Marshall v Hadlee

[HouHsiaoHsien]

What about the fact Marshall benefitted from great bowling support throughout the entirety of his career, whereas Hadlee had virtually none?

Double edged sword. Hadlee didn’t have much support, but good pitches at home, so easy to achieve a good WPM. Marshall despite so much competition took nearly 6 wickets per match for 40 odd tests at his peak. I think Marshall’s peak is truly remarkable and gives him an edge, in addition to his nearly flawless home away record.

 

[Slifer]

It's been over 12 years since this thread:

Marshall vs Hadlee - Poll Added

Discuss who was the better test bowler - don't care about ODIs. Hadlee Avg 22.29 Wickets 431 Matches 86 SR 50.8 Marshall Avg 20.94 Wickets 376 Matches 81 SR 46.7 I will make a case for Hadlee as I feel the general consensus on CW is that Marshall is the better bowler. Yes Hadlee had the...

www.cricketweb.net

Since then, I think something of a big 5 (Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, Steyn) of fast bowlers has emerged, and Marshall/McGrath as co-equal GOATs tends to be the consensus compared to Marshall as lone top of the tree from that time.

Maybe the polling will also shift from 12 years ago on this debate (and we also continue to have a strong Kiwi contingent on CW, so that's something too).

I personally, will make no bones that I don't think Marshall deserves to be separate from the rest of the big 5. One of his biggest claims to fame is the whole <25 average against every opponent. I'm sorry, great as Marshall is this is absolutely a bupkus reason for separating him from the rest of the big 5, and this especially applies in a H2H comparison with Hadlee. 3 Tests in Pakistan do not a career defining difference make, otherwise Hadlee could boast the same feat, and to me this is the absolute definition of an argument based on lolsamplesize and the vagaries of statistical probabilities, rather than an actual indicator of bowling qualities. Both bowlers were equally adept against virtually all opposition and conditions they came across.

The real reasons to separate, for me would be a balance between 1) polar opposites of bowling support received (favors Hadlee) 2) SR difference (favors Marshall)

Marshall has a 1.35 superiority in average to Hadlee, and an SR which is superior by 4. Hadlee though, picks up .37 more wickets per innings, and has more 14 more 5 wicket hauls than Marshall. Believe it or not, Hadlee's home conditions were also more challenging, by about .5 extra runs scored per wicket in New Zealand as compared to in the West Indies during their respective careers.

The key, explaining the difference in their approaches and outcomes does come down to the extreme difference in bowling support between the 2, imo. Marshall could focus on being more of a the "true strike bowler" for his sides of 4 horsemen who always applied pressure from which he could benefit. Hadlee, on the other hand, had to carry his team's attack, bowling more marathon spells in circumstances where he may have preferred to and better suited to get a rest if he had adequate support. They both had the ability to be, and are ideally suited to a strike bowling spearhead role for their teams, but only Marshall got to really enjoy that and Hadlee had to be spearhead and workhorse all in one. Throughout his career, Hadlee ended up bowling more than 722 overs more than Marshall, despite them bowling in almost exactly the same number of innings in their career (Marshall bowled in 151, Hadlee bowled in 150).

To me, that factor ends up being the clincher in what is a hairsplitting decision. Having such a difference in bowling circumstance, is imo definitely worth a little bit more than small difference in pure average and strike rate, and it's why I have Hadlee over Marshall.

Umm no. Conditions in NZ were not more challenging in the 80s. Smh

 

[kyear2]

What about the fact Marshall benefitted from great bowling support throughout the entirety of his career, whereas Hadlee had virtually none?

What about it exactly?

Do you downgrade McGrath because he had the best running mate ever?

Do you downgrade Sachin because he had much stronger batting support than Lara, and didn't have to come as often amid a collapse?

Do you downgrade Murali because his home conditions were much better and tailored to him than Warne's?

Do you hold it against Murali and Sachin that they faced way more minnows than Lara and Warne respectively?

Not even going to mention Imran.

