No Hadlee has batting so it's more interesting.@Prince EWS Warne vs Murali in disguise.
What about Hadlees batting?Picking Warne/McGrath.
I literally have a hair’s breadth Murali over Warne. I have a bit more than a hair’s breadth McGrath over Hadlee. Plus you know, I’m always slightly inclined towards a duo that actually played together.
Eh.. based on the lead in discussion (my comparison there was only in reference to bowling) I was presuming it was only bowling.What about Hadlees batting?
I wouldn't consider him an elite slip fielder. Very good, yes. But all of these players were good fielders.Warne for his slip catching imo
Not close to elite. At best above average to good.I wouldn't consider him an elite slip fielder. Very good, yes. But all of these players were good fielders.
He looked worse given the others who were around him.Not close to elite. At best above average to good.
Hadlee better as a fielder.Warne for his slip catching imo
McGrath takes him out.Hadlee better as a fielder.
Valid point.He looked worse given the others who were around him.
Hadlee was better in the gully than Warne in the slips.Warne for his slip catching imo
Just because they didn't bowl as much, didn't mean they couldn't.Murali and Hadlee. They will bowl many more overs than Warne and McGrath. The side simple can play another goodish support bowler and a batsman who can bowl to bolster the batting. Any team playing Warne and McGrath will need four full time bowlers because they bowl lesser.
Never seen myself, but I've heard how good he was.Hadlee was better in the gully than Warne in the slips.
Hadlee was better in the gully than Warne in the slips.
Ex soccer/football goalie so could dive.Never seen myself, but I've heard how good he was.
That's tempting in itself tbh.