Would you rather choose Glenn McGrath or Richard Hadlee in an all-time Test XI?

[Harsh Thakor]

Richard Hadlee and Glen Mcgrath were giants of their era amongst pace bowlers.Both were mainly fast-medium byt tok control in pace bolwing to it's greatest height resmbling a computer.They analyzed weakness of oponents to perfection and could produce nagging length and bounce which was at times unplayable.Both were masters in putting the ball in the corridor.


Hadlee was marginallly the more quicker who could also swing the ball
more.On a green top he was ahead of even Marshall ,Imran or Lillee.Mcgrath was in my view a greater judge of a batsmen's weaknesses and more apt in pitching the delivery to an opponent most capable of dislodging him.I have not seen a pace bowler with as much mastery in what delivery to bowl to an opposing batsmen.Hadlee was in the classical sense more versatile but Glen was the more innovative and unpredictable.Hadlee bore the brunt of a very weak bowling attack capturing 5 wickets per test ,7-10 wkt.hauls 36- 5 wicket hauls.Mcgrath played for a top class side and part of a strong bowling attack taking fewer 5 wicket and ten wicket hauls than Hadlee but had a more economical average and a greater haul of scalps.Mcgrath was statistically the better match-winner in terms of percentage of wickets in wins but Hadlee had the better bowling average in wins.Mcgrath considerably overshadowed Hadlee in the Carribean but played against the weaker teams,unlike Hadlee.As a batsmen Hadlee was head and shoulders above Mcgrath,having test centuries and several fifties to his name.

When selecting my XI Hadlee would not be my 1st or 2nd choice as an allrounder at no 6 or 7 .If I include him it would be around no 8 or no 9..It would be hard to replace the likes of Marshall,Wasim or Imran with Hadlee .Still a fifty by Richard could be a worthy contribution.Mcgrath would be the ideal foil for the swing of Wasim.As a pure fast bowler Mcgrath had the more balanced complete package e like a cake with ingredients blended to perfection.Hadlee at times could go on the defensive when attacked like in West Indies in 1985 and like in the MCC V rest of the world match at Lords in 1987 did not display a repertoire for a docile surface.Still he was successful in India in 1987-88.By a very slender margin the best batsmen of his day found Mcgrath a more daunting proposition than those in the era of Hadlee with Tendulkar and Dravid being the best examples.


In the final analysis in the 1st xi by a whisker I would choose Mcgrath because he could blend the likes of Warne,Wasim ,Marshall ,Imran etc more effectively.Certainly Hadlee was the better more all-round cricketer and statistically a better fast bowler.

STATS ANALYSIS OF S.RAJESH OF CRICINFO

RICHARD HADLEE

There were several outstanding bowlers who were at the peak of their powers in the 1980s, but even among them Hadlee stood out. In the 11-year period between 1978 and 1988, his average of 19.57 was bettered only by Imran. Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner had a slightly higher average, while Kapil and Botham find themselves at the bottom of the table below, with their averages almost 10 higher than Hadlee's.

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
Michael Holding 47 192 23.69 50.8 9/ 1
Dennis Lillee 38 184 24.32 52.6 11/ 3


Best averages in Test wins (Qual: 150 wickets) Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike rate 5WI/ 10WM
Richard Hadlee 22 173 13.06 33.5 17/ 8
Imran Khan 26 155 14.50 38.3 11/ 6
Muttiah Muralitharan 53 430 16.03 42.6 40/ 18
Malcolm Marshall 43 254 16.78 38.1 17/ 4

Thanks to his improved batting skills, Hadlee was easily among the best allrounders in the world during the second half of his career. During the period between 1983 and 1990, only Imran Khan had a higher difference between batting and bowling averages (but Imran played as a specialist in some games during that period due to injury). The difference between Hadlee's batting and bowling averages was 13.39 - much superior to the corresponding numbers for Kapil Dev and Ian Botham.

Best allounders in Tests between 1983 and 1990 (Qual: 1000 runs, 100 wickets) Player Tests Runs Average Wickets Bowl ave Difference
Imran Khan 40 2008 51.48 156 21.39 30.09
Richard Hadlee 48 1883 33.03 262 19.64 13.39
Malcolm Marshall 59 1423 20.62 301 19.64 0.98
Kapil Dev 66 2621 29.78 204 30.11 -0.33


GLEN MCGRATH

won match 1993-2007 84 168 3296.4 1010 7945 414 8/24 10/27 19.19 2.41 47.7 18 3 view innings

home 1993-2007 66 131 2638.1 788 6483 289 8/24 10/27 22.43 2.45 54.7 11 2 view innings
away 1994-2005 55 106 2161.1 655 5551 260 8/38 10/78 21.35 2.56 49.8 18 1 view innings
neutral 2002-2002 3 6 75.2 27 152 14 4/41 7/59 10.85 2.01 32.2 0 0

 

[Hasan123]

McGrath.

