Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[DrWolverine]

Does any one appreciate how hard it is to maintain an average of 20?

This horrible decline that some love to tout

Curtly Ambrose didn’t decline much.

1989-1994 : 48 Tests. 219W @ 21.08. 11 5-Fer
1995-2000 : 50 Tests. 186W @ 20.89. 11 5-Fer

 

[DrWolverine]

They couldn't attack him. Even in ODIs he had an outstanding economy rate.

In terms of economy rate, Ambrose was ahead of his peers by a higher margin compared to even Garner.

 

[kyear2]

Curtly Ambrose didn’t decline much.

1989-1994 : 48 Tests. 219W @ 21.08. 11 5-Fer
1995-2000 : 50 Tests. 186W @ 20.89. 11 5-Fer

I was being sarcastic.

 

[subshakerz]

Curtly Ambrose didn’t decline much.

1989-1994 : 48 Tests. 219W @ 21.08. 11 5-Fer
1995-2000 : 50 Tests. 186W @ 20.89. 11 5-Fer

Yes overall.

But we are comparing that with Hadlee who from 78 when he became worldclass till 1990 was taking 370 wickets in 69 tests @20.

He never had a dip like Ambrose.

 

[DrWolverine]

Hadlee > Ambrose

I would even go on to Hadlee is arguably the greatest fast bowler even if Maco was slightly better

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee > Ambrose

I would even go on to Hadlee is arguably the greatest fast bowler even if Maco was slightly better

Hadlee has a good case to be a greater bowler than Marshall.

McGrath has a good case to be a better bowler than Marshall.

 

[sayon basak]

Hadlee has a good case to be a greater bowler than Marshall.

McGrath has a good case to be a better bowler than Marshall.

How are they different in this context?

 

[DrWolverine]

2 reasons I don’t rate McGrath over Maco/Hadlee

1. Not so great record against South Africa who were the second best team after Australia during his time

2. Overall a good record in Asia but having just 1 5-Fer in 19 Tests in Asia indicates inability to win matches single handedly in unhelpful pitches.

I still rate him as the 3rd greatest fast bowler for his consistency, longevity and not leaking too many runs even on off days(like Steyn).

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Yeah except Hadlee was taking 5WPM even at less pace whereas Ambrose couldn't take 4WPM.

Ambrose again, was never going to take 5 wpm, no West Indian of that time was, for obvious reasons. You really need to give this particular stat a rest. Prior to surgery, he was going at a more than acceptable 4.4 or so even with stiff competition.

 

[subshakerz]

How are they different in this context?

Hadlee given being the first ATG of NZ and carrying the extra load given him a greater legacy perhaps.

McGrath based on pure record of longevity and era.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose again, was never going to take 5 wpm, no West Indian of that time was, for obvious reasons. You really need to give this particular stat a rest. Prior to surgery, he was going at a more than acceptable 4.4 or so even with stiff competition.

We agree prior to surgery he was amazing and no issues there. But many issues after, especially away from home. He couldn't take 4WPM anywhere except Aus thanks to it's bounce.

 

[subshakerz]

2 reasons I don’t rate McGrath over Maco/Hadlee

1. Not so great record against South Africa who were the second best team after Australia during his time

2. Overall a good record in Asia but having just 1 5-Fer in 19 Tests in Asia indicates inability to win matches single handedly in unhelpful pitches.

I still rate him as the 3rd greatest fast bowler for his consistency, longevity and not leaking too many runs even on off days(like Steyn).

Why is Hadlee better than McGrath?

 

[DrWolverine]

I mentioned it

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Hadlee given being the first ATG of NZ and carrying the extra load given him a greater legacy perhaps.

McGrath based on pure record of longevity and era.

I fail to see why you're arguing. Most of us rate Hadlee over Ambrose. We all also acknowledge Ambrose was greatly diminished post surgery. Ambrose gave away less runs than sir Richard and pretty much any other bowler in history, that's it. Why all the arguments?

