G.I.Joe
International Coach
Should have dismissed more top tier batsmen for that to carry weight, tbh.But then some people start playing international cricket at a earlier age.
20 vs 23.
One of the reasons why Marshall > Mcgrath.
Should have dismissed more top tier batsmen for that to carry weight, tbh.But then some people start playing international cricket at a earlier age.
20 vs 23.
One of the reasons why Marshall > Mcgrath.
He also started out earlier, as Cevno has pointed out...Apparently Marshall was past his prime at the ripe old age of 34. McGrath carried on for longer as a better bowler. So yeah, the qualification needs to be made.
I'm not on either side of this debate but Marshall debuted earlier and both had similarly long careers so whether McG played one year more on this side doesn't matter when Marshall played the same year more on another side.Apparently Marshall was past his prime at the ripe old age of 34. McGrath carried on for longer as a better bowler. So yeah, the qualification needs to be made.
There was a thread re this IIRC. Both Marshall and McG, along with Ambrose and some other dude are about even in the picking up top-teir batsman thing. League ahead of everyone else too.Should have dismissed more top tier batsmen for that to carry weight, tbh.
McGrath couldn't get greentops anywhere he played.He also started out earlier, as Cevno has pointed out...
Another interesting thing to note is that Marshall played only 31 Tests at home and 50 away, so it's hardly as if he was getting the benefit of home curators preparing tailor-made greentops for him to exploit..
But McGrath and Marshall have more "well-rounded" records (w.r.t oppositions and venues) than Murali..Will be fun to see how Murali's test stats look like when only his best 10-11 year period(About as big a career as McG or Marshall) is considered, in the very same 'batting paradise' period tbh.
By a decent margin the best bowler of the post-Bradman era, IMO.
I thought Martin Crowe was MOS in the 92 WC, tbh. My bad.I'm not on either side of this debate but Marshall debuted earlier and both had similarly long careers so whether McG played one year more on this side doesn't matter when Marshall played the same year more on another side.
Just FTR, Marshall averaged 21 at 4 wpm in his last year of test cricket. When people say he declined, They mean decline from the freakish bowler he was in the mid-80s. He still ahd as good a last 3-4 years as McG did.
True.I'm not on either side of this debate but Marshall debuted earlier and both had similarly long careers so whether McG played one year more on this side doesn't matter when Marshall played the same year more on another side.
Just FTR, Marshall averaged 21 at 4 wpm in his last year of test cricket. When people say he declined, They mean decline from the freakish bowler he was in the mid-80s. He still had as good a last 3-4 years as McG did.
The Marshall fanboys shot themselves in the foot with their argument against Tendulkar.True.
People on this thread made it sound as if he was Geoff Boycott's mum bowling in the last few years.
But that was done because they wanted to use the argument against Tendulkar.
And now Joe has turned it around against Marshall.
And now it is one big confusing ****.
Everything I said is about test cricket tbh. I'm not a particularly great fan of mixing performances of two different games to arrive at an understanding of who the better bowler is.I thought Martin Crowe was MOS in the 92 WC, tbh. My bad.
Bet Robelinda has it, but I think he isn't uploading a lot of videos these days because of some users who rile him on youtube.absolutely awesome innings from Sachin against such top quality bowling.....does somebody have the full inning??
The difference of 2.5-3 wickets extra a game when compared for the same time period as an ATG pacer along with taking wickets at around the same SR as the Ambroses and McGs is the deal-maker for me.But McGrath and Marshall have more "well-rounded" records (w.r.t oppositions and venues) than Murali..
Anyway, I feel it's best not to compare ATG pacers and spinners.. atleast not by nitpicking over their statistics. I would prefer to stick to comparing pacers to pacers and spinners to spinners.
I loved what you did tbh. People missing the point amused me the most though.The Marshall fanboys shot themselves in the foot with their argument against Tendulkar.
I can remember vaguely having watched this match live. Tendulkar in 98 was absolutely unstoppable. This was a great knock against McGrath and Donald combined!Bet Robelinda has it, but I think he isn't uploading a lot of videos these days because of some users who rile him on youtube.
Match Scorecard
Again, I would prefer not to compare the two types directly.The difference of 2.5-3 wickets extra a game when compared for the same time period as an ATG pacer along with taking wickets at around the same SR as the Ambroses and McGs is the deal-maker for me.
From some of the shots in that video the knock looks absolutely incredibleI can remember vaguely having watched this match live. Tendulkar in 98 was absolutely unstoppable. This was a great knock against McGrath and Donald combined!