 

[Hitman]

Glenn McGrath. Hadlee was a phenomenal bowler as well, though.

 

[Ab Fan]

Tough pick.Hadlee will bat at 8 while McGrath at 11.

McGrath was on par with Hadlee as a bowler.

I will go with Hadlee.

 

[Srtfan]

McGrath

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Mcgrath. The GOAT bowler

 

[happydavy]

I can't think of a single great, whose dream XI didn't include McGrath. He is the first to be listed on any dream XI team sheet. McGrath for me any day. For good 10-12 years, the only strategy all batsmen had against McGrath was to somehow not get out, scoring runs was not even on the agenda, whether ODI or Tests.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Insanely difficult choice.

They were both very similar bowlers, have excellent records in almost all countries. The only exception is Pakistan for Hadlee, but those wickets were graveyards. Hadlee, of course, never played in South Africa also, but I think he would have wreaked havoc there if his record in Australia is anything to go by.

McGrath had the privilege of playing in a great team with great support, while Hadlee had to shoulder all the expectations of a country and wore it remarkably.

I'd go with McGrath, but only just.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Hadlee, one-man-army who the whole team depended on to win games. McG had a much better team and often had scoreboard pressure which Hadlee could only dream of

 

[Robert]

McGrath in tests, because sometimes Hadlee could lose heart and go defensive when he was being hit. He suffered confidence issues and carried a card of personal mantras in his kit bag which he would recite before every game.

I had the idea that McGrath was about a 75 mph bowler, not even fast medium, because that is what he bowled in England. But then someone here showed me footage of his reversing it at pace in India. He bowled at the right speed in diffrerent conditions to get wickets.

The amazing thing about McGrath was his power of visualisation. A good spinner, or a really great fast bowler like Lillee would be thinking about the whole over, setting the batter up for the fourth or fifth ball. Hadlee would bowl four leg cutters then throw something else in for the other two - pace change, inswinger, bouncer.

But McGrath would go further than that ahead, thinking ten or twelve balls in advance. Like a grandmaster at chess.

Hadlee in ODIs though, where he was a pretty good finisher with the bat.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

McGrath in tests, because sometimes Hadlee could lose heart and go defensive when he was being hit. He suffered confidence issues and carried a card of personal mantras in his kit bag which he would recite before every game.

I had the idea that McGrath was about a 75 mph bowler, not even fast medium, because that is what he bowled in England. But then someone here showed me footage of his reversing it at pace in India. He bowled at the right speed in diffrerent conditions to get wickets.

The amazing thing about McGrath was his power of visualisation. A good spinner, or a really great fast bowler like Lillee would be thinking about the whole over, setting the batter up for the fourth or fifth ball. Hadlee would bowl four leg cutters then throw something else in for the other two - pace change, inswinger, bouncer.

But McGrath would go further than that ahead, thinking ten or twelve balls in advance. Like a grandmaster at chess.

Hadlee in ODIs though, where he was a pretty good finisher with the bat.

very good answer with logical reasoning

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Hadlee, one-man-army who the whole team depended on to win games. McG had a much better team and often had scoreboard pressure which Hadlee could only dream of

very relevant point

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Insanely difficult choice.

They were both very similar bowlers, have excellent records in almost all countries. The only exception is Pakistan for Hadlee, but those wickets were graveyards. Hadlee, of course, never played in South Africa also, but I think he would have wreaked havoc there if his record in Australia is anything to go by.

McGrath had the privilege of playing in a great team with great support, while Hadlee had to shoulder all the expectations of a country and wore it remarkably.

I'd go with McGrath, but only just.

You have put across your message very well sir.

 

[jeetu]

ATG team - Mcgrath
Average to good team - Hadlee (because of batting)

 

[Ab Fan]

People are forgetting the value of runs Hadlee will score with bat as well. He is your no.8 while McGrath was a 11.

 

[Junaids]

Neither.

