Who was the better bowler between Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan?

[Harsh Thakor]

Both Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan were outstanding paceman.Statistically they were champions of their era,particularly in peak period.Both could single-handedly turn or win games.

For sheer determination or agression Imran would rate ahead who would never be intimidated by opposing batsmen.Hadlee would at times go defensive when attacked and scared to deploy the bouncer.Imran also posessed more speed being genuinely fast in contrast to Richard who was basically fast-medium and could swing the ball to a greater extent.At his best Imran was always more explosive than Hadlee.Imran was a better performer than Richard against the best team of his era,West Indies.

However Imran did not posess the control and accuracy of Hadlee or his ability to outthink a great batsmen.Few paceman understood an opposing batsmen's weakneses as accurately as Hadlee who had the mind of a computer.Imran would not equal Hadlee on a green top.Hadlee had a more lethal outswinger and legcutter and a more disguised bouncer.Over a prolonged period Hadlee could be more lethal than Imran,being more of a bowling machine.On Australian or English tracks Hadlee would overshadow Imran .


To me statistically in peak period Hadlee overshadowed Imran if you consider the workload he single-handedly bore of a weak pace attack.From 1978-88 Hadlee's 330 wickets at an average of around 19.3 and a strike rate of around 47 was ahead of Imran's 236 wickets from 1981-87 at an average of around 17 and strike rate of around 43 .Imran missed series in Australia in 1983-84 and some home series between 1983-85.Overall Hadlee has a better strike rate than Imran ,better average and more 5 and 10 wkt hauls.Hadlee tok 431 wickets at an average of 22.29 and a strike rate of 50.9.Imran took 362 wickets in 88 tsets at 22.81 with a strike rate of 53.8.However figures may be unfair as Imran became a genuine paceman after 1976 and played lot of cricket on flat sub-continent wickets.In matches won they both averaged around the same at around 13 and 14 respectively.Morally statistically they are almost on par .from 1978-88 or 1980-88.

So in the end a virtual photo-finish separates these 2 giants with less than a margin of a whisker.However if I had a gun on my head I would chose Hadlee considering both statistics and bowling skill.On flat tracks Imran was better with his mastery of reverse swing but also remember some of Richard's bowling in the sub-continent and his not being used to alien condition son the sub-continent.On a green top Hadlee would be my unanimous choice.Although Imran could be more deadly in single spells over a prolonged period Hadlee was more of a threat.Imran at his best had the support of a Sarfraz Nawaz,Abdul Qadir or Wasim Akram unlike Richard Hadlee.On a genuine cricket track Hadlee would be my choice by a whisker.


STATISTICS COMPILED FROM S.RAJESH IN CRICINFO.


RICHARD HADLEE'S TEST CAREER
Period Tests Wickets Average Strike Rate 5WI/ 10WM
Till Dec 1977 17 61 35.57 61.2 2/ 1
Jan 1978 To Dec 1988 60 330 19.57 48.4 32/ 8
Jan 1989 Onwards 9 40 24.52 54.4 2/ 0
Career 86 431 22.29 50.8 36/ 9


BEST TEST BOWLERS BETWEEN JAN 1978 AND DEC 1988 (QUAL: 150 WICKETS)
Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike Rate 5WI/ 10WM
Imran Khan 58 272 19.39 47.8 19/ 5
Richard Hadlee 60 330 19.57 48.4 32/ 8
Joel Garner 53 234 20.27 50.6 7/ 0
Malcolm Marshall 61 300 20.88 45.8 18/ 3

Imran had a better average and strike rate but Hadlee played many more tests .

TOP BOWLERS IN THE WORLD BETWEEN 1980 AND 1988 (QUAL: 150 WICKETS)
Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike Rate 5WI/ 10WM
Imran Khan 48 236 17.77 43.6 18/ 5
Richard Hadlee 51 284 19.03 47.0 28/ 7
Malcolm Marshall 58 297 20.20 44.7 18/ 3

 

[Robert]

If I was forced to choose - Imran because, like Lillee, he just refused to be intimidated. He didn’t have the same batters of skills as Hadlee, but could bowl consistently faster, reversed it into the right handed and cut it away.

