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

[Debris]

ne where

 

[MrIncredible]

Ok then where didnt Macko have success then??

 

[Debris]

I should clarify, that was a comment on the horrifying spelling. It was particularly worrying as there was not even any saving in characters typed.

 

[honestbharani]

McGrath couldn't get greentops anywhere he played.

lol.. That is so not true..

 

[MrIncredible]

I should clarify, that was a comment on the horrifying spelling. It was particularly worrying as there was not even any saving in characters typed.

LMAO!!!:laugh

 

[slog sweep]

You know what.

With this part ,specially the bolded bit ,you have set up GI Joe's argument perfectly again.


At the age of 34 Malcolm marshall was not motivated enough to play against India who were a decent team and Sachin who was a 18 yr old bound to be a star,when at the age of 36 of 37 Mcgrath was motivated enough to have great years and bowl against the likes of Ed joyce and Mohammad Ashraful which ultimately culminated in a MOM at the World cup.

If you are trying to use this as evidence that McGrath is the better bowler, then it's one of the most nonsensical arguments that I have seen, and completely devoid of logic. Why would anybody place so much emphasis on the final act of a sportsman's career, and completely overlook the entire body of work that preceded it. The last image you see of a champion, is sometimes heroic, and sometimes tragic, but will never overshadow a lifetime of accomplishments.

You do realize that Muhammad Ali got absolutely pummeled in his last fight against Larry Holmes, in one of the greatest beatings ever seen inside of a boxing ring, and that he limped into retirement a shadow of his former self, losing three of his last four fights. Or that Michael Jordan spent his final two seasons with the Washington Wizards hobbling around the basketball court, a poor imitation of his former greatness. And yet neither chapter affected the legacy of either man, and whenever talk turns to the greatest sportsperson in history, they remain two of the prime candidates.

The reality is that different sportsmen retire at different ages: usually when they are mentally and physically exhausted, and no longer feel they have anything left to prove. That time varies for different people. When evaluating sporting greatness, you don't base it on the length of someone's career, but rather the impact they had on the game, for however long they chose to play. Some of the greatest sportspeople in history, retired in the very prime of their career, because they had accomplished everything they set out to do.

Bjorn Borg won 11 Grand Slam titles between 1974 and 1981, and was unarguably the best tennis player in the world. He then stunned the sporting world, by announcing that he was retiring at the ripe old age of 26. Did Borg's premature retirement diminish his legacy? Not in the slightest. Even now, people still marvel at the sheer genius of his play, and his supreme calmness under pressure. He is still universally acknowledged as one of the top 5 male tennis players of all time.

Jim Brown, the man many people regard as the greatest player in the history of the NFL, retired at the very peak of his powers, at the age of 29. He only played 9 seasons, but had such an incredible impact on the game, that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Jerry Rice, as the game's greatest ever player.

Michael Jordan retired three times during his career; the first when he was only 30. So the man who many regard as the greatest sportsman in history, and one of the most competitive men in the world, essentially missed 5 years in the prime of his career, because he wasn't 'motivated' enough to play. Does any of this affect his legacy. Absolutely not. There are very few people in the sports world, who would question Jordan's standing as the undisputed king of basketball.

Nearly every professional sportsman will lose motivation at some stage in his career, otherwise nobody would ever retire. At some point, you start to have different priorities in life, and a desire to spend more time with your family, or pursue other interests.

When Brian Lara and Shane Warne retired from international cricket in 2007, they both had at least two good years left in them. Do you want to penalize them because they weren't 'motivated' enough to continue their career, or like any logical human being, will you simply acknowledge that both of these champions had achieved everything they set out to do, and now wanted to do something else with their life. The fact that Tendulkar and Muralitharan played longer, and ended up breaking most of their records, doesn't diminish the legacy of Lara and Warne in the slightest. Nor does it automatically make Tendulkar and Muralitharan greater cricketers. There are plenty of good judges who still rate Lara ahead of Tendulkar, and Warne ahead of Murali.

