on my mind for a while now.........very interesting question indeed.....very very similar bowlers both of them........but i was not able to follow too much of hadlee's career
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
ah. thanks, smalishah.

still, might be interesting to take another look at it. in the same way that the akram vs. mcgrath debate redux was quite interesting.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Statistically Hadlee is ahead but not by much (especially after considering that a part of McGrath's career was in relatively more batting-friendly era). Add to that, both consistently troubled the best batsmen of their era.

But bowling style/skill wise IMO

McGrath's accuracy + a bit more pace + a slightly better outswinger + a much better inswinger = Hadlee's bowling

So, I shall definitely be going with Hadlee here. And this is even without considering that Hadlee had absolutely no support from the other side, neither from his batsmen. There was only one match-winner in his side, except perhaps Crowe to an extent.

Once you add his batting, I don't think any other team's success in the history of the game depended as much on the performance of one player as did NZ's on Hadlee's - but that's a separate story.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
This is the bigger point, for me. Big fan of Paddles.
Absolutely. Can't think of another great player (except perhaps George Headley) who absolutely had no support from anyone throughout his career. Lara carried WI on his shoulders, but not before Ambrose-Walsh retired. Gavaskar carried India's hopes, but soon came Kapil. Sachin, for the greater part of his career, had excellent support from other batsmen. All great Aussie players had tremendous support from other greats, at least at some point. Same story about the other English and West Indian and Saffie and Pakistani greats. Even Murali had batsmen like Sanga, DeSilva, Jaya and bowlers like Vaas all the time.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
ah. thanks, smalishah.

still, might be interesting to take another look at it. in the same way that the akram vs. mcgrath debate was quite interesting.
indeed. these things always keep changing along with the posters. I get the feeling though that this one won't change
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Here's what SJS had to say about this:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/29357-who-better-hadlee-mcgrath-2.html#post1345823

I would agree with it completely had he placed the word 'defensive' between the words 'better' and 'batsmen' in that last paragraph. I indeed think Hadlee bowled to technically much better defensive batsmen than McGrath did. The necessity, in this era, of the strike rates of batsmen to be higher has really helped bowlers like McGrath. I agree with all the other points mentioned by SJS.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
I would agree with it completely had he placed the word 'defensive' between the words 'better' and 'batsmen' in that last paragraph. I indeed think Hadlee bowled to technically much better defensive batsmen than McGrath did. The necessity, in this era, of the strike rates of batsmen to be higher has really helped bowlers like McGrath. I agree with all the other points mentioned by SJS.
I wonder if that can be used as a criticism. It isn't really, as (if I may go all PEWS on this for a minute) as McGrath was faced with the task of how to get batsman out while they were trying to score. He wasn't trying to get Sunil Gavaskar out, he was trying to get Lara and Sehwag out. And that's why he bowled the way he did, and why he had such success.

However, the logical end that this road goes down is asking who served their team the better, McGrath from '94-07 or Hadlee from '71-'90. And in my mind that has only one answer, Hadlee. With the possible exception of Sri Lanka on Murali, no team has ever relied on one player more.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
And in my mind that has only one answer, Hadlee. With the possible exception of Sri Lanka on Murali, no team has ever relied on one player more.
Nah, Murali had Sangakkara, DeSilva, Jayawardena and Vaas (one can even consider Jayasuriya, to an extent) in his team. Hadlee had none except, to an extent, Crowe. I think only George Headley is comparable to Hadlee in that regard (no support for an ATG player).
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
I'd say Murali is well worth putting in that bracket. The sheer volume of the overs he bowled and the wickets he took was testament to that. And now, with many top batsmen in the side, Murali's retirement has hit them, badly. It's not quite fair on the Kiwis to say Hadlee had nil support anyway. I first noticed the similarity between Hadlee and Murali when Andy Zaltzman wrote about it:

No team has ever been as reliant on one bowler as Sri Lanka were on the Kandy Konjuror. Over the course of his career, Murali took 41% of his team’s wickets, and bowled 33% of their overs – so he was bowling two thirds of the time that Sri Lanka were in the field. For nearly two decades. (By comparison, Warne, in a much stronger Australian attack, took 28% of Australia’s wickets, and bowled 28% of their overs.)

Sri Lanka have played 190 Tests since being admitted to Test cricket in 1982. Murali played in 132 of them; and they won 54 of those games. He was his team’s leading wicket-taker in 43 of those 54 wins, including 37 of 41 between September 1996 and December 2007. Sri Lanka have won just seven of the 68 Tests that Murali has not played in. History suggests Sri Lanka were four times as likely to win with Murali than without him. And that the Sistine Chapel would have 25% of the current number of tourists visiting it if Michelangelo had had to paint it with his fingers.

The closest equivalent in terms of importance to a Test team is probably Richard Hadlee, who over the course of his unstoppably moustachioed career bowled a quarter of New Zealand’s overs, and took 35% of their wickets. His country had won seven out of 102 Tests before he made his debut. They won 22 of the 86 in which he played, with Hadlee top wicket-taker in 16 of those. They won none of the 14 Tests he missed during his career, and only seven of the next 55 after he retired. Until a new generation emerged in the late 1990s, New Zealand without Hadlee were like steak and chips without the steak. And often without the chips.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I first noticed the similarity between Hadlee and Murali when Andy Zaltzman wrote about it:
He makes a point about the similarity in the (lack of) support they had from the rest of the bowling lineup. He's silent about the batsmen supporting them. I repeat, when Murali had batsmen of Sangakkara, DeSilva and Jayawardena's calibre in his team Hadlee had none bar Crowe. Other batsmen in Hadlee's team were of Jayasuriya's or Ranatunga's calibre at best.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Just a few points from Zaltzman's article in %age terms:

1. NZ won 7% of their matches before Hadlee made his debut.
2. NZ won 26% matches during Hadlee's career.
3. NZ won 0% of matches during Hadlee's career when he missed it due to an injury or any other reason.
4. Among all the matches NZ won during his career, Hadlee was the highest wicket-taker in 73% of those.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
One more tiny stat:

Hadlee made his debut on 02/02/1973 and retired on 09/07/1990. During this time, he took 431 wickets, which is 76 more than the next three Kiwi bowlers taken together (130 for Lance Cairns, 123 for Chatfield and 102 for Bracewell).
 
Last edited:

Top