Hadlee was an ATG in favourable conditions, but if you recall the MCC v Rest of the World Test in 1987, when he had to bowl on a road he (And Imran and Kapil Dev And Walsh And Rice) was massively inferior to Malcolm Marshall - five ATGs looked mediocre in direct comparison with the GOAT.

Similar story with McGrath. He was a brilliant negative attritional bowler, a clone of Joel Garner, Curtly Ambrose and Vince Van Der Bijl.

And having him and Warne in the same attack made batsmen take risks to score runs.

But he was the equivalent of a good Jose Mourinho team: defensively superb, but not something a neutral would pay to watch.

If I had to pick one I’d pick Hadlee, for his batting. For the same reason I’d also have picked Shaun Pollock over Glenn McGrath.

 

[MMHS]

Neither.

Hadlee was an ATG in favourable conditions, but if you recall the MCC v Rest of the World Test in 1987, when he had to bowl on a road he (And Imran and Kapil Dev And Walsh And Rice) was massively inferior to Malcolm Marshall - five ATGs looked mediocre in direct comparison with the GOAT.

Similar story with McGrath. He was a brilliant negative attritional bowler, a clone of Joel Garner, Curtly Ambrose and Vince Van Der Bijl.

And having him and Warne in the same attack made batsmen take risks to score runs.

But he was the equivalent of a good Jose Mourinho team: defensively superb, but not something a neutral would pay to watch.

If I had to pick one I’d pick Hadlee, for his batting. For the same reason I’d also have picked Shaun Pollock over Glenn McGrath.

Brilliant - I'll pick RJH also for exact same reason; but obviously not Shaun over Mac. Hadlee is probably the most under rated cricketer in PP, but between 1980-1988, he was the best ever fast medium pacer I have seen in game. And, he was equally good in AUS, UK & South Asia.

 

[Zaz]

Didnt watch hadlee but his record in a poor kiwi team is phenomenal plus he was handy with the bat

I ll go with hadlee

 

[austerlitz]

Mcgrath,he's the better version of hadlee.

 

[Junaids]

Didnt watch hadlee but his record in a poor kiwi team is phenomenal plus he was handy with the bat

I ll go with hadlee

Poor Kiwi team?

New Zealand was the only team to win a Test series against the West Indies between 1975-76 and 1995. They also won a Test series in both England and Australia with Hadlee in the team.

If you had to rank the world’s Test teams for the 1980’s I’m pretty certain that almost everyone - at least 95% of cricket followers - would say:

1. West Indies
2. Pakistan
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia
6. India
7. Sri Lanka

(South Africa was banned and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe did not have Test status).

 

[anoop]

Poor Kiwi team?

New Zealand was the only team to win a Test series against the West Indies between 1975-76 and 1995. They also won a Test series in both England and Australia with Hadlee in the team.

If you had to rank the world’s Test teams for the 1980’s I’m pretty certain that almost everyone - at least 95% of cricket followers - would say:

1. West Indies
2. Pakistan
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia
6. India
7. Sri Lanka

(South Africa was banned and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe did not have Test status).

And I am sure those wins must had MASSIVE contribution of Hadlee. Australia of 99-07 could have won even without McGrath, though with McGrath they were almost invincible.

 

[anoop]

Poor Kiwi team?

New Zealand was the only team to win a Test series against the West Indies between 1975-76 and 1995. They also won a Test series in both England and Australia with Hadlee in the team.

If you had to rank the world’s Test teams for the 1980’s I’m pretty certain that almost everyone - at least 95% of cricket followers - would say:

1. West Indies
2. Pakistan
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia
6. India
7. Sri Lanka

(South Africa was banned and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe did not have Test status).

Yes it was poor. From 75-95 they won 25 test matches. In which Hadlee was present in 21 matches. He took 166 wickets in those 21 matches. That's 8 wickets per match. As soon as Hadlee retired in 1990 after that NZ won only 4 tests of 43 matches till 1995. They were nothing without Hadlee.

 

[Junaids]

Yes it was poor. From 75-95 they won 25 test matches. In which Hadlee was present in 21 matches. He took 166 wickets in those 21 matches. That's 8 wickets per match. As soon as Hadlee retired in 1990 after that NZ won only 4 tests of 43 matches till 1995. They were nothing without Hadlee.

I lived in NZ in the 1990’s and I disagree.

Like with Pakistan, in the 1980’s New Zealand lost very few Test series. They were hard to beat!

There was a weak period from 1990-1994, but then suddenly NZ had its greatest ever attack, which won the series in England in 1999. It was only the senseless expulsion of Ken Rutherford as skipper and the refusal of Glenn Turner to allow Chris Cairns and Adam Parore in his team which ruined performances.

