They were very good even when not at their peak whereas some others were awful.
While I do agree Pollock maybe wasn't quite as good as Donald, he's extremely underrated in my opinion. In the first 9 years of his career, he had stats to compare with the very best of all time:
His record against Australia wasn't that good, but that team was just ridiculously great. I don't think too many great bowlers in the 90s did that well against Australia statsistically. Waqar struggled, Donald was merely ok, Walsh produced nothing of note against them bar a couple of great spells. Yet, it's Pollock who's being singled out? meh
So true
the lengths people go to to make excuses for poor records of their favourite players is hilarious.
I get your point, but there is a significant difference in their respective Strike Rates just the same. Also, the Aussie batting line-up is still pretty strong whether it's 1993 or 1997;While I do agree Pollock maybe wasn't quite as good as Donald, he's extremely underrated in my opinion. In the first 9 years of his career, he had stats to compare with the very best of all time:
76 matches, 310 wickets at 20.7, SR: 54, 16 5W hauls... He performed at an exceptional level for almost a decade of international cricket. It was only after 2003 that he lost his penetrative ability and played second fiddle to Ntini and the others and was just a support bowler... didn't get a single 5fer after 2003. If Waqar can be judged by his peak, then so can Pollock, because while his peak might not have been quite as phenomenal as Waqar, he certainly maintained it for a far longer period.
Regarding his strike rate, 57 is not that bad at all... it's about the same as Walsh. Pollock, while not quite in the top tier, is still very underrated as a bowler in my opinion. And don't even get me started on his all-round abilities. Probably the guy who gets least recognition amongst the great all-rounders, along with Davidson.
His record against Australia wasn't that good, but that team was just ridiculously great. I don't think too many great bowlers in the 90s did that well against Australia statsistically. Waqar struggled, Donald was merely ok, Walsh produced nothing of note against them bar a couple of great spells. Yet, it's Pollock who's being singled out? meh
I'd imagine that every test victory NZ had in that period could be almost completely attributed to Hadlee. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
Kiwi team completely used to depend on Hadlee in those days."Prepare as green wicket as possible & let Hadlee do the job" was a phrase often used in NZ cricket circles at that time.
The one against England in New Zealand in the early 80's had more to do with Botham and Willis taking the team on a cannabis binge the day before the Test (though granted Hadlee batted and bowled with great effect).
The idea of someone being consistently flawless ('no hole in Hadlee's career') does seem fit the meaning of 'best cricketer ever'.
Oh, yes New Zealand were so dependent on him it's not even funny. New Zealand won 22 tests when Hadlee was in the team. Hadlee picked up 17 Five wicket hauls in those games... and 8 10 Wms. In 18 out of those 22 games, he picked up atleast 6 wickets in the match... in most cases many more, and in addition also contributed important runs with the bat.
Though Murali had some great batsmen come into his team. Jayawardene, Jayasuriya, Sangakkara, de Silva. Not to mention Vaas.Oh, yes New Zealand were so dependent on him it's not even funny. New Zealand won 22 tests when Hadlee was in the team. Hadlee picked up 17 Five wicket hauls in those games... and 8 10 Wms. In 18 out of those 22 games, he picked up atleast 6 wickets in the match... in most cases many more, and in addition also contributed important runs with the bat.
That leaves four matches in which he wasn't the sole reason for victory:
1st Test: New Zealand v India at Wellington, Feb 21-25, 1981 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo... Got a 4-wicket haul in the fourth innings, when India were chasing 253
1st Test: New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Christchurch, Mar 4-6, 1983 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo... 4 wickets in the first innings
2nd Test: England v New Zealand at Leeds, Jul 28-Aug 1, 1983 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo... No wickets, but scored a vital 75 to give New Zealand a crucial lead in the first innings
So, LITERALLY the only match New Zealand won without a significant contribution from Hadlee was this one: 3rd Test: New Zealand v Australia at Auckland, Mar 13-17, 1986 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
He's a worthy pick as the greatest ever, even though for me, it'll always be Bradman. I don't think any team has been so utterly dependent on one cricketer to achieve victory. Only one who compares is maybe Murali.
The point is their records were much better at home than away, regardless of how you deem their Australia record.
Says the poster trying to write-off 13 years worth of poor bowling in this very thread.So true
AWTA, bowling on a weak team may not be great for winning a lot of games, but it greatly benefits them statistically with little competition for wickets especially the tail. Hadlee, like Murali were great top tier bowlers, but as the only stanouts for their teams, the home pitches were made for them and even though Hadlee proformed better away from home than Murali, when the pitches didn't suit him he was much less effective and he wasn't as versatile or adaptive as Marshall, Lillee or even Ambrose and thats why he isn't mentioned as the best bowler ever.
That makes them the most important players to their team, not the greatest player ever.Oh, yes New Zealand were so dependent on him it's not even funny. New Zealand won 22 tests when Hadlee was in the team. Hadlee picked up 17 Five wicket hauls in those games... and 8 10 Wms. In 18 out of those 22 games, he picked up atleast 6 wickets in the match... in most cases many more, and in addition also contributed important runs with the bat.
That leaves four matches in which he wasn't the sole reason for victory:
1st Test: New Zealand v India at Wellington, Feb 21-25, 1981 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo... Got a 4-wicket haul in the fourth innings, when India were chasing 253
1st Test: New Zealand v Sri Lanka at Christchurch, Mar 4-6, 1983 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo... 4 wickets in the first innings
2nd Test: England v New Zealand at Leeds, Jul 28-Aug 1, 1983 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo... No wickets, but scored a vital 75 to give New Zealand a crucial lead in the first innings
So, LITERALLY the only match New Zealand won without a significant contribution from Hadlee was this one: 3rd Test: New Zealand v Australia at Auckland, Mar 13-17, 1986 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
He's a worthy pick as the greatest ever, even though for me, it'll always be Bradman. I don't think any team has been so utterly dependent on one cricketer to achieve victory. Only one who compares is maybe Murali.
Never said they weren't flat. What I am saying is if he was so sucessfull on those flat pitches, why was he so less effective away from home in more helpfull conditions? 19 -25 is a big difference, was just wondering.Ok, now this is a first. Pakistan preparing green tops and rank turners. So Pakistani batsmen shouldn't be included for being FTBs I suppose
We are forgetting an important piece of 'sports psychology' here - that is, to consistently perform well in a side that rarely wins is a difficult thing to do!