Hadlee used psychological techniques to focus and motivate himself but could still lose it in his mind when the fur was flying - one time he had the second new ball, bowling at Botham who was hitting him all over, and every fielder except the wickie was on the rope. The Windies batters said he was not the same bowler in their yard as he was on English wickets too.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Imran khan, his peak was one of the best ever.
For me order is like after 1980 Marshall> McGrath > Ambrose=Khan> Hadlee> Donald > Akram> Waqar.

 

[Hitman]

Similar numbers, but Imran was much more exciting to watch.

 

[bujhee kom]

I take DKL's stance here: Immy was mentally tougher.
Those of us who saw Imran live will never forget. He was a magical cricketer.
Him and Viv are the two best cricketers I have ever seen in my life.

 

[MMHS]

I take DKL's stance here: Immy was mentally tougher.
Those of us who saw Imran live will never forget. He was a magical cricketer.
Him and Viv are the two best cricketers I have ever seen in my life.

I say competitor - those 2 (3 actually, you have named all 3 in your post), were probably the bitterest 3 competitors of the game; hence often their outburst in the game was way hyper than their personality. For a polished guy like Imran, he was like a gun fighter in game, lots of arrogance & pride as well; while I have never seen or heard DK to be so rough/rude outside cricket field. He is a genuine appreciator and very good mentor to young cricketers, but he probably needed his ugly side to raise his game on field. He would praise opponent batsmen off the field, but on field ..... Finally, this fun loving, cheer leader for QG and that batsman of late 70s, early 80s was totally different - he was extremely focused and always like a boxer rather than a batsman, never shy of confrontation and never allowed bowlers to get over him.

The game surely losing it's characters.

 

[Tusker]

I take DKL's stance here: Immy was mentally tougher.
Those of us who saw Imran live will never forget. He was a magical cricketer.
Him and Viv are the two best cricketers I have ever seen in my life.

And I can guarantee that you will never ever be able to substantiate your words with proper pure technical explanation as to why these 2 were supposedly magical cricketers the likes of which were never to be seen again.


Your one and only recourse is to sing praises , throw names and claim you saw them. That doesn't cut it. Let's see this supposedly magical action and you tell us in pure cricketing terms why it is so special. There is plenty of footage featuring these two that is available ( which oddly none of the old era fanatics want to touch with a ten foot pole). The simple logic here is that it should be very easy to spot and tell that indeed these were extraordinary cricketers.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]
[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]
[MENTION=142736]English August[/MENTION]
[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

 

[bujhee kom]

You are denying that Imran and Viv were great cricketers?

Good luck with that POV.

 

[bujhee kom]

I say competitor - those 2 (3 actually, you have named all 3 in your post), were probably the bitterest 3 competitors of the game; hence often their outburst in the game was way hyper than their personality. For a polished guy like Imran, he was like a gun fighter in game, lots of arrogance & pride as well; while I have never seen or heard DK to be so rough/rude outside cricket field. He is a genuine appreciator and very good mentor to young cricketers, but he probably needed his ugly side to raise his game on field. He would praise opponent batsmen off the field, but on field ..... Finally, this fun loving, cheer leader for QG and that batsman of late 70s, early 80s was totally different - he was extremely focused and always like a boxer rather than a batsman, never shy of confrontation and never allowed bowlers to get over him.

The game surely losing it's characters.

Youtube fans are aplenty. They cannot appreciate the genius of these players. No, the screen does not capture everything. You have to live it, to experience the magic.

 

[RainMan_]

Viv wasn't aesthetically pleasing by any stretch of imagination. Those who disagrees with it doesn't know what they r talking about.

 

[MMHS]

Viv wasn't aesthetically pleasing by any stretch of imagination. Those who disagrees with it doesn't know what they r talking about.

He wasn't for sure - any given day, I'll pick Mohammad Hafeez if I am to watch a cover drive exquisitely timed through covers on planted feet.

