Lillie VS Hadlee

[The Maestro]

The thing that must be remembered is how much of his career he missed from a back injury, and also world series cricket. Take those two occurances out and he could've taken 450 or 500++ wickets.

Huh? We are judging players on what they might have acheived if they werent injured all the timë now?

His World Series performances have been proven to be nothing special


[/QOUTE=Black Thunder] There are so many factors to take into - the be strength of the opposition batsmen a bowler would dismiss, the support he had from others, the general aura surrounding a certain bowler, and so on and so forth. [/QOUTE]

Yes

And these factors show Hadlee to be almost definetly the superior bowler

And then you introduce batting and fielding into the equation.....HELLO!!!!!!!

....its a no brainer



I cant believe how many people have put forward lame theories how Lillie can touch Hadlee as a cricketer ........its weird

 

[C_C]

I wouldnt rate Lillee equal of Marshall, let alone better. Hadlee comes close but Marshall is the most complete and ultimate fast bowler I've ever seen.
He is McGrath with 4-5mph extra speed added on, more movement and the BEST mover of the ball in the air i've ever seen.

If I am picking an alltime World XI bowling, i pick Imran,Murali and Marshall and then worry about the 4th spot. Those three are automatic.

 

[C_C]

There are so many factors to take into - the be strength of the opposition batsmen a bowler would dismiss, the support he had from others, the general aura surrounding a certain bowler, and so on and so forth.

Both Marshall and hadlee are MUCH better than lillee in this aspect.

And back injury? well by that logic,if Imran Khan hadnt missed 2 entire seasons (bowling) due to his injury, he would've been over 400 wickets now. Or if Waqar hadnt had his back injury in 1992 ( had to remodel his action and had a metallic plate attached to his back), both Murali and Warne would be chasing Waqar's record......
If Thommo didnt have a gimpy knee, he would've taken 300+ wickets.......
IF IF IF...
could've should've might've.

 

[Pratters]

Both were exceptional bowlers and I can say that with the help of stats and footage of past matches I have watched on t.v.

The better bowler? Hadlee had an unreal average of 19 which some one mentioned post the age of 30. He very much carried the Kiwi attack and as a fast bowler, its far more demanding than being done by a spinner like Murali.

Lillee did come back from WSC and injury which is exceptional and he deserved kudos there as well.

The balance is tilted slightly towards Hadlee for his persistance and doggedness apart from bowling exceptional balls. Both could do that.

 

[a massive zebra]

If I am picking an alltime World XI bowling, i pick Imran,Murali and Marshall and then worry about the 4th spot. Those three are automatic.

How about...

Jack Hobbs
Sunil Gavaskar
Don Bradman
Graeme Pollock
Walter Hammond
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan
Malcolm Marshall
Muttiah Muralitharan
Sydney Barnes

12th Man: Richard Hadlee

 

[C_C]

Graeme Pollock makes a good case and Hammond isnt bad either. But I would definately pick any of Brian Lara, Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar over those two.
I would go with Tendulkar and Richards.
As for Sid Barnes, getting a bucketload of wickets at a stage where the game was nowhere as intense doesnt impress me.
Instead of Sid Barnes, i would go with Richard Hadlee/Curtley Ambrose/Glenn McGrath.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

His World Series performances have been proven to be nothing special

Err, what? When? His WSC record is absolutely magnificent.

 

[Scallywag]

He is McGrath with 4-5mph extra speed added on, more movement and the BEST mover of the ball in the air i've ever seen.

.

But McGrath is a better first innings bowler than Marshall by far, which suggests McGrath moves the ball more than Marshall.

 

[C_C]

But McGrath is a better first innings bowler than Marshall by far, which suggests McGrath moves the ball more than Marshall.

You obviously dont watch cricket if you think that.
And you definately didnt watch marshall bowl if you say that.

Neither Marshall or McGrath were/are big movers of the ball but Marshall moved the ball considerably more than Pidge does.
His deliveries swung more after pitching but he was the absolute best when it came to moving the ball before pitching(ie seaming). McGrath's deliveries do not seam anywhere as good. The only one i saw who seamed it anywhere close to Marshall was Fanie deVillers.

Besides, when will you learn to READ ?
i said Marshall is by far the best mover of the ball IN THE AIR- ie, moving the ball before it pitches.

Err, what? When? His WSC record is absolutely magnificent.

its pretty good. but you'd think with the numerous reference to his WSC stats, he would stand head and shoulders above the rest in that category- he has the most wickets for a team but he also played more matches than any other bowler...plus his average is pretty far down the list of WSC bowlers.

I believe Garner did better than him.

 

[SJS]

Seaming is movement before pitching (in the air) ?? Is it ?

Swinging is movement after pitching ? Is it ?

Is this right ???

I have cleaned my glasses four times but this is what it reads like .

Forty five years of cricket watching, all down the drain.

 

[C_C]

Seaming is movement before pitching (in the air) ?? Is it ?

Swinging is movement after pitching ? Is it ?

