Hadlee vs Murali - who is the better lone gun?

[subshakerz]

Murali is dominating Steyn so I wanted to get a tighter battle. Commence.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Murali is dominating Steyn so I wanted to get a tighter battle. Commence.

You aren't getting one; Hadlee is gonna dominate. Hadlee is much more versatile and effective outside of home, i.e. in unfavorable conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

You aren't getting one; Hadlee is gonna dominate. Hadlee is much more versatile and effective outside of home, i.e. in unfavorable conditions.

You may be right. I guess the dividing line is quite clear here.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Hadlee. Murali had Vaas atleast for some part. Also Hadlee has a clearly better record than Murali

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hadlee. Murali had Vaas atleast for some part. Also Hadlee has a clearly better record than Murali

Here I am not arguing against Hadlee. He pretty clearly was the superior bowler as well as the lone warrior. Though, except Vaas, the other bowlers were big liabilities more often than not for SL over that period. Most Kiwi bowlers like Cairns, Collinge, Taylor, especially Chatfield etc. weren't most of the times a liability.

 

[Athlai]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Murali definitely had Vaas, and mild cameos from Malinga and Zoysa

 

[Athlai]

Hadlee only really had cameos
Lance Cairns, Chatfield

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee only really had cameos
Lance Cairns, Chatfield

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Too bad Hadlee was at his worst when Collinge was still there.

 

[reyrey]

Hadlee had bowling partners who kept things tight for him allowing him to be a strike bowler.

Murali was a strike bowler and would also keep things tight. The latter attribute meant Sri Lanka could play wicket taking bowlers like Malinga and Dilhara even though they were expensive.

Hadlee was obviously the better strike bowler, but Murali played a dual role as a bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hadlee was more effective but Murali could bowl longer spells which becomes more and more important as the quality of your support bowlers drops. In a good team I'd definitely rather have Hadlee, I'd still rather have Hadlee in the median team but in a really bad team I'd probably rather Murali, so the way the question is posed makes it a bit closer than if you'd just asked me who is better. Still voted for Hadlee in the end though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hadlee was more effective but Murali could bowl longer spells which becomes more and more important as the quality of your support bowlers drops. In a good team I'd definitely rather have Hadlee, I'd still rather have Hadlee in the median team but in a really bad team I'd probably rather Murali, so the way the question is posed makes it a bit closer than if you'd just asked me who is better. Still voted for Hadlee in the end though.

In a really bad team, I think Hadlee's batting will become too valuable.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee was more effective but Murali could bowl longer spells which becomes more and more important as the quality of your support bowlers drops. In a good team I'd definitely rather have Hadlee, I'd still rather have Hadlee in the median team but in a really bad team I'd probably rather Murali, so the way the question is posed makes it a bit closer than if you'd just asked me who is better. Still voted for Hadlee in the end though.

Hadlee was in a pretty average team and made them unbeatable at home and highly competitive away.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hadlee was in a pretty average team and made them unbeatable at home and highly competitive away.

Yeah, and PEWS said exactly that. Witgh bowling only, Hadlee brings more to an average to a below team while Murali brings more to a really bad team

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, and PEWS said exactly that. Witgh bowling only, Hadlee brings more to an average to a below team while Murali brings more to a really bad team

Except in a really bad team, Hadlee is still going to be more effective and win you more games than Murali. Those game where Murali bowls more longer spells are likely to be lost anyways.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Except in a really bad team, Hadlee is still going to be more effective and win you more games than Murali. Those game where Murali bowls more longer spells are likely to be lost anyways.

In a really bad team; you aren't really winning games. I would say they would rather have equal effect in a team's very unlikely win or a slightly more common draw.

 

[subshakerz]

In a really bad team; you aren't really winning games. I would say they would rather have equal effect in a team's very unlikely win or a slightly more common draw.

In a really bad team, Hadlee is still more capable of bowling the opposing team on his lonesome for sub 150 scores and getting upset victories.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In a really bad team, Hadlee is still more capable of bowling the opposing team on his lonesome for sub 150 scores and getting upset victories.

Murali is probably more capable of drawing a game with bowling long spells.

 

[subshakerz]

Murali is probably more capable of drawing a game with bowling long spells.

If it's a bad team, him having longer spells means the opposing team is amassing huge scores. That means losses, not draws.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If it's a bad team, him having longer spells means the opposing team is amassing huge scores. That means losses, not draws.

More often. He could also possibly defend very low scores in the 4th innings better than Hadlee.

 

[subshakerz]

More often. He could also possibly defend very low scores in the 4th innings better than Hadlee.

Both would do excellent depending on the pitch. But Hadlee could bowl them out on Day 1, session 1.