• 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.

"No i will not have any trouble facing Marshall."

Maximus0723

State Regular
in your opinion. :cool:

There are more rose tinted glass arguments in favour of marshall, imo. Mcgrath was the best at dismissing the best batsmen of the opposition and carried on for longer. I'm not letting a few decimal points and speedometer readings get in the way of rating him the greatest ever. its always amusing how the pitches turn into bowlers' paradises when discussing the 80's batsmen, but not when discussing the 80s bowlers. Vive la nostalgia.
this
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I'll never ever get why skill matters at all tbh. Maybe it can be used as a predictor for how 2 kids will fare in cricket in the future but when the career is done and dusted, Whether a bowler 'could' do more things with the ball doesn't matter at all in comparison to how they both have performed.

Sometimes I get the impression in CW, That past greats are compared more on the basis of what they 'could' do rather than what they actually did. If a bowler could be unplayable on his day yet ended up the same performance-wise as another player, It means he could be much more 'playable' than the second player on another day. It's like people care only about the first factor and act like the balancing of it on the other side does not matter.

EDIT:-General rant, not directly in response to slogsweep's post
The point about skill is.. with stats you can come to your conclusions on who went well but a rating on skill level is more likely to tell you who is more likely to succeed in the future..


Sachin averaging junk amount in the first 3 years he opened and having no scored no centuries never let anyone doubt the fact that he was goiing to be gun in ODIs as an opener, did it?
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I am a big fan of Malcolm Marshall, but I get very angry when I see him getting God-like treatment in CW most of the times. Many CW posters speak like Marshall was the best bowler in the world by a Bradmanesque distance. However, I get equally angry when I see Lillee get similar treatment outside of CW, most of the times.

When he played in an West Indian side, he was another great bowler intially like Roberts, then like Garner or Holding and later like Ambrose. Whether he was better than all of them is debatable, but what is not debatable at all is the fact that he was not better than even one of them by a HUUGE margin. Marshall was not the '190 kmph bowler from Pluto who can bowl banana inswing and banana outswing in the same delivery that starts with the trajectory of a toe-crushing yorker and ends up being a bouncer' type bowler that every new teenage member of CW is constantly forced to dream of.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
The point about skill is.. with stats you can come to your conclusions on who went well but a rating on skill level is more likely to tell you who is more likely to succeed in the future..
...precisely what Teja said....were you agreeing or disagreeing?

In other words, stats is more important than skill if you are comparing Richard Hadlee to Dennis Lillee...but skill is more important when you are comparing Cheteshwar Pujara to Virat Kohli.
 
Last edited:

Migara

International Coach
YouTube - Imran Khan-Sachin-Wasim Akram Ind-Pak Peace

Does anybody know anything about this MCC and ROW match???? Sachin is just awesome clobbering around the likes of Donald and McGrath in the match in this video.........
I had watched the match live. Tendulkar was clobbering them little later. The onslaught was started by de Silva, who went after McGrath, then Donald and later sent Kumble out of the attack. Then SRT took over taking them apart. That was attacking batting of highest calibre.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
I had watched the match live. Tendulkar was clobbering them little later. The onslaught was started by de Silva, who went after McGrath, then Donald and later sent Kumble out of the attack. Then SRT took over taking them apart. That was attacking batting of highest calibre.
yeah they show the scorecard towards the end of the match with De Silva out on 82 and Sachin out on 125........De Silva WAG.......

Incidentally those Imran in-swingers are pretty cool at the start of the vid.....haven't seen other bowlers move it off the seam like that
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Not sure. Was a benefit match or something. Also back then, AFAIR, they did not award official status to any matches involving world XI, Asia XI etc. This trend started only in mid 2000's
And now I can also remember that there was some hype built up before the match, with it being touted as Tendulkar vs the best of the rest, and whether he will score a hundred. That's how the match was being promoted. Incredibly, he scored a good hundred.

Remember watching it with another die-hard cricket fan friend of mine.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I'll never ever get why skill matters at all tbh. Maybe it can be used as a predictor for how 2 kids will fare in cricket in the future but when the career is done and dusted, Whether a bowler 'could' do more things with the ball doesn't matter at all in comparison to how they both have performed.

Sometimes I get the impression in CW, That past greats are compared more on the basis of what they 'could' do rather than what they actually did. If a bowler could be unplayable on his day yet ended up the same performance-wise as another player, It means he could be much more 'playable' than the second player on another day. It's like people care only about the first factor and act like the balancing of it on the other side does not matter.

EDIT:-General rant, not directly in response to slogsweep's post
That is one fantastic rant, Teja. Considering you are only 17, you must be a whizkid :p

The point about skill is.. with stats you can come to your conclusions on who went well but a rating on skill level is more likely to tell you who is more likely to succeed in the future..


Sachin averaging junk amount in the first 3 years he opened and having no scored no centuries never let anyone doubt the fact that he was goiing to be gun in ODIs as an opener, did it?
Teja covered that in his post tbh. He did say that 'skill' may be useful in predicting how a cricketer will do in future, but means nothing when the careers are over. Then, all you have is your achievements. Call them 'mere stats' disparagingly, or call them facts if that helps you take the argument seriously, but that is what matters when it's all over.
 

abmk

State 12th Man
I downloaded that diana cup memorial match highlights somewhere from the net ages ago. If I find it on my hard disk, I'll upload it

sachin and de silva clobbered that attack !
 
Last edited:

abmk

State 12th Man
Sachin averaging junk amount in the first 3 years he opened and having no scored no centuries never let anyone doubt the fact that he was goiing to be gun in ODIs as an opener, did it?
actually, no, he did very very well since he started opening.Right from the first match he started opening, 82 from 49 balls against NZ on a seaming track, a brilliant knock !

averaged 48.8 @ ~ 90 S/R in 1994

averaged 40.3 at @ 101.3 S/R in 1995

averaged 53.7 @ 82.44 S/R in 1996

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
The point about skill is.. with stats you can come to your conclusions on who went well but a rating on skill level is more likely to tell you who is more likely to succeed in the future..
Not particularly useful when it comes to talking about two players who have both retired then, is it?
 

MrIncredible

U19 Cricketer
Wow one week Viv is overated, then another Sobers. Now people calling Malcolm Marshall's greatness

into question? If there is one WI player whose status should never come into dispute its the great

Macko. The most complete record of ne fast bowler and capable (as evidenced by his all round

success) of bowling ne where (ala Mcgrath). Maybe Marshall was somewhat past his best in 1991, but

another contributing factor towards his retirement was WI politics at that time. Dont think he was too

motivated to play under Richie Richardson, when many thought his countryman Haynes should have

gotten the knod. Also, Marshall as the senior bowler was somewhat gettin slighted for the up and

coming Bishop and Ambrose who were at times prefered for the new ball, even though Marshall was

senior. People need to get their facts straight b4 they start running their mouths.
 

Top