Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[subshakerz]

Greater legacy in NZ, like Worrell has a greater legacy in the WI.

Being the first ATG from your country doesn't make you greater in any context.

It does compared to Marshall who was a more generic pacer.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ambrose though was better vs the very best team of his era though, Hadlee was underwhelming in the Caribbean.

WestIndies was the best team during Hadlee’s era and Hadlee ha a great record against them.

10 Tests. 51 wickets. Avg of 22. 4 5-Fers.

Ambrose though was better vs the very best team of his era though, Hadlee was underwhelming in the Caribbean.

Hadlee played just 1 series in WestIndies.

4 Tests. 15 wickets. Avg of 27.

Saying he is underwhelming based on one series is ridiculous.

 

[subshakerz]

He was the leader and driving force in what was at the time, the greatest team ever. When he missed games or series we struggled or lost.

Making a country relevant at home isn't the same as making a team into a juggernaught, and dominating world cricket.

Stop inflating Marshalls rep. He inherited the greatest team ever, 4 man attack was already there, WI already dominating. Marshall just kept the machine going.

 

[DrWolverine]

Hadlee did moderately in WI itself compared to McGrath doing well in SA.

Hadlee played 1 series in WestIndies.
McGrath toured SA 3 times.

Not fair to compare both. I am sure you would agree.

Hadlee doesn't have a huge Asia record advantage over McGrath.

Hadlee had two ATG series in Asia.
One in SL who were of course minnows.
Another in India.

Hadlee played the vast majority of his games in NZ, Aus and Eng compared to McGrath who was spread out.

True.

McGrath has unparalleled peer rating in his era for a pacer.

Both true and also not true.

McGrath was rated behind the likes of Ambrose, Akram and Donald before 2000.

McGrath achieved that unparalleled peer rating in 2000s. Reasons for that :
1. His illustrious peers retired.
2. Australia became very dominant(He played a part)

 

[DrWolverine]

Stop inflating Marshalls rep. He inherited the greatest team ever, 4 man attack was already there, WI already dominating. Marshall just kept the machine going.

WestIndies were already the best team on the planet before Marshall became a full time player.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee played 1 series in WestIndies.
McGrath toured SA 3 times.

Not fair to compare both. I am sure you would agree.



Hadlee had two ATG series in Asia.
One in SL who were of course minnows.
Another in India.



True.




Both true and also not true.

McGrath was rated behind the likes of Ambrose, Akram and Donald before 2000.

McGrath achieved that unparalleled peer rating in 2000s. Reasons for that :
1. His illustrious peers retired.
2. Australia became very dominant(He played a part)

Yeah but it's not fair to say Hadlee was a complete success against WI unless he succeeded away. McHrath did succeed away but was poor at home in SA.

We ignore Hadlee in SL. Hadlee had one great series in India. McGrath had one great and one good one there.

And McGrath gets rated higher by the same cricketers who faced Ambrose and Donald too. Only Wasim compares to him in peer rating.

 

[subshakerz]

WestIndies were already the best team on the planet before Marshall became a full time player.

And frankly Roberts/Croft/Holding/Garner may have been a deadlier 4 man attack than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Walsh.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah but it's not fair to say Hadlee was a complete success against WI unless he succeeded away.

He toured their just once.

And McGrath gets rated higher by the same cricketers who faced Ambrose and Donald too. Only Wasim compares to him in peer rating.

Agreed.
But most of it was only after 2000s.

Even in the older threads(pre-2007), Ambrose and even Donald have been rated higher than McGrath. Obviously perception has changed now.

 

[DrWolverine]

And frankly Roberts/Croft/Holding/Garner may have been a deadlier 4 man attack than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Walsh.

1st group : Roberts/Croft/Holding
2nd group : Marshall/Holding

3 bowlers who could kill vs 2 bowlers who could kill

 

[DrWolverine]

And frankly Roberts/Croft/Holding/Garner may have been a deadlier 4 man attack than Marshall/Holding/Garner/Walsh.

I may be wrong but from what I heard from my uncle and read online, WI seemed more invincible or feared more in late 70s & early 80s than late 80s and early 90s.

 

[subshakerz]

I may be wrong but from what I heard from my uncle and read online, WI seemed more invincible or feared more in late 70s & early 80s than late 80s and early 90s.

