Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[kyear2]

The thing that is often overlooked with McGrath is how much he gained by having scoreboard pressure on the opposition thanks to an ATG batting lineup that Aus had during most of his career.

Hadlee had no such advantage.

That is indeed a valid point.

But while it is evident in his numbers, the difference is negligible.

So yes, scoreboard pressure is a thing, but he was just as good without it.

 

[akilana]

Yeah, the way Sachin is deified by the same person and held up as perfect, by pretending that his only "flaw" is a lack of dominant series, when his record against the very best if the 90's is just as flawed as Lara's and pales in comparison to Richards's, whole resurrecting his career with his second peak in the flattest of eras in the middle of a stacked line up.

The double standard is crazy.

not only does he lack dominant series but also series defining innings like the one Kp played in India in their series win in 2012 or the one G Smith played in England to win the series or the ones Laxman/lara played few times.. best indian test wins were engineered by laxman, dravid, pujara etc and not sachin. sachin's best innings was probably the one when he scored double hundred and india drew the series.. or maybe the one in chennai when he dragged the team closer to victory and shrank. he's really the james harden of cricket with empty stats.

 

[shortpitched713]

He was far more hittable.

Something something eggs omelettes.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Legitimately speaking, what utter shite is this?

We already addressed it.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Dont be foolish, I am comparing him emerging as one in a line of WI quality pacers to Hadlee who was the first ATG bowler NZ had who shouldered the entire load.

Generic wouldn't be the term I'd use though. It implies that he was just another WI fast bowler. He wasn't. He was far and away the best. It's like calling Sachin a generic Indian given that they already produced class batsmen like Sunil, Armanath, Vengsarkar til then. You'll say not comparable and Sachin is a class ahead, well so too was Malcolm.

 

[kyear2]

That's a fair comment as well. Thats where Kyear and i disagree. Hadlee is, imo, in the goat convo as a fast bowler. It's odd that I hardly ever see him mentioned by pundits whenever they pick atg XIs

Not only is he not mentioned by pundits or former players, or writers in such XI's he's hardly mentioned in the GOAT debate, one hardly sees him or Ambrose mentioned.

And unlike what Smali is trying to pretend, it had nothing to do with his country or not being entertaining. Marshall and McGrath lacked Akram's, Lillee's and Warne's flair, bravado or personalities.

He wasn't rated as highly by the batsmen of the era. Over his career, they saw Lillee, then Marshall as better, I've seen rankings if Holding ahead of him. I've seen interviews with Viv here he rated at least a couple others ahead of him.

Martin Crowe selected Marshall, Lillee and Akram ahead of him. He was slon his own team.

Gower among only the bowlers he faced, ranked Marshall, Lillee and Roberts ahead of him, and I didn't include the all rounders.

I've been relayed certain reasons, but it came down to he wasn't as good as the others, it was about the big moments, unhelpful conditions etc.

He's in some ways the opposite to Warne,.if that makes sense.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

You are presenting him as being the main reason WI peaked but the fact is WI declined during his peak.

His peak was from, imo, the Pakistan series in 1980 'til Australia 1988. WI definitely peaked at the same time Malcolm did and declined as you said, but that's hardly on sir Malcolm (the decline). At the very least, they still lost zero series while he was playing.

 

[kyear2]

Guys with the GOAT arguments for me are

Marshall
McGrath
Barnes
Warne
Murali

I don't think Warne and Murali do, but that has more to do with how each was handled by India and Lara, while Murali adds Australia in Australia to the list. Though those was almost impossible odds.

But over the last few weeks where I'm trying to read more than I write, that I've re- read so many that not only rate Warne the best, but very arguably the 3rd greatest player of all time, that he almost has to be there.

We've discussed Barnes ad nauseam so no reason revisiting that, but he is highly rated, so sure...

Murali, like Sachin is a matter of sheer volume. The argument against him is that Warne walks into every single AT XI and I don't think all of them is factoring his batting.

I would say for me it's the two M's, Barnes played a different game, but if included he can have an argument. Warne was probably the greatest closer, so I guess that counts.

Murali got dominated at home in a way that I've not seen any of the others get dominated in their back yard. But it's kinda wrong to separate the two titans.

I will say this, Warne doesn't have a statistical argument to be, and Murali doesn't have the peer, anecdotal, legacy(?) argument. I really don't know, so I guess that kind of answers itself.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, the way Sachin is deified by the same person and held up as perfect

By pretty much nobody actively in our discussions on CW, maybe?

Compared to how you deify Marshall and put him up there with Bradman Sobers?

Yeah, the way Sachin is deified by the same person and held up as perfect, by pretending that his only "flaw" is a lack of dominant series, when his record against the very best if the 90's is just as flawed as Lara's and pales in comparison to Richards's, whole resurrecting his career with his second peak in the flattest of eras in the middle of a stacked line up.