But you rate Pollock as your third greatest / most valuable cricketer ever, wasn't he part of a pack, and not even the best among them.
Pollock played over 30 more matches than Donald and still had 4 less 5fers (16 to 20) and 3 less 10fers, not to compare their strikes rates where there is a 10 point difference. Ntini had more 5 wicket hauls than Pollock did for crying out loud, and a better strike rate.

Marshall despite competition had 22 five wicket hauls and 4 10 wicket hauls in 81 games with a 5fer rate of around 27%, which compares favorably with McGrath's 29 five wicket hauls and 3 ten wicket hauls (5fer rate of 23%)

 

[kyear2]

Umm no. Conditions in NZ were not more challenging in the 80s. Smh

I don't know how one would come to that conclusion.

 

[shortpitched713]

Double edged sword. Hadlee didn’t have much support, but good pitches at home, so easy to achieve a good WPM. Marshall despite so much competition took nearly 6 wickets per match for 40 odd tests at his peak. I think Marshall’s peak is truly remarkable and gives him an edge, in addition to his nearly flawless home away record.

Other than 3 Tests in Pakistan, Hadlee was also flawless across conditions. And his 40 Test peak was even better than Marshall's:

Bowlers ranked by peak. Qualification: At least 5 years AND 40 innings. I rank bowlers based on average, wickets per innings, and strike-rate (Weighting of 4:2:1). The averages and strike-rates have been adjusted by opposition and match conditions.

				Adj. Ave.	WPI	Adj. S/R	Inns
1	Imran Khan	1981	1987	14.90	3.38	40.73	42
2	M Muralitharan	2001	2007	17.06	3.96	47.43	81
3	Sir RJ Hadlee	1984	1989	17.65	3.51	43.38	55
4	Waqar Younis	1990	1995	18.86	3.50	35.61	52
5	SF Barnes	1908	1914	19.00	4.00	50.98	40
6	Shoaib Akhtar	2002	2007	18.79	2.78	38.40	45
7	MD Marshall	1984	1989	18.83	2.97	43.22	78
8	CEL Ambrose	1990	1995	17.78	2.66	48.86	64
9	DW Steyn	2012	2018	18.38	2.57	43.71	47
10	JC Laker	1951	1957	18.26	2.60	49.29	40
11	AV Bedser	1949	1954	19.16	2.94	50.27	48
12	Wasim Akram	1989	1995	20.46	2.97	48.02	68
13	AA Donald	1996	2001	20.25	2.74	43.67	74
14	IR Bishop	1989	1995	19.46	2.53	44.56	40
15	DL Underwood	1967	1972	19.43	2.70	53.84	43
16	PJ Cummins	2011	2019	19.87	2.66	48.12	41
17	WJ O'Reilly	1932	1946	20.47	3.05	58.50	44
18	GD McGrath	1999	2005	18.92	2.36	51.44	109
19	DK Lillee	1976	1981	22.28	3.17	46.36	60
20	AK Davidson	1957	1963	20.49	2.81	51.04	58
21	SK Warne	2001	2006	21.78	3.06	49.55	93
22	CV Grimmett	1930	1936	22.05	3.33	58.08	42
23	MA Holding	1976	1982	20.80	2.60	44.93	40
24	FS Trueman	1959	1965	22.10	2.74	43.76	66
25	RR Lindwall	1947	1953	20.35	2.32	46.01	63

And people look first at the "averaged" statistics (bowl avg. , bowl SR) when putting Marshall above Hadlee, but those are the ones more impacted by having better bowling support. Of course, even any Hadlee supporter will tell you that Marshall could bridge the gap for WPM and 5fers to some extent if he was carrying the NZ attack. However, he never had to. And Hadlee never had the chance to be the spearhead of the West indies pace attack either, but I certainly think he could have enjoyed that support to improve those "averaged" numbers.

I think the deeper you look at this comparison, the closer it becomes, and not the walkover for Marshall, that the conventional wisdom would dictate. I'm consistent in feeling that bowling support makes a pretty big difference, as I use that also to rank Murali ahead of Warne. I can understand why some don't rate it as important enough to swing these matchups, but certainly it should be acknowledged as a handicap that both Hadlee and Murali had to face, that could negatively affect their "averaged" statistics.