When Malcolm Marshall departed international cricket at the age of 34, he retired as one of the most decorated cricketers the game had ever seen. Most players would give an arm and a leg, to achieve half of what he did. He may have slipped a little in the One Day game as he got older, but in Test cricket, he was still phenomenal. In the final two Test series of his career in 1991, he took 21 wickets against Australia at 20.8, and 20 wickets in England at 22.1. In these two epic battles, he illustrated that he was still the king in Test cricket. Marshall ensured that the West Indies continued their ten year unbeaten run in the long form of the game, and it seems safe to say that when he retired, there was simply nothing left for him to achieve.

He obviously had a passion for coaching, because as soon as he stopped playing, he took up a series of coaching positions around the world. He went to South Africa to play and coach at Natal, and become a mentor for Shaun Pollock. He then became coach of Hampshire and the West Indies. Based on everything you read about the man, he lead a very fulfilled life, right up until the time of his passing in 1999. Unlike a lot of professional sportsmen who seem to drift aimlessly after retirement, Marshall obviously found another career that he was equally passionate about.

I don't know, maybe McGrath was the more driven cricketer in the final three months of their respective One Day careers, and you can make of that what you will. He certainly wasn't any more successful in Test Cricket in the twilight of their careers, because Marshall was as brilliant as ever. All I do know, is that if I had to choose one of them for a 10 year period, when they were both at the absolute top of their game, I would take Malcolm Marshall in a heartbeat.

 

[slog sweep]

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.

Who has ever tried to downplay the greatness of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Ambrose? They are all arguably in the top 10 fast bowlers of all time, and deserve all of the tributes that flow their way. A lot of good judges would rate any one of Holding, Ambrose or Roberts as the greatest fast bowler ever, bar none. Having said that, a good majority of the cricket world considers Malcolm Marshall to be just that little bit better. He had a few more tricks up his sleeve, was a little more dynamic, and was simply unstoppable against all opponents, in all conditions.

In terms of the skill set of Marshall, he could pretty much do it all. He could swing it, seam it, and cut it; and he did it all as one of the fastest bowlers in the history of the game. If that wasn't enough, he had the ability to out think an opponent, and plot his downfall with great cricket intelligence. These are the reasons, why he is rated by many, as the most complete fast bowler in the history of the game. Unless I'm missing something, what other skills should a fast bowler possess. Exactly, what more do you want from the man? Do you expect him to be an illusionist, and make the ball magically disappear halfway down the pitch.

As far as I'm concerned, Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram are the two most brilliant and skillful fast bowlers of recent times. They were both geniuses.

 

[robelinda]

slog sweep, I like your posts man. Keep up the good work. You are saying what I want to say but much better! Sometimes I read threads for too long then blurt out some crazy angry rant, it just boggles ones mind the drivel you read on the internet.

 

[bagapath]

slog sweep.... that was bang on....

 

[smash84]

If you are trying to use this as evidence that McGrath is the better bowler, then it's one of the most nonsensical arguments that I have seen, and completely devoid of logic. Why would anybody place so much emphasis on the final act of a sportsman's career, and completely overlook the entire body of work that preceded it. The last image you see of a champion, is sometimes heroic, and sometimes tragic, but will never overshadow a lifetime of accomplishments.

You do realize that Muhammad Ali got absolutely pummeled in his last fight against Larry Holmes, in one of the greatest beatings ever seen inside of a boxing ring, and that he limped into retirement a shadow of his former self, losing three of his last four fights. Or that Michael Jordan spent his final two seasons with the Washington Wizards hobbling around the basketball court, a poor imitation of his former greatness. And yet neither chapter affected the legacy of either man, and whenever talk turns to the greatest sportsperson in history, they remain two of the prime candidates.