 

[WildSwing]

Richard Hadlee is better, in fact I rate hadlee in the top 5 bowlers of all time

Marshall/Mcgrath
Steyn
Ambrose/Hadlee
Hadlee/Ambrose

 

[ManFan]

Hadlee was amazing. Even on dead Asian tracks. So the idea of him being a GTB is false.

It’s tough but as a pure bowler, I would take Imran because he can do something Hadlee never learned how to do, reverse swing.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I will take Imran because though Hadlee was better in bowling friendly conditions, Imran could demolish battings on extremely dead tracks of Asia.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Imran lost precious years to injury. Even then he can be compared to atg bowlers.
My (biased) choice: Imran Khan

 

[Tusker]

You are denying that Imran and Viv were great cricketers?

Good luck with that POV.

Iam merely contesting your Over the top claims abut past ERA cricketers and the gloating as to how great these players are and how lucky you are to have witnessed them and such like. Its the usual nostalgia influenced song and dance. Over here you used the word Magical to describe Imran and you have similar opinion about Viv.

Now go ahead and show us any passage of play involving these two that fits that description. Or maybe the English language works differently wherever you teach it.

As I have said many times ... in these discussions of old vs new - it very quickly comes down to throwing insults , jibes and putdowns in lieu of any hard facts.

I mean if you have so much faith and conviction in the abilities about these cricketers shouldnt it be very easy to indulge in a proper discussion based on pure cricketing technicalities that everyone can actually see and judge based on that instead of having to take your words ?

And yeah I saw your post before it was moderated believe me its very easy to outgun you when it comes to throwing childish insults and putdowns.

 

[ManFan]

Iam merely contesting your Over the top claims abut past ERA cricketers and the gloating as to how great these players are and how lucky you are to have witnessed them and such like. Its the usual nostalgia influenced song and dance. Over here you used the word Magical to describe Imran and you have similar opinion about Viv.

Now go ahead and show us any passage of play involving these two that fits that description. Or maybe the English language works differently wherever you teach it.

As I have said many times ... in these discussions of old vs new - it very quickly comes down to throwing insults , jibes and putdowns in lieu of any hard facts.

I mean if you have so much faith and conviction in the abilities about these cricketers shouldnt it be very easy to indulge in a proper discussion based on pure cricketing technicalities that everyone can actually see and judge based on that instead of having to take your words ?

And yeah I saw your post before it was moderated believe me its very easy to outgun you when it comes to throwing childish insults and putdowns.

I agree with your post but certain past players are definitely better than current ones. For example, Viv as compared to say Sehwag.

 

[Bewal Express]

Hadlee was the better bowler in helpful conditions from around 1983 until his retirement. Throughout their careers, IK was the better bowler in all conditions.

 

[bujhee kom]

Iam merely contesting your Over the top claims abut past ERA cricketers and the gloating as to how great these players are and how lucky you are to have witnessed them and such like. Its the usual nostalgia influenced song and dance. Over here you used the word Magical to describe Imran and you have similar opinion about Viv.

Now go ahead and show us any passage of play involving these two that fits that description. Or maybe the English language works differently wherever you teach it.

As I have said many times ... in these discussions of old vs new - it very quickly comes down to throwing insults , jibes and putdowns in lieu of any hard facts.

I mean if you have so much faith and conviction in the abilities about these cricketers shouldnt it be very easy to indulge in a proper discussion based on pure cricketing technicalities that everyone can actually see and judge based on that instead of having to take your words ?

And yeah I saw your post before it was moderated believe me its very easy to outgun you when it comes to throwing childish insults and putdowns.

The same logic can be applied in reverse. Better cameras and slow-mos does not make today's players better. The only honest barometer is to have see both sets and make a judgement on that. I do not state that random players from that era are greater than random players of this era. Just that the likes of Viv are superior to anyone I have seen since then.

It is a common view. No cricket aficionado for instance puts a modern bat (pick one, you will obviously go for SRT) above Viv. (Nearly) All who saw him and the modern set are in uniform agreement.