The double standard is crazy.

Name me a flaw of Marshalls. I'm waiting.

 

[subshakerz]

So yes, scoreboard pressure is a thing, but he was just as good without it.

Yet another point that you denied at first when we brought it up only to accept it now.

 

[kyear2]

That's incredible to have 6 Man of the Series awards

I wonder who are some of the other bowlers ahead of him on the list?

https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/most-player-of-the-series-awards-283469

I know the context of the discussion is lost on you, so wouldn't expect any better.

But it was 6 out of 21 series, and the discussion was his role and importance in the run when they were seen as the greatest ever.

There were 13 series where they were seen as such, almost half of those he was the man of the series.

 

[subshakerz]

His peak was from, imo, the Pakistan series in 1980 'til Australia 1988. WI definitely peaked at the same time Malcolm did and declined as you said, but that's hardly on sir Malcolm (the decline). At the very least, they still lost zero series while he was playing.

Marshall peaked 83 onwards

 

[subshakerz]

I know the context of the discussion is lost on you, so wouldn't expect any better.

But it was 6 out of 21 series, and the discussion was his role and importance in the run when they were seen as the greatest ever.

There were 13 series where they were seen as such, almost half of those he was the man of the series.

Hadlee is equal to Marshall on this score. Imran better but then he could bat.

 

[DrWolverine]

Marshall peaked 83 onwards

Statistically speaking Malcolm Marshall is the equivalent of Ken Barrington.

Ken made his debut in 1955.
He became full time in 1959.

Marshall made his debut in 1978.
He became full time in 1983.

Barrington from 1959-1968:
80 Tests. 6754 runs. Avg of 59.77. 20 centuries

Marshall from 1983-1991
69 Tests. 342 wickets. Avg of 19.86. 22 5-Fers

Ken retired in middle of a series due to heart attack. Maco was removed due to internal politics.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Hadlee is equal to Marshall on this score. Imran better but then he could bat.

They all literally had mos at the same rate ie one in 3.5 series. Well not Hadlee his was one in 4.

 

[subshakerz]

They all literally had mos at the same rate ie one in 3.5 series. Well not Hadlee his was one in 4.

I mean, ok. Anyways they are all exceptional if you think about it.

 

[Johan]

Statistically speaking Malcolm Marshall is the equivalent of Ken Barrington.

Ken made his debut in 1955.
He became full time in 1959.

Marshall made his debut in 1978.
He became full time in 1983.

Barrington from 1959-1968:
80 Tests. 6754 runs. Avg of 59.77. 20 centuries

Marshall from 1983-1991
69 Tests. 342 wickets. Avg of 19.86. 22 5-Fers

Ken retired in middle of a series due to heart attack. Maco was removed due to internal politics.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Statistically speaking Malcolm Marshall is the equivalent of Ken Barrington.

Ken made his debut in 1955.
He became full time in 1959.

Marshall made his debut in 1978.
He became full time in 1983.

Barrington from 1959-1968:
80 Tests. 6754 runs. Avg of 59.77. 20 centuries

Marshall from 1983-1991
69 Tests. 342 wickets. Avg of 19.86. 22 5-Fers

Ken retired in middle of a series due to heart attack. Maco was removed due to internal politics.

Given the bowlers around at the time and the series we played, had Marshall continued on to around say 100 tests i doubt any of his stats would be greatly affected, especially his average and sr. He'd have been bowling alongside pre surgery Ambrose, Walsh and occasionally Bishop.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I mean, ok. Anyways they are all exceptional if you think about it.

They are.

 

[kyear2]

It's hard on record and skill to argue Hadlee isn't up there.


Once again you have to lie to make Marshall seem better.

If you want to argue WI peaked around 83/84, clearly they also had Holding and Garner there who were also bowling magnificently, not just Marshall. But WI started to decline in 86, not 88/89 as soon as they retired as you yourself point out.

From 86 to 89, WI drew in NZ, Pak, and India, and drew at home. Marshall couldn't stop that even in his bowling peak.

Drew in NZ. The others went home (injured and retired) and he was injured and still took 6 wickets in the game they won. Had nothing left in the last game they lost and didn't even bowl in the final innings if that match.

He went to Pakistan, the toughest place to play in the era for noted reasons, without Holding and Garner. We lost the first match chasing 240 to win and getting bowled out for 53, was that also his fault? when Pakistan went to neutral umpires for the 2nd match we won, the 3rd test drawn to tie the series at one a piece and Marshall was the WI MOS.

Marshall didn't play in the India series.

The tie at home to Pakistan was because we lost the first game that Marshall didn't play.

Once he regained fitness we resumed natural order until the aforementioned date.

But good to know that you don't want to give him any credit for the wins, but all of the blame for the draws.