That GOAT Kiwi attack which so rarely took to the field was:

Chris Cairns
Danny Morrison
Dion Nash

Put it this way: in 2018 the only superior pace attack is Starc-Hazlewood-Cummins.

 

[Bilal7]

I would pick Hadlee because he was the better bowler.

1) Marshall
2) Imran
3) Hadlee
4) Wasim
5) McGrath/Steyn

 

[PakLFC]

I would choose Richard Hadlee. No doubt both were great bowlers however Sir Richard could more then hold the bat where as McGrath was a bunny with it. This is the deciding factor here. Richard Hadlee was a great yet very underrated player. The man was sheer class and a genuinely world class all rounder who as a bowler could beat the bat for fun. McGrath unlike Hadlee was part of a world class side with great batsmen and bowlers supporting him everywhere.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I lived in NZ in the 1990’s and I disagree.

Like with Pakistan, in the 1980’s New Zealand lost very few Test series. They were hard to beat!

There was a weak period from 1990-1994, but then suddenly NZ had its greatest ever attack, which won the series in England in 1999. It was only the senseless expulsion of Ken Rutherford as skipper and the refusal of Glenn Turner to allow Chris Cairns and Adam Parore in his team which ruined performances.

That GOAT Kiwi attack which so rarely took to the field was:

Chris Cairns
Danny Morrison
Dion Nash

Put it this way: in 2018 the only superior pace attack is Starc-Hazlewood-Cummins.

Philander, Steyn, and Rabada is much more superior as well. Add Ngidi to the mix as well, if one of those bowlers is injured.

 

[Justcrazy]

It all boils down to where the game is played and who are the other 10 players.

If its seaming conditions I will go with Haddle no doubt.

 

[Robert]

Poor Kiwi team?

New Zealand was the only team to win a Test series against the West Indies between 1975-76 and 1995. They also won a Test series in both England and Australia with Hadlee in the team.

If you had to rank the world’s Test teams for the 1980’s I’m pretty certain that almost everyone - at least 95% of cricket followers - would say:

1. West Indies
2. Pakistan
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia
6. India
7. Sri Lanka

(South Africa was banned and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe did not have Test status).

In the top half of the eighties I would put the Kiwis at #3. Though Hadlee reckoned they were #2! They did beat the Windies at home that time but I think they were umpire-assisted.

I would also put England lower as they won just five tests in their last fifty of the 1980s. All against Australians minus their SAB rebels. Yes we really were that bad.

 

[Reverse Sweep]

I lived in NZ in the 1990’s and I disagree.

Like with Pakistan, in the 1980’s New Zealand lost very few Test series. They were hard to beat!

There was a weak period from 1990-1994, but then suddenly NZ had its greatest ever attack, which won the series in England in 1999. It was only the senseless expulsion of Ken Rutherford as skipper and the refusal of Glenn Turner to allow Chris Cairns and Adam Parore in his team which ruined performances.

That GOAT Kiwi attack which so rarely took to the field was:

Chris Cairns
Danny Morrison
Dion Nash

Put it this way: in 2018 the only superior pace attack is Starc-Hazlewood-Cummins.

Simon Doull, Simon O'Connor, and Geoff Allott were also potentially very good seamers as well. NZ had terrible injury problems during that era.

Then Shane Bond arrived who was even better and also injured even more frequently!

 

[bujhee kom]

Hadlee. Magnificent bowler.
FTR those stats detail how much of a freak IK was. He is at worst the 2nd greatest AR ever and a top 5 ATG.

 

[Zaz]

Poor Kiwi team?

New Zealand was the only team to win a Test series against the West Indies between 1975-76 and 1995. They also won a Test series in both England and Australia with Hadlee in the team.

If you had to rank the world’s Test teams for the 1980’s I’m pretty certain that almost everyone - at least 95% of cricket followers - would say:

1. West Indies
2. Pakistan
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia
6. India
7. Sri Lanka

(South Africa was banned and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe did not have Test status).

Dont know where you got the fact that it was a top team Hadlee carried the bowling during his tenure

There was a reason people called him world x1 at one end and ilford 2nd x1 at the other

If the team was decent and competitive the majority of it was down to him

 

[BD-fan]

[qute]On a green top he was ahead of even Marshall ,Imran or Lillee.Mcgrath was in my view a greater judge of a batsmen's weaknesses and more apt in pitching the delivery to an opponent most capable of dislodging him.[/quote] Disagree.
None. As great as they are, there are others who are more deserving.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

McGrath would be the first name down. Will win you a test anywhere or a WC final.

