Which cricketer has the most complete record?

[Avada Kedavra]

Mcgrath edges out Marshall because Mcgrath played more countries.Does anyone else - batsman or bowler- have a record as complete as Mcgrath?

 

[GotSpin]

Why is playing more countries an important criteria

 

[vcs]

Nobody comes closer to having a blemishless record than McGrath in my time watching cricket. Not just the uniformly brilliant records against every opposition in every country.. I can't even remember him having a single poor series or run of bad form.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Why is playing more countries an important criteria

I mean they both have one country away from home where they average 30+. Mcgrath played more countries than Marshall and still has just the one country where he averages that much.

 

[GotSpin]

I mean they both have one country away from home where they average 30+. Mcgrath played more countries than Marshall and still has just the one country where he averages that much.

Just because McGrath had the opportunity to play away in more different countries doesn't necessarily make him the player with the most complete record.

 

[bagapath]

you think marshall would have struggled agaist sri lanka, south africa, zimbabwe and bangladesh? one factor in favor of mcgrath is that he played for about 5-6 years on batsman friendly tracks and still maintained high standards. but nothing of marshall suggests he would have had a tough time bowling at the modern batsmen. i think marshall has a more complete record overall. his "worst" record is against australia. he averages 22 point something against them. mcgrath averages 25+ against new zealand and 27+ against south africa.

 

[Anil]

marshall was the better bowler...

 

[Sanz]

Marshall played Pakistan in Pakistan and averaged about 21.5, Mcgrath averages in Pakistan about 31. How is Mcgrath's record more complete than Marshall's ?

Marshall bowled to a much stronger batting lineup of Pakistan, NZ, England and the Indian batting strength Both the bowlers bowled to was somewhat equal.

 

[Xuhaib]

Marshall played Pakistan in Pakistan and averaged about 21.5, Mcgrath averages in Pakistan about 31. How is Mcgrath's record more complete than Marshall's ?

Marshall bowled to a much stronger batting lineup of Pakistan, NZ, England and the Indian batting strength Both the bowlers bowled to was somewhat equal.

Marshal bowled on Pakistani tracks which suited pace bowling as Imran wanted to beat WI on tracks that assisted pace bowling whenever McGrath played in Pak the tracks were mostly batting friendly.

 

[Sir Alex]

Nobody comes closer to having a blemishless record than McGrath in my time watching cricket. Not just the uniformly brilliant records against every opposition in every country.. I can't even remember him having a single poor series or run of bad form.

This so much. His worst performances in subcontinent is comparable or even better than career averages of almost all indian bowlers ever. WAG.

 

[bagapath]

marshall was mcgrath bowling at lee's pace. simply the best i have seen.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Marshall may or may not have been better, that is not relevant.Marshall may have performed against South Africa,Sri Lanka and others but he may not have also.He enver got the chance so we will never know.It is the same logic people use when they rate a batsmen averaging 50 after 100 tests higher than another averaging 50 after 50 tests.Mcgrath averages 30+ in Pakistan and Marshall averages 32 in New Zealand.Marshall may well have bowled to stronger line ups but Mcgrath bowled on flatter pitches.

 

[bagapath]

then u should not compare the two of them at all. you should compare players only from the current era who have played against 9 different opponents. it is not marshall's fault that there were only six test teams in his time. that he did well against all of them should make him a complete player of his times. and maybe mcgrath for the current era.

 

[GotSpin]

Marshall may or may not have been better, that is not relevant.Marshall may have performed against South Africa,Sri Lanka and others but he may not have also.He enver got the chance so we will never know.It is the same logic people use when they rate a batsmen averaging 50 after 100 tests higher than another averaging 50 after 50 tests.Mcgrath averages 30+ in Pakistan and Marshall averages 32 in New Zealand.Marshall may well have bowled to stronger line ups but Mcgrath bowled on flatter pitches.

Don't agree. if Marshall bowled extremely well against the countries that he had the opportunity to bowl against, would it be not logical to suggest that he would bowl well against other nations as well.

 

[Sanz]

.Marshall may well have bowled to stronger line ups but Mcgrath bowled on flatter pitches.

How do you know ? The pitches in India in the 80s were much flatter than the pitches Mcgrath bowled on during his trips to India.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Don't agree. if Marshall bowled extremely well against the countries that he had the opportunity to bowl against, would it be not logical to suggest that he would bowl well against other nations as well.

Logic would also suggest that he should not average 32 in New Zealand going by his performances against stronger sides given they were one of the weaker sides back then.In many cases cricket defies logic.I am only pointing out that if two players have equally good records but if one has played more and against a wider variety of opponents then that player should get the slight edge.

If a batsmen averages 50 in Australia,RSA,NZ,SL,India and Pakistan and another averages 50 in RSA,NZ,Aus and SL after playing a similar number of games,who would you say has the better record?That is not to say that the second person could not perform in India and Pakistan if he played there but there is no way of telling for certain.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

How do you know ? The pitches in India in the 80s were much flatter than the pitches Mcgrath bowled on during his trips to India.

I am not sure you are right about that but anyway I was talking about pitches in general.It is incredibly funny that the Richards,Gavaskars,Miandads and Chappells are worshipped for playing in a bowling friendly era; but the same logic is not used when comparing a bowler like Mcgrath to someback who bowled in the 70s and 80s.

 

[GotSpin]

Logic would also suggest that he should not average 32 in New Zealand going by his performances against stronger sides given they were one of the weaker sides back then.In many cases cricket defies logic.I am only pointing out that if two players have equally good records but if one has played more and against a wider variety of opponents then that player should get the slight edge.

If a batsmen averages 50 in Australia,RSA,NZ,SL,India and Pakistan and another averages 50 in RSA,NZ,Aus and SL after playing a similar number of games,who would you say has the better record?That is not to say that the second person could not perform in India and Pakistan if he played there but there is no way of telling for certain.

Based on that line of thinking isn't it unfair to reasonably compare these two bowlers considering one is handicapped from the beginning simply for not having the opportunity to play against as many countries as the other.

 

[Sanz]

Logic would also suggest that he should not average 32 in New Zealand going by his performances against stronger sides given they were one of the weaker sides back then.

I would like know why anyone would suggest that NZ were a weaker side in the 80s (or During Marshall's time) than the most esp at home. Let us hear the argument.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Based on that line of thinking isn't it unfair to reasonably compare these two bowlers considering one is handicapped from the beginning simply for not having the opportunity to play against as many countries as the other.

Not if the person who did not play as many countries had a significantly better record.No one holds it against Bradman that he only played against two countries because his record is just so much better than others.