The reality is that different sportsmen retire at different ages: usually when they are mentally and physically exhausted, and no longer feel they have anything left to prove. That time varies for different people. When evaluating sporting greatness, you don't base it on the length of someone's career, but rather the impact they had on the game, for however long they chose to play. Some of the greatest sportspeople in history, retired in the very prime of their career, because they had accomplished everything they set out to do.

Bjorn Borg won 11 Grand Slam titles between 1974 and 1981, and was unarguably the best tennis player in the world. He then stunned the sporting world, by announcing that he was retiring at the ripe old age of 26. Did Borg's premature retirement diminish his legacy? Not in the slightest. Even now, people still marvel at the sheer genius of his play, and his supreme calmness under pressure. He is still universally acknowledged as one of the top 5 male tennis players of all time.

Jim Brown, the man many people regard as the greatest player in the history of the NFL, retired at the very peak of his powers, at the age of 29. He only played 9 seasons, but had such an incredible impact on the game, that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Jerry Rice, as the game's greatest ever player.

Michael Jordan retired three times during his career; the first when he was only 30. So the man who many regard as the greatest sportsman in history, and one of the most competitive men in the world, essentially missed 5 years in the prime of his career, because he wasn't 'motivated' enough to play. Does any of this affect his legacy. Absolutely not. There are very few people in the sports world, who would question Jordan's standing as the undisputed king of basketball.

Nearly every professional sportsman will lose motivation at some stage in his career, otherwise nobody would ever retire. At some point, you start to have different priorities in life, and a desire to spend more time with your family, or pursue other interests.

When Brian Lara and Shane Warne retired from international cricket in 2007, they both had at least two good years left in them. Do you want to penalize them because they weren't 'motivated' enough to continue their career, or like any logical human being, will you simply acknowledge that both of these champions had achieved everything they set out to do, and now wanted to do something else with their life. The fact that Tendulkar and Muralitharan played longer, and ended up breaking most of their records, doesn't diminish the legacy of Lara and Warne in the slightest. Nor does it automatically make Tendulkar and Muralitharan greater cricketers. There are plenty of good judges who still rate Lara ahead of Tendulkar, and Warne ahead of Murali.

When Malcolm Marshall departed international cricket at the age of 34, he retired as one of the most decorated cricketers the game had ever seen. Most players would give an arm and a leg, to achieve half of what he did. He may have slipped a little in the One Day game as he got older, but in Test cricket, he was still phenomenal. In the final two Test series of his career in 1991, he took 21 wickets against Australia at 20.8, and 20 wickets in England at 22.1. In these two epic battles, he illustrated that he was still the king in Test cricket. Marshall ensured that the West Indies continued their ten year unbeaten run in the long form of the game, and it seems safe to say that when he retired, there was simply nothing left for him to achieve.

He obviously had a passion for coaching, because as soon as he stopped playing, he took up a series of coaching positions around the world. He went to South Africa to play and coach at Natal, and become a mentor for Shaun Pollock. He then became coach of Hampshire and the West Indies. Based on everything you read about the man, he lead a very fulfilled life, right up until the time of his passing in 1999. Unlike a lot of professional sportsmen who seem to drift aimlessly after retirement, Marshall obviously found another career that he was equally passionate about.

I don't know, maybe McGrath was the more driven cricketer in the final three months of their respective One Day careers, and you can make of that what you will. He certainly wasn't any more successful in Test Cricket in the twilight of their careers, because Marshall was as brilliant as ever. All I do know, is that if I had to choose one of them for a 10 year period, when they were both at the absolute top of their game, I would take Malcolm Marshall in a heartbeat.

Who has ever tried to downplay the greatness of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Ambrose? They are all arguably in the top 10 fast bowlers of all time, and deserve all of the tributes that flow their way. A lot of good judges would rate any one of Holding, Ambrose or Roberts as the greatest fast bowler ever, bar none. Having said that, a good majority of the cricket world considers Malcolm Marshall to be just that little bit better. He had a few more tricks up his sleeve, was a little more dynamic, and was simply unstoppable against all opponents, in all conditions.