 

[Buffet]

IK in helpful condition( outside of Asia): Avg 26 & SR 60

Hadlee in unhelpful condition( in Asia ) : Avg 21 & SR 42

If Hadlee superior record is just due to IK not getting chance in helpful conditions then IK should have done far better in helpful condition. Hadlee is not doing bad in Asia either. He has poor record in Pakistan, but that's couple of tests. Anyway, IK didn't really hit the ball out of park when he played in helpful conditions, so this argument has no leg to stand.


As far as over all career goes, Hadlee maintained rating around 900 for many years and has a better over all career record.

In the TEST format:



If it's not enough then,

Hadlee has 35 5-fer and 5 wickets per test.

IK has 23 5-fers and 4 wickets per test.

That's quite a difference when you consider their entire career. Handlee picking lots of wickets due to not having competition would have been a point to consider, but he picket those wickets at 22 runs a piece.

There is nothing to suggest that Hadlee had a inferior career in the test format.

-------------------

In ODI, they are not even comparable and Hadlee was a far superior ODI bowler.

In ODI Format:




Taken together, I don't see how Hadlee didn't have a better career as a bowler. I will take Hadlee over IK as bowler. As an all rounder, IK had a better career.

 

[Srtfan]

Marshal
McGrath
Styen ( best bowler in modern cricket)
Hadlee
Imran
Lilee
Ambrose
Wasim
Donald
Waqar
Pollack
Walsh
Best bowler of test cricket

 

[Napa]

And I can guarantee that you will never ever be able to substantiate your words with proper pure technical explanation as to why these 2 were supposedly magical cricketers the likes of which were never to be seen again. [/MENTION]

I think when a poster says "magical" to describe a player, the poster is in awe of the player and not a good judge. To call Richards one of the "two best cricketers I have ever seen in my life" when he faced inferior bowling, did not open and had a lower average than Gavaskar obviously demonstrates a lack of objectivity.

 

[Hasan123]

As a bowler , I'll go with Hadlee.

 

[bujhee kom]

I think when a poster says "magical" to describe a player, the poster is in awe of the player and not a good judge. To call Richards one of the "two best cricketers I have ever seen in my life" when he faced inferior bowling, did not open and had a lower average than Gavaskar obviously demonstrates a lack of objectivity.

OMG! The problem literally is a lack of understanding of linguistic nuance. Magical is just a descriptor, not bloody literal!

Please name anyone who thinks Gavaskar was a better player than Viv? If averages is your trump card, Sanga is better than Sachin. That would be silly and so is your position. Dominance, taking the game by the scruff of the neck, peer review (which has huge value), match winning abilities. You have to consider it all.

When I young young, Viv was the universally recognized best bat in the world. Only Indians would say Gavaskar was. Just as Indians voted to get Dev in a famous cricket website's AT XI ahead of Sobers (or Miller/Imran/Botham/Kallis all of whom are leagues ahead). The only conclusion is that some folks are blinded by bias.

Must have roots in their apparent 4000 year old internet. )

 

[Tusker]

The same logic can be applied in reverse. Better cameras and slow-mos does not make today's players better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj2PCictIL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejr069kK9Nw


What exactly is wrong with the cameras in these 2 random videos from the past involving Viv , Imran ? Remember when you watched them play it was the same footage that was broadcast using the same friggin camera that you are now disparaging. Excuses much perhaps ?

So yeah lets see some pure technical explanation of the supposedly magical abilities of the two players and why none of the current players don't posses that. There is plenty more on YT for you to chose from.

The only honest barometer is to have see both sets and make a judgement on that. I do not state that random players from that era are greater than random players of this era. Just that the likes of Viv are superior to anyone I have seen since then.

Again just words ... lets start with some proper explanation to go with it.

It is a common view. No cricket aficionado for instance puts a modern bat (pick one, you will obviously go for SRT) above Viv. (Nearly) All who saw him and the modern set are in uniform agreement.