 

[shortpitched713]

Umm no. Conditions in NZ were not more challenging in the 80s. Smh

The assumption is always that they were much easier in NZ. The overall numbers show a different story.

Regardless, I understand the idea that WI bowlers deflated the runs per wicket of opponent. However, the WI bats also got to be half the batting innings at home too. I've heard they were pretty decent (YES THIS PHRASE IS AN INTENTIONAL UNDERSTATEMENT, PEAK WI HAD SOME ATGs AND ATVGs LITTERED THROUGHOUT THEIR BATTING LINEUP).

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Other than 3 Tests in Pakistan, Hadlee was also flawless across conditions. And his 40 Test peak was even better than Marshall's:



And people look first at the "averaged" statistics (bowl avg. , bowl SR) when putting Marshall above Hadlee, but those are the ones more impacted by having better bowling support. Of course, even any Hadlee supporter will tell you that Marshall could bridge the gap for WPM and 5fers to some extent if he was carrying the NZ attack. However, he never had to. And Hadlee never had the chance to be the spearhead of the West indies pace attack either, but I certainly think he could have enjoyed that support to improve those "averaged" numbers.

I think the deeper you look at this comparison, the closer it becomes, and not the walkover for Marshall, that the conventional wisdom would dictate. I'm consistent in feeling that bowling support makes a pretty big difference, as I use that also to rank Murali ahead of Warne. I can understand why some don't rate it as important enough to swing these matchups, but certainly it should be acknowledged as a handicap that both Hadlee and Murali had to face, that could negatively affect their "averaged" statistics.

Marshall’s peak is better than Hadlee’s since Marshall was bowling with a lot of competition. Hadlee was a lone wolf, and could maintain a better WPM. That was my base argument.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

It is tougher to have a high WPM whilst bowling in a tough attack. Guys like Lillee, Hadlee could turn up insane numbers but guys in a competitive attack find it tougher. Thus Marshall taking nearly 6 wickets per match at his peak despite bowling in tandem with ATGs, is more impressive than Hadlee’s peak

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Whether Hadlee or Mcgrath could have done that is uncertain. Whether they would have improved their SR and average, seems likely, so I agree with that.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And Hadlee has a somewhat decentish, but far from a ATG record in WI, average of 27+. Marshall averaged sub 24 everywhere except NZ, and his worst three tests there are substantially better than Hadlee in Pak.

 

[shortpitched713]

Do you downgrade McGrath because he had the best running mate ever?

(Yes fellow Potter nerds, I know this isn't the scene where he defends Dumbledore's honor, that scene was from the Chamber of Secrets, I'm just lazy and couldn't be bothered).

 

[shortpitched713]

What about it exactly?

Do you downgrade McGrath because he had the best running mate ever?

Do you downgrade Sachin because he had much stronger batting support than Lara, and didn't have to come as often amid a collapse?

Do you downgrade Murali because his home conditions were much better and tailored to him than Warne's?

Do you hold it against Murali and Sachin that they faced way more minnows than Lara and Warne respectively?

Not even going to mention Imran.

But you rate Pollock as your third greatest / most valuable cricketer ever, wasn't he part of a pack, and not even the best among them.
Pollock played over 30 more matches than Donald and still had 4 less 5fers (16 to 20) and 3 less 10fers, not to compare their strikes rates where there is a 10 point difference. Ntini had more 5 wicket hauls than Pollock did for crying out loud, and a better strike rate.

Marshall despite competition had 22 five wicket hauls and 4 10 wicket hauls in 81 games with a 5fer rate of around 27%, which compares favorably with McGrath's 29 five wicket hauls and 3 ten wicket hauls (5fer rate of 23%)

It's all context dependent. Of course I generally think players from worse teams have it tougher, and their stats are more downgraded than what they could be. I am somewhat consistent in that.

However, just taking McGrath as an example, I look at what the player could do to add even more value regardless of advantages. McGrath was extremely consistent at taking out the most dangerous top order wickets of the opponent. Admittedly, I haven't looked as much at this stat for some other players, but I know for McGrath it was extremely impressive. That goes a way towards proving that you're the horse pulling a fine cart, instead of riding along in it.