In terms of the skill set of Marshall, he could pretty much do it all. He could swing it, seam it, and cut it; and he did it all as one of the fastest bowlers in the history of the game. If that wasn't enough, he had the ability to out think an opponent, and plot his downfall with great cricket intelligence. These are the reasons, why he is rated by many, as the most complete fast bowler in the history of the game. Unless I'm missing something, what other skills should a fast bowler possess. Exactly, what more do you want from the man? Do you expect him to be an illusionist, and make the ball magically disappear halfway down the pitch.

As far as I'm concerned, Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram are the two most brilliant and skillful fast bowlers of recent times. They were both geniuses.

woah.......top notch stuff as usual from slog sweep

 

[G.I.Joe]

McGrath WAG. McG don't need no excuses.

 

[Shri]

If you are trying to use this as evidence that McGrath is the better bowler, then it's one of the most nonsensical arguments that I have seen, and completely devoid of logic. Why would anybody place so much emphasis on the final act of a sportsman's career, and completely overlook the entire body of work that preceded it. The last image you see of a champion, is sometimes heroic, and sometimes tragic, but will never overshadow a lifetime of accomplishments.

You do realize that Muhammad Ali got absolutely pummeled in his last fight against Larry Holmes, in one of the greatest beatings ever seen inside of a boxing ring, and that he limped into retirement a shadow of his former self, losing three of his last four fights. Or that Michael Jordan spent his final two seasons with the Washington Wizards hobbling around the basketball court, a poor imitation of his former greatness. And yet neither chapter affected the legacy of either man, and whenever talk turns to the greatest sportsperson in history, they remain two of the prime candidates.

The reality is that different sportsmen retire at different ages: usually when they are mentally and physically exhausted, and no longer feel they have anything left to prove. That time varies for different people. When evaluating sporting greatness, you don't base it on the length of someone's career, but rather the impact they had on the game, for however long they chose to play. Some of the greatest sportspeople in history, retired in the very prime of their career, because they had accomplished everything they set out to do.

Bjorn Borg won 11 Grand Slam titles between 1974 and 1981, and was unarguably the best tennis player in the world. He then stunned the sporting world, by announcing that he was retiring at the ripe old age of 26. Did Borg's premature retirement diminish his legacy? Not in the slightest. Even now, people still marvel at the sheer genius of his play, and his supreme calmness under pressure. He is still universally acknowledged as one of the top 5 male tennis players of all time.

Jim Brown, the man many people regard as the greatest player in the history of the NFL, retired at the very peak of his powers, at the age of 29. He only played 9 seasons, but had such an incredible impact on the game, that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Jerry Rice, as the game's greatest ever player.

Michael Jordan retired three times during his career; the first when he was only 30. So the man who many regard as the greatest sportsman in history, and one of the most competitive men in the world, essentially missed 5 years in the prime of his career, because he wasn't 'motivated' enough to play. Does any of this affect his legacy. Absolutely not. There are very few people in the sports world, who would question Jordan's standing as the undisputed king of basketball.

Nearly every professional sportsman will lose motivation at some stage in his career, otherwise nobody would ever retire. At some point, you start to have different priorities in life, and a desire to spend more time with your family, or pursue other interests.

When Brian Lara and Shane Warne retired from international cricket in 2007, they both had at least two good years left in them. Do you want to penalize them because they weren't 'motivated' enough to continue their career, or like any logical human being, will you simply acknowledge that both of these champions had achieved everything they set out to do, and now wanted to do something else with their life. The fact that Tendulkar and Muralitharan played longer, and ended up breaking most of their records, doesn't diminish the legacy of Lara and Warne in the slightest. Nor does it automatically make Tendulkar and Muralitharan greater cricketers. There are plenty of good judges who still rate Lara ahead of Tendulkar, and Warne ahead of Murali.

