• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Lillie VS Hadlee

The Maestro

School Boy/Girl Captain
Which of these two stacks up as the better player in your opinion?

For me Lillie was a beautifully balanced and aggressive quick, who had a big heart and rarely let his side down. Probably in the top five of all bowlers that I have seen (1980-present)

However Hadlee was a master of working players out, while he didn't have Lillies pace consistently he was a much more intelligent cricketer. He also had to more or less carry NZ's attack for the entirety of his career. I have seen no-one with a more cunning outswinger than Sir Richard Hadlee :-O

I would have to give the comparison............. as bowler only.......... to Hadlee. Add Hadlees batting to the mix and the fact that Lillie barely knew which way to hold the willow......in fact he was so clueless he decided it was cool to use aluminium! ha ha!! What a doofus :blink:

Hadlee was a better fielder too

Hadlee 9.5/10

Lillee 8.5/10

D.N.T!
 

Camel56

Banned
Lillie by a mile.
As far as i know Ray Hadley cant bowl for sh!t. Dont tell him that though or he'll pull your f*ckin' ears.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
C'mon, this one could be argued either way...

It is interesting to note that after 70 test, they both (from memory) had almost indentical records...355 wickets..The only difference being that Hadlee then went on to play 86 test in total for his 431 wks.

I personally think they are hard to separate as bowlers, and also interesting that Lillee was Hadlee's hero .

Although Hadlee had a slightly better record, many great past players rate Lillee as the best ever. Botham included.
 

Scallywag

Banned
I would have said

Hadlee 9.50
lillee 9.49

Two great bowlers who not only played extremely well but two bowlers who led their teams with distinction.
 

thierry henry

International Captain
I still can't get my head around why Lillee is rated so highly when he consistently averaged around 23/24 in both test and first-class cricket, while most of the other truly great pace bowlers tend to average between 20-22. I agree that Lillee is one of the greats, but a lot of people see him as a god whose status can never be questioned, which I find debatable.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
A bowling average less than 25 in Test cricket is very, very good, if not great.

Anyway, what's a run between greats?
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Lillee could be phenomenal on his day but is massively overrated and inconsistent. He is thought of as pretty much the complete fast bowler despite even Rod Marsh admitting that he had a weakness against the left handers and that he also struggled to run through lower orders due to the lack of a good yorker. Furthermore, he also struggled in Asia. Lillee was not the complete fast bowler and his reputation as the king of fast bowlers is just another example of Australians and inconsistent matchwinners being remembered more fondly than consistent non Austalians/Englishmen (a la Murali vs Warne where Murali is clearly much better than the overrated Australian matchwinner, yet does not get the credit he deserves).

McGrath is not generally talked about in the same breath as Lillee but as a matter of fact is a demonstrably more reliable bowler than Lillee, has had success all over the world, and in terms of PriceWaterhouseCoopers ratings is ahead of him at every point in their respective careers after the first dozen or so matches.
 

thierry henry

International Captain
LongHopCassidy said:
A bowling average less than 25 in Test cricket is very, very good, if not great.

Anyway, what's a run between greats?
I agree. But most of the out and out greats have slightly better records than Lillee. I reject the assertions that Lillee was the model fast bowler and all that, I accept he was a very fine player, but you must admit that a lot of people seem to think he was God's gift to bowling.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
thierry henry said:
I still can't get my head around why Lillee is rated so highly when he consistently averaged around 23/24 in both test and first-class cricket, while most of the other truly great pace bowlers tend to average between 20-22. I agree that Lillee is one of the greats, but a lot of people see him as a god whose status can never be questioned, which I find debatable.
I appreciate stats do mean a lot in cricket, but I don't buy in that they are always the absolute be-all and end all in all cases.

There are so many factors that should be taken into consideration when comparing players records.

Where were most matches played?
Who was the opposition and in what era?
What was the strenght of the player concerned team?
and many others....