 

[subshakerz]

I mentioned it

Hadlee doesn't have a huge Asia record advantage over McGrath.

Hadlee did moderately in WI itself compared to McGrath doing well in SA.

Hadlee played the vast majority of his games in NZ, Aus and Eng compared to McGrath who was spread out.

McGrath has unparalleled peer rating in his era for a pacer.

In terms of skills, I think McGrath may have been just a bit more intelligent and his bounce is an extra edge.

 

[subshakerz]

I fail to see why you're arguing. Most of us rate Hadlee over Ambrose. We all also acknowledge Ambrose was greatly diminished post surgery. So why the arguments?

I was challenged by what I meant by Ambrose skill limitations in his second half and was responding to that.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee > Ambrose

I would even go on to Hadlee is arguably the greatest fast bowler even if Maco was slightly better

Yes Hadlee is better than Ambrose, I wouldn't argue that. Ambrose though was better vs the very best team of his era though, Hadlee was underwhelming in the Caribbean.

I have Hadlee in the same category as Steyn, Ambrose and the spinners.

With regards to the greatest ever, I don't think he's in the GOAT debate and thank that's a two man race tbh. As I've said, I've never heard the argument made for him being the best of his era, far less the greatest of all time.

I've said that I think Lara was probably the best batsman I've ever seen in real time, Sachin is the greatest.

Greatness is impact, relevance, legacy.

Marshall was the leader of one of the 4 greatest phenomenons in test cricket.

The Don, Sobers, McWarne and the Quartets. When Bradman retired they changed up all of the pitches, they created rule changes to legitimately blunt our bowlers, multiple at that.

He was the leader and driving force in what was at the time, the greatest team ever. When he missed games or series we struggled or lost.

Making a country relevant at home isn't the same as making a team into a juggernaught, and dominating world cricket.

 

[Coronis]

Does any one appreciate how hard it is to maintain an average of 20?

This horrible decline that some love to tout, yet he was never a liability, and maintained that insane average after his pace was drastically, not strategically, reduced.

Not even to mention the hypocrisy of the penetration / strike rate and peak arguments is laughable.

And I've heard and read it multiple times, that when things weren't helpful for Hadlee, he just also shut down. Bowled back of a length and waited for a break through, very much like Ambrose did. Hadlee also had overall more helpful bowling conditions, primarily at home.

Hadlee is a slightly better, but I would take either to open my attack.

For what I believe is the hundredth time, and will likely be the hundredth time this gets ignored, this is patently untrue. New Zealand was not pace friendly during Hadlee’s career.

Touring pacers had far more success in England and Australia (particularly England), despite New Zealand having easily the weakest home batting bar England again. The only reason NZ averages look so hood is because Hadlee took a large proportion of the wickets.

 

[kyear2]

2 reasons I don’t rate McGrath over Maco/Hadlee

1. Not so great record against South Africa who were the second best team after Australia during his time

2. Overall a good record in Asia but having just 1 5-Fer in 19 Tests in Asia indicates inability to win matches single handedly in unhelpful pitches.

I still rate him as the 3rd greatest fast bowler for his consistency, longevity and not leaking too many runs even on off days(like Steyn).

Hadlee seems to be a little like Sunny, but more like a Barrington, where they are rated considerably higher currently than they were during their careers or even immediately after.

Both (Sunny and Hadlee) are top tier ATG's, but weren't seen as the GOAT / BAB candidates as they are seen as around here today.
Sunny though is still rated a bit higher than Hadlee to be fair, and appears in his fair share of AT XI's, Hadlee however has always been consistently and conspicuously absent, falling behind first, Lillee and more recently McGrath.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee given being the first ATG of NZ and carrying the extra load given him a greater legacy perhaps.

McGrath based on pure record of longevity and era.

Greater legacy in NZ, like Worrell has a greater legacy in the WI.

Being the first ATG from your country doesn't make you greater in any context.