On the other side, I would say there is someone like Ponting. On the face of it, given the sheer impact, and the actual match winning innings played, he should be easily a top 5 modern era batsman. However, you have to look at the fact that he had so many opportunities and such good positions of less pressure from which to play those innings (a healthy lead, or very attainable targets to chase). Compare him to Lara, so often Lara simply had to consolidate given his team's weakness, when his real strength was taking ahold of a match when given the slightest sniff of a victory. Thank God Ponting's peak wasn't as good or dominant as Richards', or I'd have to hear and fight off that comparison as well.

I'm honestly doing my good faith best in trying to account for these different aspect of context, but sure I'll cop to being a bit more stubborn than most.

For Hadlee, the statistics, context etc. pulls him inexorably close to (imo surpassing) Marshall, but it seems like a lot of people are ignoring that and refusing to look past the face value of the comparison.

 

[shortpitched713]

Marshall’s peak is better than Hadlee’s since Marshall was bowling with a lot of competition. Hadlee was a lone wolf, and could maintain a better WPM. That was my base argument.

My base argument is that it also has an impact on the overall average and SR as well (basically, if you take on a workhorse role you are having to bowl a whole bunch of overs in less than optimal circumstances, dragging those numbers down), which are numbers people tend to put a lot more emphasis on anyway.

I have no idea how you come to the first part of the conclusion though, given that only some of these numbers (and not the business end ones) would be affected and Hadlee had the better overall stats in this peak across the board (barring the virtually same SR).

 

[shortpitched713]

Whether Hadlee or Mcgrath could have done that is uncertain. Whether they would have improved their SR and average, seems likely, so I agree with that.

Cheers mate.

 

[shortpitched713]

And Hadlee has a somewhat decentish, but far from a ATG record in WI, average of 27+. Marshall averaged sub 24 everywhere except NZ, and his worst three tests there are substantially better than Hadlee in Pak.

I'll concede that.

It comes down to how much importance you put in this particular aspect of bowling excellence, I guess. In either case we're talking about very successfully adaptable bowlers, one a tick or so more than the other.

 

[shortpitched713]

View attachment 38464

(Yes fellow Potter nerds, I know this isn't the scene where he defends Dumbledore's honor, that scene was from the Chamber of Secrets, I'm just lazy and couldn't be bothered).

Actually on second though I think you were referring to Warne, not Gillespie. In which case it could be even a bit more baffling. Warne was benefited more from McGrath than the other way around, which makes logical sense temporally/causally. McGrath started the innings with the new ball, and Warne only came in afterwards (often when a lot of damage had been done already).

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

My base argument is that it also has an impact on the overall average and SR as well (basically, if you take on a workhorse role you are having to bowl a whole bunch of overs in less than optimal circumstances, dragging those numbers down), which are numbers people tend to put a lot more emphasis on anyway.

I have no idea how you come to the first part of the conclusion though, given that only some of these numbers (and not the business end ones) would be affected and Hadlee had the better overall stats in this peak across the board (barring the virtually same SR).

I come to that conclusion because maintaining that WPM despite bowling in a very competitive attacks in near impossible, and I am personally impressed by that a lot. That puts his peak marginally ahead of Hadlee’s, for me. Hadlee’s average and SR despite being a lone wolf, is nearly as remarkable. And Hadlee’s peak is quite magnificent in its own right. Plus Marshall has a more flawless home way record. That pulls him slightly but clearly ahead of Hadlee.

 

[kyear2]

Other than 3 Tests in Pakistan, Hadlee was also flawless across conditions. And his 40 Test peak was even better than Marshall's:



And people look first at the "averaged" statistics (bowl avg. , bowl SR) when putting Marshall above Hadlee, but those are the ones more impacted by having better bowling support. Of course, even any Hadlee supporter will tell you that Marshall could bridge the gap for WPM and 5fers to some extent if he was carrying the NZ attack. However, he never had to. And Hadlee never had the chance to be the spearhead of the West indies pace attack either, but I certainly think he could have enjoyed that support to improve those "averaged" numbers.

