• 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.

Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

Who was the greater bowler?

  • Richard Hadlee

    Votes: 45 67.2%

  • Curtly Ambrose

    Votes: 22 32.8%
  • Total voters
    67
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
Hadlee doesn't have a huge Asia record advantage over McGrath.

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

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

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

In terms of skills, I think McGrath may have been just a bit more intelligent and his bounce is an extra edge.
Click to expand...
The community likes to compare McGrath and Hadlee, but really it was Ambrose and McGrath that had the most I'm common a d relied heavily on seam and bounce.

Hadlee was probably closer to a slower, more disciplined Steyn, but that aside.

McGrath, also thrived in a less conducive era (he did have bounce at home), and as you point out, laps him in peer and contemporary ratings.

McGrath was just so incredibly clutch and just had that knack for taking not only top order wickets, but the best if the opposition.

The same way you and some others believe that Hobbs and Tendulkar separate themselves from the rest, I think Marshall and McGrath do the same.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
For what I believe is the hundredth time, and will likely be the hundredth time this gets ignored, this is patently untrue. New Zealand was not pace friendly during Hadlee’s career.

Touring pacers had far more success in England and Australia (particularly England), despite New Zealand having easily the weakest home batting bar England again. The only reason NZ averages look so hood is because Hadlee took a large proportion of the wickets.
Click to expand...
Yes there were times in the later part of the '80's when it was flatter, that didn't apply for his entire career.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
DrWolverine said:
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.



Hadlee played just 1 series in WestIndies.

4 Tests. 15 wickets. Avg of 27.

Saying he is underwhelming based on one series is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well one of those home series was a full disgrace, and as far as the WI home series, underwhelming weren't my words, it was the opponent's.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
Hadlee had more helpful conditions at home than Ambrose, but it doesn't mean anything as Hadlee didn't have greentops, New Zealand stops being helpful after 2-3 days.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
DrWolverine said:
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)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't say Donald, he was certainly behind his team mate though.

And he didn't "play a part", he was the main reason.
 
Sliferxxxx

Sliferxxxx

State Vice-Captain
kyear2 said:
The community likes to compare McGrath and Hadlee, but really it was Ambrose and McGrath that had the most I'm common a d relied heavily on seam and bounce.

Hadlee was probably closer to a slower, more disciplined Steyn, but that aside.

McGrath, also thrived in a less conducive era (he did have bounce at home), and as you point out, laps him in peer and contemporary ratings.

McGrath was just so incredibly clutch and just had that knack for taking not only top order wickets, but the best if the opposition.

The same way you and some others believe that Hobbs and Tendulkar separate themselves from the rest, I think Marshall and McGrath do the same.
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing wrong with this statement whatsoever.
 
Sliferxxxx

Sliferxxxx

State Vice-Captain
smash84 said:
The thing that is often overlooked with McGrath is how much he gained by having scoreboard pressure on the opposition thanks to an ATG batting lineup that Aus had during most of his career.

Hadlee had no such advantage.
Click to expand...
That's a fair comment as well. Thats where Kyear and i disagree. Hadlee is, imo, in the goat convo as a fast bowler. It's odd that I hardly ever see him mentioned by pundits whenever they pick atg XIs
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Sliferxxxx said:
That's a fair comment as well. Thats where Kyear and i disagree. Hadlee is, imo, in the goat convo as a fast bowler. It's odd that I hardly ever see him mentioned by pundits whenever they pick atg XIs
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I don't believe there is a huge gap among the top 10-15 fast bowlers of all time. They are all pretty close to each other in terms of performances.

Hadlee isn't mainly picked because he doesn't really come from a major nation and more importantly he wasn't as entertaining as some of the other bowlers of the era. Marshall, Holding, Imran, Lillee, etc.

However, he was a bowling machine like McGrath.

People watch cricket to be entertained hence most people prefer Lillee over McGrath because he was just so much more box office than McGrath.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
DrWolverine said:
WestIndies were already the best team on the planet before Marshall became a full time player.
Click to expand...

The invincibles were still a great team after Bradman retired. They were still at their best with Bradman.

The WI became the best team in the world when they defeated Australia in '79 / '80 but wasn't seen or retroactively recognized as the best team ever, until after the series win in India and reached it peak in '84 in Australia, the same way Australia had their two best teams in '48 or '02, S.A. '70 / '08.

They reached said peak (83 to ~ 88 / 89) with more than a little help from Marshall. That run was primarily driven by him at his very peak. During said peak when he took over new ball duties, he garnered more Man of the Series awards than Sachin or McGrath had in their entire careers. He was the man, that was his impact.

I know it's fun to down play his accomplishments, but through the retirements, declines in form and injuries it was him powering the ship.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
The same way you and some others believe that Hobbs and Tendulkar separate themselves from the rest, I think Marshall and McGrath do the same.
Click to expand...
It's hard on record and skill to argue Hadlee isn't up there.

kyear2 said:
They reached said peak (83 to ~ 88 / 89) with more than a little help from Marshall. That run was primarily driven by him at his very peak.
Click to expand...
Once again you have to lie to make Marshall seem better.

If you want to argue WI peaked around 83/84, clearly they also had Holding and Garner there who were also bowling magnificently, not just Marshall. But WI started to decline in 86, not 88/89 as soon as they retired as you yourself point out.

From 86 to 89, WI drew in NZ, Pak, and India, and drew at home. Marshall couldn't stop that even in his bowling peak.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top