There is no uniform agreement... plenty of players rank Tendulkar over Viv. None bigger than Bradman , Gavaskar, Hanif etc etc.

 

[bujhee kom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj2PCictIL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejr069kK9Nw


What exactly is wrong with the cameras in these 2 random videos from the past involving Viv , Imran ? Remember when you watched them play it was the same footage that was broadcast using the same friggin camera that you are now disparaging. Excuses much perhaps ?

So yeah lets see some pure technical explanation of the supposedly magical abilities of the two players and why none of the current players don't posses that. There is plenty more on YT for you to chose from.




Again just words ... lets start with some proper explanation to go with it.



There is no uniform agreement... plenty of players rank Tendulkar over Viv. None bigger than Bradman , Gavaskar, Hanif etc etc.

One can easily state Imran, Botham, Lillee, Holding etc who bat for Viv.

 

[Tusker]

One can easily state Imran, Botham, Lillee, Holding etc who bat for Viv.

Your words: "No cricket aficionado for instance puts a modern bat above Viv" . Thats hust not true at all. Dont even bother to twist and turn. Bloody hell Tendulkar was rated #2 by Wisden half way through his career.

 

[bujhee kom]

Your words: "No cricket aficionado for instance puts a modern bat above Viv" . Thats hust not true at all. Dont even bother to twist and turn. Bloody hell Tendulkar was rated #2 by Wisden half way through his career.

All you do is shout. You have not exactly given a technical analysis yourself.

Secondly, being technically gifted does not ensure success. Sports is full of examples. Ramps was so textbook, he couldn't buy a test match run. Sehwag had a bad technique, he scored a boat full. This is why I prize mental strength, tenacity, heart and iron will. You ask for tangibles but by definition those attributes are intangible but so very important.

 

[Napa]

Please name anyone who thinks Gavaskar was a better player than Viv? If averages is your trump card, Sanga is better than Sachin.

Try reading the entire post, or even the entire sentence before venting. Averages are not my only criterion, I wrote "he faced inferior bowling, did not open and had a lower average than Gavaskar" which makes it three criteria. I can add two more, Gavaskar scored more runs and scored a century every 6.29 innings compared to one every 7.58 innings for Richards.

Only deluded fan boys would ignore the data and believe Richards was better than Gavaskar.

 

[Tusker]

All you do is shout. You have not exactly given a technical analysis yourself.

Secondly, being technically gifted does not ensure success. Sports is full of examples. Ramps was so textbook, he couldn't buy a test match run. Sehwag had a bad technique, he scored a boat full. This is why I prize mental strength, tenacity, heart and iron will. You ask for tangibles but by definition those attributes are intangible but so very important.

You are the one that only shouts this : Viv was the best , Imran was the best ... they were magical and that Indians are blind biased and stupid if they think otherwise and yada yada yada

So I asked you why dont you for a change explain the reasoning for this OTT hyperbole surrounding Viv and imran ? It is YOUR job to explain why based on footage and why such displays of batting and bowling cannot happen now.

As for my view ... in short I dont just see what is soo magical about the cricketers you drool over. Because I have seen Sehwag, Tendulkar , Kohli , Hayden, Gilchrist etc etc do some special things against far far far better bowlers than Viv ever faced. And unlike you I dont hide behind someones opinion and throwing childish insults. I know my cricket and I can explain it in proper cricketing terms. You on the other hand only have names to throw around and when that fails your goto strategy is to throw insults thats all there is to your posts.

So now will you ever explain to us what is it soo great about Viv's batting skills using pure cricketing explanation of his shot making keeping the quality of bowling in mind or you will do some more of the usual song and dance ?

 

[PakLFC]

Imran's majestic run up to the wicket is the best and smoothest I've ever seen. That was royalty for sure. When both were at the peak of their powers Imran was faster as well. Hadlee, I feel was more accurate of the two. 2-1 to IK. It would also be interesting to compare their batting as well. Both started as tailenders working their way up the batting line up. Again it is very close but I am again with IK seeing his batting performance when Pak won the WC. His innings was the deciding factor in the final.