I think the deeper you look at this comparison, the closer it becomes, and not the walkover for Marshall, that the conventional wisdom would dictate. I'm consistent in feeling that bowling support makes a pretty big difference, as I use that also to rank Murali ahead of Warne. I can understand why some don't rate it as important enough to swing these matchups, but certainly it should be acknowledged as a handicap that both Hadlee and Murali had to face, that could negatively affect their "averaged" statistics.

Yes, heaven forbid we look at the stats that captures the best representation of a person's career.

Two things I would like to highlight, you'll notice I wouldn't try to tear down Hadlee to push Malcolm, because I believe he was absolutely phenomenal and in my mind the 3rd greatest bowler to ever play test cricket. As pointed out previously, the team support thing is a double edge sword, as he did end up with much more opportunity for wickets, which he capitalized on. He also got a cleaner look at the tail, true he also had to get past the middle order, so yes, it balanced out. He also had his fun vs Sri Lanka, whom we never played.

What you failed to mention was any of the reasons I consider Marshall to be the best. I'm not going to repeat myself, but he had the added dimension of express pace, he demonstrated greater versatility and even in such a line up he was the man, the undisputed leader, he put that team on his back.

You seem obsessed with spreadsheets and diving deeper instead of watching the game, read accounts of what it was like to face him. He drove the fear of God into batsmen both for their wickets and well being. His ability to perform and excel even on unresponsive pitches. He went to India on some of the most lifeless pitches ever and knocked that ball out of Sunny's hand, that does something to the guys in the pavilion.

If I had to choose one bowler in their prime to bowl out any random team, on any pitch in any conditions, for my life, I'm choosing Malcom, because he had the tools to succeed everywhere, and he did.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah but Garner was good in New Zealand.

Plus a better bat than either.

Plus he was taller.

 

[kyear2]

It's all context dependent. Of course I generally think players from worse teams have it tougher, and their stats are more downgraded than what they could be. I am somewhat consistent in that.

However, just taking McGrath as an example, I look at what the player could do to add even more value regardless of advantages. McGrath was extremely consistent at taking out the most dangerous top order wickets of the opponent. Admittedly, I haven't looked as much at this stat for some other players, but I know for McGrath it was extremely impressive. That goes a way towards proving that you're the horse pulling a fine cart, instead of riding along in it.

On the other side, I would say there is someone like Ponting. On the face of it, given the sheer impact, and the actual match winning innings played, he should be easily a top 5 modern era batsman. However, you have to look at the fact that he had so many opportunities and such good positions of less pressure from which to play those innings (a healthy lead, or very attainable targets to chase). Compare him to Lara, so often Lara simply had to consolidate given his team's weakness, when his real strength was taking ahold of a match when given the slightest sniff of a victory. Thank God Ponting's peak wasn't as good or dominant as Richards', or I'd have to hear and fight off that comparison as well.

I'm honestly doing my good faith best in trying to account for these different aspect of context, but sure I'll cop to being a bit more stubborn than most.

For Hadlee, the statistics, context etc. pulls him inexorably close to (imo surpassing) Marshall, but it seems like a lot of people are ignoring that and refusing to look past the face value of the comparison.

This is one of the two broader scope issues that bothers me with cricket.

First let me say that cricket isn't a one man game, and despite the best efforts of some of the games best lone warriors, it takes a good team to win. Of course duos like Lillee and Chappell, Hadlee and Crowe, Ambrose and Lara etc had their day.

But one thing we don't recognize in this sport is winning. With all the talent during their run, without Ponting and McWarne that team isn't the legendary team that it was. While it can be argued whether McGrath or Warne was the driver for that team, there is no such argument for the Windies team. While Viv primarily made his name in the late 70's into the early 80's it was Marshall, who from '83 made that team go. I've already mentioned the guys who retired / had injury issues or declined, but while he was there and going strong, which he almost always was, and did, he was the driver and kept us on top. You can listen to guys like Border had to say about him.