When Malcolm Marshall departed international cricket at the age of 34, he retired as one of the most decorated cricketers the game had ever seen. Most players would give an arm and a leg, to achieve half of what he did. He may have slipped a little in the One Day game as he got older, but in Test cricket, he was still phenomenal. In the final two Test series of his career in 1991, he took 21 wickets against Australia at 20.8, and 20 wickets in England at 22.1. In these two epic battles, he illustrated that he was still the king in Test cricket. Marshall ensured that the West Indies continued their ten year unbeaten run in the long form of the game, and it seems safe to say that when he retired, there was simply nothing left for him to achieve.

He obviously had a passion for coaching, because as soon as he stopped playing, he took up a series of coaching positions around the world. He went to South Africa to play and coach at Natal, and become a mentor for Shaun Pollock. He then became coach of Hampshire and the West Indies. Based on everything you read about the man, he lead a very fulfilled life, right up until the time of his passing in 1999. Unlike a lot of professional sportsmen who seem to drift aimlessly after retirement, Marshall obviously found another career that he was equally passionate about.

I don't know, maybe McGrath was the more driven cricketer in the final three months of their respective One Day careers, and you can make of that what you will. He certainly wasn't any more successful in Test Cricket in the twilight of their careers, because Marshall was as brilliant as ever. All I do know, is that if I had to choose one of them for a 10 year period, when they were both at the absolute top of their game, I would take Malcolm Marshall in a heartbeat.

tl;dr

 

[smash84]

what does tl;dr mean???

 

[Shri]

too long;didn't read

 

[Blaze 18]

If you are trying to use this as evidence that McGrath is the better bowler, then it's one of the most nonsensical arguments that I have seen, and completely devoid of logic. Why would anybody place so much emphasis on the final act of a sportsman's career, and completely overlook the entire body of work that preceded it. The last image you see of a champion, is sometimes heroic, and sometimes tragic, but will never overshadow a lifetime of accomplishments.

You do realize that Muhammad Ali got absolutely pummeled in his last fight against Larry Holmes, in one of the greatest beatings ever seen inside of a boxing ring, and that he limped into retirement a shadow of his former self, losing three of his last four fights. Or that Michael Jordan spent his final two seasons with the Washington Wizards hobbling around the basketball court, a poor imitation of his former greatness. And yet neither chapter affected the legacy of either man, and whenever talk turns to the greatest sportsperson in history, they remain two of the prime candidates.

The reality is that different sportsmen retire at different ages: usually when they are mentally and physically exhausted, and no longer feel they have anything left to prove. That time varies for different people. When evaluating sporting greatness, you don't base it on the length of someone's career, but rather the impact they had on the game, for however long they chose to play. Some of the greatest sportspeople in history, retired in the very prime of their career, because they had accomplished everything they set out to do.

Bjorn Borg won 11 Grand Slam titles between 1974 and 1981, and was unarguably the best tennis player in the world. He then stunned the sporting world, by announcing that he was retiring at the ripe old age of 26. Did Borg's premature retirement diminish his legacy? Not in the slightest. Even now, people still marvel at the sheer genius of his play, and his supreme calmness under pressure. He is still universally acknowledged as one of the top 5 male tennis players of all time.

Jim Brown, the man many people regard as the greatest player in the history of the NFL, retired at the very peak of his powers, at the age of 29. He only played 9 seasons, but had such an incredible impact on the game, that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Jerry Rice, as the game's greatest ever player.

Michael Jordan retired three times during his career; the first when he was only 30. So the man who many regard as the greatest sportsman in history, and one of the most competitive men in the world, essentially missed 5 years in the prime of his career, because he wasn't 'motivated' enough to play. Does any of this affect his legacy. Absolutely not. There are very few people in the sports world, who would question Jordan's standing as the undisputed king of basketball.

Nearly every professional sportsman will lose motivation at some stage in his career, otherwise nobody would ever retire. At some point, you start to have different priorities in life, and a desire to spend more time with your family, or pursue other interests.