Best ever.

 

[hafizexpress]

Wish I could see McGrath play in his prime! I've seen Asif play and how he manipulates batsmen and if people compare him to McGrath, I missed out on some special bowling.

 

[Chrish]

Majority of the people here are young thus they never saw Hadlee other than in YT clips. So there is naturally some bias there.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Wish I could see McGrath play in his prime! I've seen Asif play and how he manipulates batsmen and if people compare him to McGrath, I missed out on some special bowling.

How old are you to miss McGrath play? Just asking

 

[hafizexpress]

How old are you to miss McGrath play? Just asking

I'm 18 but I only really started watching cricket in 2009/2010

 

[Hasan123]

Majority of the people here are young thus they never saw Hadlee other than in YT clips. So there is naturally some bias there.

The same can be said for those rating Hadlee higher or any player from the 70s or 80s. We are told Bradman is the greatest batsmen ever when none have seen him bat.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

I'm 18 but I only really started watching cricket in 2009/2010

I see. I am 24 but didn't seriously started following cricket before 2003.

 

[Robert]

I’m old enough to have watched Hadlee bowl in 1983.

 

[Chrish]

The same can be said for those rating Hadlee higher or any player from the 70s or 80s. We are told Bradman is the greatest batsmen ever when none have seen him bat.

The point I am making is it’s incredibly difficult to compare players without watching them.

Brahmans case was unique in that playing on the same wickets, facing same bowlers and being surrounded by same fielders, he was twice as good as his colleagues in both test and FC format. No one else has come close to that sort of dominance; either in cricket or any other sport.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

Richard Hadlee ... no question. Because he was an allrounder and his bowling was as good as Mcgrath if not better.

 

[Pete Rose]

McGrath.
Hadlee was awful in the subcontinent

 

[Chrish]

Dont know where you got the fact that it was a top team Hadlee carried the bowling during his tenure

There was a reason people called him world x1 at one end and ilford 2nd x1 at the other

If the team was decent and competitive the majority of it was down to him

That has its own advantages. He got the new ball; he got rested whenever he wanted. And being only great bowler, captain would be lot more accommodating to his requests for field-setting. NZ specifically prepared greenest tracks when Hadlee was around, and why wouldn't they?

 

[BaankeJi]

Richard Hadlee for me.

 

[Junaids]

McGrath.
Hadlee was awful in the subcontinent

Was he?

I could have sworn that in 1988 at the age of 37, Hadlee took 18 wickets in 3 Tests in India, at an average of 14.00. And he had dysentery in one of those three Tests!

 

[Robert]

Was he?

I could have sworn that in 1988 at the age of 37, Hadlee took 18 wickets in 3 Tests in India, at an average of 14.00. And he had dysentery in one of those three Tests!

There you go then, he was bowling at rocketspeed due to wind-assistance.

 

[Sam99]

McGrath. Once in lifetime bowler for me.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I lived in NZ in the 1990’s and I disagree.

That GOAT Kiwi attack which so rarely took to the field was:

Chris Cairns
Danny Morrison
Dion Nash

Put it this way: in 2018 the only superior pace attack is Starc-Hazlewood-Cummins.

Cairns/Morrison/Nash better than Rabada/Philander/Steyn/Ngidi

That NZ pace attack is weaker than current Indian attack LOL.

 

[saadsahabjee]

hadlee was a clas above , used to watch him live only marshall was better than him and for some years Imran.

 

[davethebrave]

Neither.

Hadlee was an ATG in favourable conditions, but if you recall the MCC v Rest of the World Test in 1987, when he had to bowl on a road he (And Imran and Kapil Dev And Walsh And Rice) was massively inferior to Malcolm Marshall - five ATGs looked mediocre in direct comparison with the GOAT.

Similar story with McGrath. He was a brilliant negative attritional bowler, a clone of Joel Garner, Curtly Ambrose and Vince Van Der Bijl.

And having him and Warne in the same attack made batsmen take risks to score runs.

But he was the equivalent of a good Jose Mourinho team: defensively superb, but not something a neutral would pay to watch.

If I had to pick one I’d pick Hadlee, for his batting. For the same reason I’d also have picked Shaun Pollock over Glenn McGrath.

