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

[tooextracool]

Just shows what playing in a top-shelf team does to a bloke's confidence and vice versa. Even with Marshall bowling quite waywardly and Patterson out early with an injury, the Aussies were still too scared to hit the ball off the square. So it didn't matter to the other bowlers that their gun was having an off day and they were one short, they had to step up a bit, did so and won the match easily.

A bit hard to play a bloke who's swinging the ball around corners, both ways, even if he's wayward. Unless of course you can pick it from the hand, which few batsmen have ever been able to do. Think we tend to have 'new era syndrome', we're a bit spoiled by watching batsmen tonking bowlers around at 3-4 runs an over on flatter wickets. My personal opinion though from what I've seen is that batsmen of the 80's were probably of lesser quality than a lot of the batters today, I've seen many a wayward spell from that time rewarded with a flood of wickets. By that theory, I think bowlers of that era are probably flattered by their records.

Goes without saying that this is the first time I've had the chance to watch ball by ball stuff of Marshall, so a little disappointing to see one of his more wayward spells. Not only was he wayward in line but his length was a fair bit too short given the swing he was getting - most of his deliveries that were in line with the stumps were still going over the top. If anything it goes to show how bowlers who can swing the ball both ways are infinitely harder to play than the ones who just swing it one way who become far more predictable. If Marshall had got his line and length right that day, he'd have got half of that batting lineup back in the hut on his own with very little on the board.

Thanks for the clips Robelinda, great stuff.

 

[smash84]

A bit hard to play a bloke who's swinging the ball around corners, both ways, even if he's wayward. Unless of course you can pick it from the hand, which few batsmen have ever been able to do. Think we tend to have 'new era syndrome', we're a bit spoiled by watching batsmen tonking bowlers around at 3-4 runs an over on flatter wickets. My personal opinion though from what I've seen is that batsmen of the 80's were probably of lesser quality than a lot of the batters today, I've seen many a wayward spell from that time rewarded with a flood of wickets. By that theory, I think bowlers of that era are probably flattered by their records.



Thanks for the clips Robelinda, great stuff.

very interesting observation.......people generally have a different perception to the one that you have,

 

[Top_Cat]

Goes without saying that this is the first time I've had the chance to watch ball by ball stuff of Marshall, so a little disappointing to see one of his more wayward spells. Not only was he wayward in line but his length was a fair bit too short given the swing he was getting - most of his deliveries that were in line with the stumps were still going over the top. If anything it goes to show how bowlers who can swing the ball both ways are infinitely harder to play than the ones who just swing it one way who become far more predictable. If Marshall had got his line and length right that day, he'd have got half of that batting lineup back in the hut on his own with very little on the board.

Thanks for the clips Robelinda, great stuff.

Still managed to look threatening, though. Wasn't that far away from his day-to-day stuff. A few less leg-side balls, of course. A bloke like Marshall was always trying to swing it so he was rarely as pin-point accurate as a McGrath but he just wasn't that sort of bowler.

But yeah, you make a point about how the god-like status of 80's quicks has been somewhat exaggerated, mostly by blokes too young to have actually seen them bowl.

 

[honestbharani]

Still managed to look threatening, though. Wasn't that far away from his day-to-day stuff. A few less leg-side balls, of course. A bloke like Marshall was always trying to swing it so he was rarely as pin-point accurate as a McGrath but he just wasn't that sort of bowler.

But yeah, you make a point about how the god-like status of 80's quicks has been somewhat exaggerated, mostly by blokes too young to have actually seen them bowl.

To be completely honest, the same young ones tend to rate them the exact opposite too..

 

[slog sweep]

Marshall didn't quite have the radar on in this innings, and the swinging ball was certainly hooping around. If you didn't follow his career, it should be remembered that Marshall was primarily a striker: he looked to strike, and strike quickly, which is why he finished with a career SR of only 46.