When Brian Lara and Shane Warne retired from international cricket in 2007, they both had at least two good years left in them. Do you want to penalize them because they weren't 'motivated' enough to continue their career, or like any logical human being, will you simply acknowledge that both of these champions had achieved everything they set out to do, and now wanted to do something else with their life. The fact that Tendulkar and Muralitharan played longer, and ended up breaking most of their records, doesn't diminish the legacy of Lara and Warne in the slightest. Nor does it automatically make Tendulkar and Muralitharan greater cricketers. There are plenty of good judges who still rate Lara ahead of Tendulkar, and Warne ahead of Murali.

When Malcolm Marshall departed international cricket at the age of 34, he retired as one of the most decorated cricketers the game had ever seen. Most players would give an arm and a leg, to achieve half of what he did. He may have slipped a little in the One Day game as he got older, but in Test cricket, he was still phenomenal. In the final two Test series of his career in 1991, he took 21 wickets against Australia at 20.8, and 20 wickets in England at 22.1. In these two epic battles, he illustrated that he was still the king in Test cricket. Marshall ensured that the West Indies continued their ten year unbeaten run in the long form of the game, and it seems safe to say that when he retired, there was simply nothing left for him to achieve.

He obviously had a passion for coaching, because as soon as he stopped playing, he took up a series of coaching positions around the world. He went to South Africa to play and coach at Natal, and become a mentor for Shaun Pollock. He then became coach of Hampshire and the West Indies. Based on everything you read about the man, he lead a very fulfilled life, right up until the time of his passing in 1999. Unlike a lot of professional sportsmen who seem to drift aimlessly after retirement, Marshall obviously found another career that he was equally passionate about.

I don't know, maybe McGrath was the more driven cricketer in the final three months of their respective One Day careers, and you can make of that what you will. He certainly wasn't any more successful in Test Cricket in the twilight of their careers, because Marshall was as brilliant as ever. All I do know, is that if I had to choose one of them for a 10 year period, when they were both at the absolute top of their game, I would take Malcolm Marshall in a heartbeat.

Who has ever tried to downplay the greatness of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Ambrose? They are all arguably in the top 10 fast bowlers of all time, and deserve all of the tributes that flow their way. A lot of good judges would rate any one of Holding, Ambrose or Roberts as the greatest fast bowler ever, bar none. Having said that, a good majority of the cricket world considers Malcolm Marshall to be just that little bit better. He had a few more tricks up his sleeve, was a little more dynamic, and was simply unstoppable against all opponents, in all conditions.

In terms of the skill set of Marshall, he could pretty much do it all. He could swing it, seam it, and cut it; and he did it all as one of the fastest bowlers in the history of the game. If that wasn't enough, he had the ability to out think an opponent, and plot his downfall with great cricket intelligence. These are the reasons, why he is rated by many, as the most complete fast bowler in the history of the game. Unless I'm missing something, what other skills should a fast bowler possess. Exactly, what more do you want from the man? Do you expect him to be an illusionist, and make the ball magically disappear halfway down the pitch.

As far as I'm concerned, Malcolm Marshall and Wasim Akram are the two most brilliant and skillful fast bowlers of recent times. They were both geniuses.

Top class stuff as usual.

 

[Debris]

Ok then where didnt Macko have success then??

Marshall did average 32 in NZ of all places. Not sure it means any but just saying.

 

[smash84]

In a grand total of 3 tests it doesn't really mean much

 

[MrIncredible]

In a grand total of 3 tests it doesn't really mean much

Exactly!!

 

[Debris]

Just pointing out that you can find a hole in anyone's career if you look hard enough. McGrath averages 31 in Pakistan but again it was only 5 tests.

 

[MrIncredible]

Yeah but he doesnt quite average under 25 against every1, strike at 46 and average 20.9 like Marshall

does. Those r just mind boggling stats if u ask me.