 

[Justcrazy]

Imran Khans personality dominates his cricketing skills .

 

[PakLFC]

Imran Khans personality dominates his cricketing skills .

Personality is something that IK has steadily developed over the past 20 years since he got in to politics. He was not much of an orator earlier on shying away from attention that was misunderstood as arrogance. IK would often struggle to put two sentences together when he was in his 30's. He has developed himself after his Cricket career and matured like fine wine. As a politician he had to be far more expressive.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

IK in helpful condition( outside of Asia): Avg 26 & SR 60

Hadlee in unhelpful condition( in Asia ) : Avg 21 & SR 42

If Hadlee superior record is just due to IK not getting chance in helpful conditions then IK should have done far better in helpful condition. Hadlee is not doing bad in Asia either. He has poor record in Pakistan, but that's couple of tests. Anyway, IK didn't really hit the ball out of park when he played in helpful conditions, so this argument has no leg to stand.


As far as over all career goes, Hadlee maintained rating around 900 for many years and has a better over all career record.

In the TEST format:

View attachment 80934

If it's not enough then,

Hadlee has 35 5-fer and 5 wickets per test.

IK has 23 5-fers and 4 wickets per test.

That's quite a difference when you consider their entire career. Handlee picking lots of wickets due to not having competition would have been a point to consider, but he picket those wickets at 22 runs a piece.

There is nothing to suggest that Hadlee had a inferior career in the test format.

-------------------

In ODI, they are not even comparable and Hadlee was a far superior ODI bowler.

In ODI Format:

View attachment 80935


Taken together, I don't see how Hadlee didn't have a better career as a bowler. I will take Hadlee over IK as bowler. As an all rounder, IK had a better career.

Great answer.appreciate.Howver is it not fairer to compare performances in peak era of both bowlers.i.e.1978-88,1980-88.Then almost neck to neck with Imran having better average and strike rate.Morally Hadlee better because of the workload he bore for a weak attack unlike Imran who had much more support.As match winners almost equal.Do reply.

 

[Ab Fan]

Hadlee.

36 5-fers in 86 tests says it all. A one-man army.

 

[Robert]

One point to make is that Imran played some five-match test series.

Hadlee never played a five match series. He played one four match series, in 1983. Otherwise all his series were three matches. This helped him maintain fitness and high performance levels.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

One point to make is that Imran played some five-match test series.

Hadlee never played a five match series. He played one four match series, in 1983. Otherwise all his series were three matches. This helped him maintain fitness and high performance levels.

Remember Hadlee hardly had the support Imran did.single handedly bore the brunt of weak bowling attack.Is that not more commendable?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

IK in helpful condition( outside of Asia): Avg 26 & SR 60

Hadlee in unhelpful condition( in Asia ) : Avg 21 & SR 42

If Hadlee superior record is just due to IK not getting chance in helpful conditions then IK should have done far better in helpful condition. Hadlee is not doing bad in Asia either. He has poor record in Pakistan, but that's couple of tests. Anyway, IK didn't really hit the ball out of park when he played in helpful conditions, so this argument has no leg to stand.


As far as over all career goes, Hadlee maintained rating around 900 for many years and has a better over all career record.

In the TEST format:

View attachment 80934

If it's not enough then,

Hadlee has 35 5-fer and 5 wickets per test.

IK has 23 5-fers and 4 wickets per test.

That's quite a difference when you consider their entire career. Handlee picking lots of wickets due to not having competition would have been a point to consider, but he picket those wickets at 22 runs a piece.

There is nothing to suggest that Hadlee had a inferior career in the test format.

-------------------

In ODI, they are not even comparable and Hadlee was a far superior ODI bowler.

In ODI Format:

View attachment 80935


Taken together, I don't see how Hadlee didn't have a better career as a bowler. I will take Hadlee over IK as bowler. As an all rounder, IK had a better career.