Is this right ???

I have cleaned my glasses four times but this is what it reads like .

Forty five years of cricket watching, all down the drain.

Terminology is irrelevant. People use it interchangably too often. But i mentioned swinging it in the air, so whoever read it got the point.

 

[Pratters]

Seaming is movement before pitching (in the air) ?? Is it ?

Swinging is movement after pitching ? Is it ?

Is this right ???

I have cleaned my glasses four times but this is what it reads like .

Forty five years of cricket watching, all down the drain.

Classic!

 

[The Maestro]

Seaming is movement before pitching (in the air) ?? Is it ?

Swinging is movement after pitching ? Is it ?

Is this right ???

I have cleaned my glasses four times but this is what it reads like .

Forty five years of cricket watching, all down the drain.

 

[The Maestro]

Err, what? When? His WSC record is absolutely magnificent.

Is it? What is it then? Sorry I took someone earlier in the threads comments about it on board

I'm feeling generous.....despite its questionably status as international class cricket, lets add it to his regular figured and then restart the debate

yes?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Is it? What is it then? Sorry I took someone earlier in the threads comments about it on board

I'm feeling generous.....despite its questionably status as international class cricket, lets add it to his regular figured and then restart the debate

yes?

Someone quoted it earlier. He was the leading wicket taker in WSC with an average similar to his career average, slightly above 24 (as opposed to slightly below 24 as normal). The reason this is remarkable is because the WSC matches were entirely against the best in the world, played at incredibly high standard

 

[Scallywag]

Neither Marshall or McGrath were/are big movers of the ball but Marshall moved the ball considerably more than Pidge does.
His deliveries swung more after pitching but he was the absolute best when it came to moving the ball before pitching(ie seaming). McGrath's deliveries do not seam anywhere as good. The only one i saw who seamed it anywhere close to Marshall was Fanie deVillers.


.

McGarth moves the ball off the pitch everytime he bowls not just on pitches that suit him. Yes Marshall did move the ball but not as consistantly as McGrath. This is where McGrath is so leathal in the first innings of the game when batsmen are at their sharpest, he has proven to be a match winner. Marshall tended to get on top of the batsmen later in the match.

 

[SJS]

Hadlee was a great bowler. I always say that before I step on this thread. Anything I say here is not to disprove that but to put in perspective this argument.

Hadlee had two distinct phases in his career. The first half where he was fast but not a great bolwer that ha became in the second half. By 1981 end, when he was in his 31st year (many fast bowlers are contemplating retirement) he had the following figures.

Hadlee 73-81

Matches : 35
Wickets : 155
Average : 27.3
Strk Rate : 50.2
Eco Rate : 54.4
5 in inns : 11
10 in match : 3

Over the next 9 years he became a complete bowler and had great success but was he fast then ?

Hadlee 82-91

Matches : 51
Wickets : 276
Average : 19.5
Strk Rate : 46.9
Eco Rate : 41.4
5 in inns : 25
10 in match : 10

The difference is remarkable. And he was forty when he stopped.

The point here is that Hadlee was an exception who blossomed very late in his career and we tend to remember him for the remarkable bowler he was in the second half of his career. For most bowlers, particularly fast bowlers, it is the opposite. They tend to have modest latter part of their careers and people tend to remember them for the shadow of the original self that they become.

I have seen same said by people in the seventies of Trueman.



Hadlee

 

[Pratters]

So Hadlee is very comparable to Walsh who was average for most of his early phase of his career, deadly afterwards.

 

[Black Thunder]

Original quote:
There are so many factors to take into - the be strength of the opposition batsmen a bowler would dismiss, the support he had from others, the general aura surrounding a certain bowler, and so on and so forth.

Both Marshall and hadlee are MUCH better than lillee in this aspect.

didn't say any particular bowler had a better record in that aspect, but the rest of my original post mentioned people can't just judge who the better bowler is based on their career average.

And back injury? well by that logic,if Imran Khan hadnt missed 2 entire seasons (bowling) due to his injury, he would've been over 400 wickets now. Or if Waqar hadnt had his back injury in 1992 ( had to remodel his action and had a metallic plate attached to his back), both Murali and Warne would be chasing Waqar's record......
If Thommo didnt have a gimpy knee, he would've taken 300+ wickets.......
IF IF IF...
could've should've might've.

yes true, but once again this was one of the reasons why Lillee was considered so highly because he was able to come back from an injury that should've ended his career, but instead came back as an even better bowler.

 

[SJS]

So Hadlee is very comparable to Walsh who was average for most of his early phase of his career, deadly afterwards.

Yes. In a way.

But the point I would like to make is that when he bowled his best, he was fast medium and when he bowled truly fast, he wasnt a great bowler.

Lillee when he was at his peak was really fast and had complete mastery of his bowling. It was a miracle that he could run let alone bowl after his stress fracture. I wonder what his final tally would have been if he hadnt been injured for so long and hadnt lost his early years to WSC.