Yes it's true.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I may be wrong but from what I heard from my uncle and read online, WI seemed more invincible or feared more in late 70s & early 80s than late 80s and early 90s.

Well that would make sense seeing that Viv and the openers were in their late 30s by then and declining. Lloyd and Garner/Holding were gone. The bowlers were more or less ably replaced but not the batting. Lara came in for Viv and Richie was fine but that's it.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Does any one appreciate how hard it is to maintain an average of 20?

This horrible decline that some love to tout, yet he was never a liability, and maintained that insane average after his pace was drastically, not strategically, reduced.

Not even to mention the hypocrisy of the penetration / strike rate and peak arguments is laughable.

And I've heard and read it multiple times, that when things weren't helpful for Hadlee, he just also shut down. Bowled back of a length and waited for a break through, very much like Ambrose did. Hadlee also had overall more helpful bowling conditions, primarily at home.

Hadlee is a slightly better, but I would take either to open my attack.

I do. And that's one of the reasons why I hold MM in such high esteem. He had amazing stats across the board and across all countries and conditions. No other bowler I don't care who they bring matches that level of consistency. And at peak, even with all the competition for wickets, he was taking wickets at the same wpm (more or less) as lobe wolves like Richard.

It's funny to me people pick on Ambrose for lack of exploits outside of Australia and England but you have Malcolm who was outstanding in Asia and frankly everywhere he played. But those same people will come for Malcolm with bs caveats: he didn't play enough, the batting sucked, he had the best back up etc.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

It does compared to Marshall who was a more generic pacer.

Marshall was not a generic pace. What the expletive. Marshall is one of the few all conditions bowler and unquestionably the best WI pacer. He was the only one (WI bowler) to master all of cut, seaming and swing and adjusted based on conditions. And he was the only one to do it while being under 6 feet. Generic my behind.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall was not a generic pace. What the expletive. Marshall is one of the few all conditions bowler and unquestionably the best WI pacer. He was the only one (WI bowler) to master all of cut, seaming and swing and adjusted based on conditions. And he was the only one to do it while being under 6 feet. Generic my behind.

Generic as in part of the WI assembly line of the time, but of course their best.

 

[subshakerz]

I do. And that's one of the reasons why I hold MM in such high esteem. He had amazing stats across the board and across all countries and conditions. No other bowler I don't care who they bring matches that level of consistency. And at peak, even with all the competition for wickets, he was taking wickets at the same wpm (more or less) as lobe wolves like Richard.

It's funny to me people pick on Ambrose for lack of exploits outside of Australia and England but you have Malcolm who was outstanding in Asia and frankly everywhere he played. But those same people will come for Malcolm with bs caveats: he didn't play enough, the batting sucked, he had the best back up etc.

How many times do I have to tell you I rate Marshall as number 1? That doesn't have to mean he is perfect.

I don't deify him like @kyear2 does with fake embellishment.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hadlee has a good case to be a greater bowler than Marshall.

McGrath has a good case to be a better bowler than Marshall.

You forgot Steyn

 

[shortpitched713]

2 reasons I don’t rate McGrath over Maco/Hadlee

1. Not so great record against South Africa who were the second best team after Australia during his time

2. Overall a good record in Asia but having just 1 5-Fer in 19 Tests in Asia indicates inability to win matches single handedly in unhelpful pitches.

I still rate him as the 3rd greatest fast bowler for his consistency, longevity and not leaking too many runs even on off days(like Steyn).

Don't let the old fogeys here at CW sway you. McGrath/Steyn are every bit as good (and in McGrath case imo clearly better) than Hadlee/Marshall.

All have weaknesses/mitigating factors to their greatness (even Marshall, who definitely had the best pace bowling support).

McGrath did it for meaningfully more Tests than all the others, though (inb4 Jimmy Clouderson).

 

[Johan]

India's batting wasn't necessarily inferior to South Africa during McGrath's time, Pakistan was one of the best batting units and Hadlee averages 28 against them and 45 in Pakistan.

 

[Johan]

I may be wrong but from what I heard from my uncle and read online, WI seemed more invincible or feared more in late 70s & early 80s than late 80s and early 90s.

different level of batting. Lloyd bowed out in 1984-85, Greenidge was post prime after 1985-86, Viv declined in 1988