Aidan11
International Captain
That's irrelevant to this thread though which is only asking who was thr greater between Marshall and Hadlee. I look forward to a Marshall v Patterson poll assuming there hasn't been one already.
-
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.
Marshall v Hadlee
- Thread starter shortpitched713
- Start date
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
His personal record was 43 - 9 (29), though 3.of the draws were in WSC replacement games.
I know a lot of people talk about slow over rates, but a lot of the drawn matches were dude to rain interference, especially at home.. there were a lot of rained out days (plus not the best drainage) at home. Going through some of the drawn games now and it's noticeable.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Think they are just going win / loss
The starts quoted were Gilly 87%, Marshall 83%, McGrath 81%.
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
I would have Hadlee ahead as a bowler and player. Though, he probably doesn’t make my ATG Xi due to being similar to McGrath as a bowler.
Then which pace bowlers do if Hadlee and Marshall don’t?
For me, it’s Hadlee because of the Lone Ranger position. Marshall was probably the most skilled pacer of all time as his record shows, and it’s unfair to penalise him because he played alongside other greats, but Hadlee is unique in his accomplishments.
The two greatest pacers of all time in my view
Are they that similar though? While landing on the seam Hadlee generally looked for swing movement...a very different method to McGrath who pretty much exclusively looked for movement off the deck.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
I guess similar from the perspective that even though one was swing and one seam, they both were of similar pace, metronomic and primarily looked for the outside edge.
I agree that I wouldn't include both of them in the same attack, some would prefer Pigeon while the bat deep guys would always go Paddles.
Migara
International Coach
If peak Marshall is in the attack, I have no issues having McGrath and Hadlee both in the attack. If you have Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Murali as a test attack, you won't need a fifth bowler at all other than for a bit of variety. All four will wheel away with no complaints.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Well peak Marshall should always be, lol. But yeah for me personally I would prefer the third pacer to be one of Steyn, Imran, Wasim (in that order), for the reverse swing and for Steyn particularly that special all out attack x factor.
But understand your point.
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
I have around 8 ish quick around same level. I’m going with McGrath and Steyn for the time being. With Imran very slightly ahead of Hadlee as 3rd quick.
Red_Ink_Squid
Global Moderator
Marshall would run away with it.
Don’t agree but don’t think it’s any way unreasonable
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
The only bowlers comparable to Maco in my mind were McGrath and Hadlee, period. And for mine Marshall was more skilled, complete, versatile, and had more tools to draw on that the other two. And that's no knock because it is close between the three of them. McGrath had his consistency and longevity and Hadlee the burden of a being the lone wolf.
Steyn, and I love him more than most was more prone than any of my top 6 to be taken apart, he was horribly inconsistent away from home and his only noteworthy away record was in India. He wasn't as versatile, consistent or economical. His record vs Australia and England were less than stellar and that's with the majority of those matches at home. I rate him higher than most and I lived his attacking nature and ability to swing the ball away, but in no area was he better than Marshall.
capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
Sydney Barnes??
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
God no. We're taking test cricket. My cut off for when the game even resembled what we play today is normally the 30's and he retired a decade and a half before then.
Even then his average vs the only good team of his era is comparable to the bowlers I've mentioned, and in a much more favorable time for bowlers. His average vs minnows disproportionately reduces his average to what we go gaga over today. Plus the number of tests, for what ever reason, and similar to Headley's and Pollock's plight, wasn't sufficient, even if everything else was present. As Red said, pre WWI players just played a different game.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
I'd take Steyn over Marshall.
capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
If the playing period is the factor, then shouldn't we cut off Jack Hobbs and Victor Trumper too.... Also, one thing to consider about Barnes is his exceptionally high WPM, as well as the fact that the reason he played so few matches was because he was on the negative side of Lord Hawke for playing in the Lancashire League. When West Indies team first toured England, they played him in a few First Class matches. He was 56 by then, and after the tours end, the team almost unanimously agreed that he was the best bowler they faced.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Cool.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Too few teams, much lower level of competition, different rules and conditions. Even if he had the skills, how do we gauge? There's next to no footage and gain, reasons aside (and Pollock and Headley have similarly good reasons) he didn't have that extensive of a career and it was at the dawn of the sport.
But again, just my perspective.