For example , Whilst I don't think Kapil Dev was quite in the class of Hadlee or Lillee as a bowler. I certainly do think he was a better bowler than his average of 29 would indicate. I'm sure had he not played so many of his tests in the subcontinent his average for example may have been around 26 mark.

I suppose my point is that not EVERYTHING always comes down to a player average even though it is usually a good indication
 

thierry henry

International Captain
zinzan12 said:
I appreciate stats do mean a lot in cricket, but I don't buy in that they are always the absolute be-all and end all in all cases.

There are so many factors that should be taken into consideration when comparing players records.

Where were most matches played?
Who was the opposition and in what era?
What was the strenght of the player concerned team?
and many others....

For example , Whilst I don't think Kapil Dev was quite in the class of Hadlee or Lillee as a bowler. I certainly do think he was a better bowler than his average of 29 would indicate. I'm sure had he not played so many of his tests in the subcontinent his average for example may have been around 26 mark.

I suppose my point is that not EVERYTHING always comes down to a player average even though it is usually a good indication
What were the factors against Lillee?? I think over a FC career as long as Lillee's, or Hadlee's, the stats certainly tell the story.
 

C_C

International Captain
Which of these two stacks up as the better player in your opinion?
better Player ?
Richard Hadlee by a country mile.

I consider Hadlee to be slightly superior bowler, a lightyear ahead in terms of batting and fielding is too close to call IMO.

So player-wise, Hadlee is a whole lot better.

As per the best ever , its debatable but i wouldnt rate Hadlee or lillee as good as Malcolm Marshall-who was the most complete and consistent bowler of them all.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Lillie VS Hadlee

Which of these two stacks up as the better player in your opinion?

I dont know ? :sleep:

PS. Who is Lillie ? :-O
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
zinzan12 said:
Whilst I don't think Kapil Dev was quite in the class of Hadlee or Lillee as a bowler. I certainly do think he was a better bowler than his average of 29 would indicate. I'm sure had he not played so many of his tests in the subcontinent his average for example may have been around 26 mark.
Actually, his record in Asia is marginally better in terms of average than his career!
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
Not forgetting that Hadlee had to pretty much carry the NZ team for most of his career. We had some decent players..but it was fairly obvious that we would have been stuffed without him.

431 test wickets in 86 tests was outstanding...considering that for his 1st 7 or 8 matches, he was decidedly ordinary.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
Firslty, I loved watching Hadlee bowl. Poetry in motion, absolute control, pretty much a master.

However, all the greats from that era whether it be IVA Richards, Australians (of Course), whoever, rated Lillee the best. It's hard to argue with that.

Furthermore, when you add Lillee's stats from World Series (the standard of which was significanlty higher than normal Test Cricket), Lillee's figures are pretty phenomenal.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
thierry henry said:
What were the factors against Lillee?? I think over a FC career as long as Lillee's, or Hadlee's, the stats certainly tell the story.
A large part of the middle of his career wasn't counted - i.e WSC.

Lillee was also a very intelligent bowler once back injuries meant he'd lost a lot of his pace. If he wasn't he wouldn't have been around for so long.

I think they are both outstanding bowlers, so wouldn't even attempt to choose between them.
 
Last edited:

Swervy

International Captain
Both were equally as destructive on their day.

All this 'Lillee's average was not as good' stuff is a joke really. In order to get a feel of how good a bowler Lillee was, you had to watch him bowl..and not just highlights,but a whole spell, or a whole day, or a whole series.

Massive Zebra keeps bringing this 'Lillee wasnt a complete bowler' stuff on a regular basis. How do you know???? Did you watch him , or are you just stat watching. Of course he had his weaknesses, but so does every single player ever to play the game.

hadlee was of course a star, the master of bowling what ever length he wanted. Great great bowler, who just got better and better throughout his career. I would say in the early 80's when I saw a lot of both bowlers bowl, I would have put Lillee ahead just, but Hadlee improved after Lillees retiremnet, his control got better,and it is no coincidence that NZ were a pretty nifty little team back then.
 

Top