I'd have to concur, but for different reasons. Regarding the Marshall vs the others comparison, one should hear in mind that Imran was around 35, Hadlee 36, and Marshall was in his late 20s around his peak in the match you mention. I am one of those individuals who regarded McGrath as one of the luckiest and most overrated bowlers I've seen among the all-time pantheon.

At least Hadlee was capable of moving the ball both ways consistently, McGrath was largely gun-barrel straight most of the time, succeeding on account of a little extra bounce and the compulsions of the 90s batsman to play deliveries they need not do. Test batting techniques had already suffered as a result of the rise of the one-day game and the result was a preoccupation with run rates, even in tests, largely as a result of teams trying to copy Australia at the time. Had he been born a decade earler, he would have been spanked off his line or his deliveries left.

Hadlee had to ply his trade for a relatively weak team against batsman who were, frankly, better. One could, however, question how many wickets Hadlee owed Ewen Chatfield.

Personally, I thought Ambrose was a league or two above McGrath, he was significantly quicker, nastier, often downright dangerous and very effective with an extra couple of gears that McGrath never had.

 

[Pete Rose]

Was he?

I could have sworn that in 1988 at the age of 37, Hadlee took 18 wickets in 3 Tests in India, at an average of 14.00. And he had dysentery in one of those three Tests!

I was biased by his performance in Pakistan

 

[Pete Rose]

Was he?

I could have sworn that in 1988 at the age of 37, Hadlee took 18 wickets in 3 Tests in India, at an average of 14.00. And he had dysentery in one of those three Tests!

I must confess that I sleep walked through this thread that the comparison was vs lillee rather than hadlee

 

[Robert]

Neither.

Hadlee was an ATG in favourable conditions, but if you recall the MCC v Rest of the World Test in 1987, when he had to bowl on a road he (And Imran and Kapil Dev And Walsh And Rice) was massively inferior to Malcolm Marshall - five ATGs looked mediocre in direct comparison with the GOAT.

I remember it clearly. They took the new ball together for MCC. Maco made Hadlee look ordinary that day.

 

[gazza619]

Tough one. I grew up in the Mcgrath era. Will probably prefer Mcgrath as I have not seem enough videos of Hadlee

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Tough one. I grew up in the Mcgrath era. Will probably prefer Mcgrath as I have not seem enough videos of Hadlee

McGrath was better as a bowler, he's possible the GOAT. Hadlee was a great allrounder but you don't need Hadlee's batting in an ATG team, which will have the likes of Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards etc.

 

[davethebrave]

McGrath was better as a bowler, he's possible the GOAT. Hadlee was a great allrounder but you don't need Hadlee's batting in an ATG team, which will have the likes of Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards etc.

I'd be surprised if you've seen Hadlee or any of the other bowlers from the 80s or earlier actually bowl. The 90s Australian team gained more wickets, in my opinion, through sledging than the deliveries themselves. Michael Holding was, for example, a far better bowler than McGrath from what I have seen, but was unfortunate in that the batsman of the 80s knew where their stumps were, could play a medium pace straight ball just outside off stump and weren't averse to leaving the ball. I thought Terry Alderman was better than McGrath.

 

[Robert]

I'd be surprised if you've seen Hadlee or any of the other bowlers from the 80s or earlier actually bowl. The 90s Australian team gained more wickets, in my opinion, through sledging than the deliveries themselves. Michael Holding was, for example, a far better bowler than McGrath from what I have seen, but was unfortunate in that the batsman of the 80s knew where their stumps were, could play a medium pace straight ball just outside off stump and weren't averse to leaving the ball. I thought Terry Alderman was better than McGrath.

Alderman was an Australian born to bowl in England. He had that ability to aim at leg stump and swing it onto off. He opened up a lot of tight English techniques because this was a rare skill. But he was less effective elsewhere due to only bowling at about 70 mph.

McGrath was taller and got a lot of lift. He jagged it about off the deck both ways. He didn’t swing the new ball though he could reverse the old one, and was effective in all conditions. In his first test in England he bowled an Aussie length and got hit - so he asked Lillee’s advice and was told to pitch it up a yard. Next test he got eight wickets for hardly any, and was a monster from then on.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Majority of the people here are young thus they never saw Hadlee other than in YT clips. So there is naturally some bias there.

hadlee could be the greatest bowler of all time. He carries a weak team single handedly. There can be a case made for him but 86 tests is not enough if you compare it with the longevity of mcgrath.

As a bowler in his peak hadlee probably was better.