I have changed my mind after reading this post, I will take Hadlee over Khan now, Never knew Hadlee was a such a awesome odi bowler. He is RD of New Zealand cricket

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Now of old era , Hadlee and Garner are complete bowlers of both format
How many other bowlers were both format, I am talking about sufficient number of matches like 100 odi and 60 - 70 test.
Now have to say that Hadlee is underrated .

 

[Robert]

Remember Hadlee hardly had the support Imran did.single handedly bore the brunt of weak bowling attack.Is that not more commendable?

Well, you could argue than Imran would have taken more wickets had he been a lone gun for Pakistan, without Sarfraz and Wasim to pinch his wickets.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Well, you could argue than Imran would have taken more wickets had he been a lone gun for Pakistan, without Sarfraz and Wasim to pinch his wickets.

True but his averaged would have suffered, Richard Hadlee not only took wickets but with better average and strike rate, another thing Hadlle used to bowl on average 43 overa test.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Well, you could argue than Imran would have taken more wickets had he been a lone gun for Pakistan, without Sarfraz and Wasim to pinch his wickets.

It's not about wickets, it's maintaining average. Not all lone best bowlers can maintain a good average while taking a truckload of wickets. For example,Shakib Al Hasan. His bowling average is not too decent, despite being by far the best bowler of BDesh in last 10 years . Hadlee built pressure, destroyed opposition and won matches all by himself. If he had a off day, New Zealand would lose.

Hadlee didn't just take wickets because he bowled more, he has riped through batting line ups as well. His Strike Rate is amongst the best in the business (48.19 vs 51.5 of Imran). Hadlee was a lethal strike bowler. Imran can't match Hadlee in match winning ability, as individual strike rate is not affected by other great bowlers in the team.

 

[WildSwing]

Well, you could argue than Imran would have taken more wickets had he been a lone gun for Pakistan, without Sarfraz and Wasim to pinch his wickets.

He may have taken more wickets but his average would have suffered if he was the lone gun

 

[Robert]

It's not about wickets, it's maintaining average. Not all lone best bowlers can maintain a good average while taking a truckload of wickets. For example,Shakib Al Hasan. His bowling average is not too decent, despite being by far the best bowler of BDesh in last 10 years . Hadlee built pressure, destroyed opposition and won matches all by himself. If he had a off day, New Zealand would lose.

Hadlee didn't just take wickets because he bowled more, he has riped through batting line ups as well. His Strike Rate is amongst the best in the business (48.19 vs 51.5 of Imran). Hadlee was a lethal strike bowler. Imran can't match Hadlee in match winning ability, as individual strike rate is not affected by other great bowlers in the team.

Hadlee’s s/r was 51 not 48.

BTW Hadlee took no wickets in the first test NZ won in England, though he did hit 75 in a low scoring match. Cairns got a sevenfer and Chatfield a fivefer. Actually Sir Richard was quite well supported if conditions were helpful.

People here are going on numbers alone. Stats are the beginning of understanding, not the end.

 

[WildSwing]

People here are going on numbers alone. Stats are the beginning of understanding, not the end.

At least people are basing their opinion on some logic and evidence, you don't have a logic for rating imran over hadlee except using adjectives like magical, attitude etc, maybe just maybe you are blinded by nostalgia and remember things wrongly, maybe imran wasn't as good as you remember back in the day, may be hadlee was better as the numbers overwhelmingly suggest.

 

[Buffet]

Great answer.appreciate.Howver is it not fairer to compare performances in peak era of both bowlers.i.e.1978-88,1980-88.Then almost neck to neck with Imran having better average and strike rate.Morally Hadlee better because of the workload he bore for a weak attack unlike Imran who had much more support.As match winners almost equal.Do reply.

Considering everything, I think Hadlee just shades it in the test format and far ahead in the ODI format. Thread was about bowler without specifying format and I will always pick Hadlee as bowler here.

In test format, gap is not huge to really debate too much if some one picks one over another, but in ODI gap is really huge to even compare them. Both gun bowlers though and in a version of test world XI, I can have both of them.