If you grew up watching Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath patiently landing the ball six inches outside off stump every delivery, then it will probably be a slight culture shock watching ball by ball footage of Malcolm Marshall and Dennis Lillee, who were far more attacking minded, and were trying to get wickets, and get them in a hurry. The culture around cricket in the 70s and 80s was all about fast bowlers looking to assert themselves on a game, and being aggressive. Now, the emphasis has become all about staying patient, building scoreboard pressure, and bowling in the 'right areas'. The likes of Marshall and Lillee were far more likely to try a variety of deliveries in any given over, and were more inclined to try and blast you out, as opposed to simply staying patient, and waiting for an error.

The one thing that is completely noticeable in the clip, is how much Marshall was swinging the ball, both in and out. He didn't have it completely under control, like he usually did, but very few modern fast bowlers swing the ball that prodigiously. The modern fast bowler is more likely to hit the seam, and rely on movement off the pitch, than movement through the air. The really elite fast bowlers like Marshall, Akram, Lillee and Holding are able to do both, with equal proficiency.

It probably wasn't the best clip to showcase Marshall's talents, but if you look at the scorecard, he still finished with innings figures of 18-3-39-2, which essentially equates to an average of 19.5 and an ER of 2.16. Even in a game where he was probably only at about 65-70% of his full capabilities, he still got the job done and took two key top order wickets. The one thing that always stood out about Marshall, is that much like Wasim Akram, he bowled genuine wicket taking deliveries. Even in the innings where he wasn't quite at his best, he still chipped in with his two or three wickets, because he was a striker. Even in this innings, the two dismissals of David Boon and Steve Waugh were brought about by massive in-swingers, following a series of out-swingers, with both Boon and Waugh expecting the ball to go the other way, and shouldering arms. Very similar to Akram, he had that ability to weave a little bit of magic. When in the zone, Marshall was the type of bowler who could get two, three or four wickets in quick time, because he was such a dynamic bowler, looking to make inroads.

Rob, I am not sure whether you plan on showing any more Malcolm Marshall clips, but the Sydney Test match in 88/89, where he bowled 31 overs, and took 5-29 on a spinners paradise, would probably showcase Marshall's all-round skills slightly better. Or if you go back to 84/85, he was great in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Melbourne.

 

[bagapath]

thanks rob. the idea of you digging up and posting some older marshall videos is the best news i have heard in this year so far

 

[smash84]

It is true about Wasim that he would bowl a lot of genuine wicket taking deliveries. A lot of times he was too good for the batsman to get a touch on the ball. A lot of times even the umpire got done away.....an example of Wasim's magic.....not many that can do this.......

YouTube - Wasim Akram magic ball to Croft - Incredible

 

[robelinda]

Plenty of Marshall to come, that was just the first ball by ball stuff I found. Good to see a full spell of bowling, but it wasnt his best for sure, but he wasnt at his best for EVERY test and every innings, who wouldve thought he was human? You can see the incredible skill anyway.

 

[smash84]

That's true Rob. One can see the skill for sure.

 

[shivfan]

Here's an interesting snippet about Marshall in Michael Holding's autobiography, 'No Holding Back'....

"We were sitting down playing cards and his long pants had ridden up to his calves and I spotted he had weights strapped to his ankle. 'What are they for?' I asked him. He told me he wore them ll the time when he wasn't playing, to build up the muscles in his legs. It didn't matter whether he was relaxing in the hotel or shopping, Maco would have those weights strapped to his legs. 'When you take them off for a match, Mikey,' he said, 'You feel like you can run all day.' I was astonished, but here was a young man thinking and doing that little bit extra that would enhance his career. If you watched Maco bowl, he would sprint to the crease, really pound in so his legs would get through a lot of work. But he had put in the work, his legs were so strong." pp72-3

 

[vcs]

Hmm.. it seems Holding has written two autobiographies, I've read the one called Whispering Death: Life and Times of Michael Holding. Got it as a prize in school.

 

[weldone]

Here's an interesting snippet about Marshall in Michael Holding's autobiography, 'No Holding Back'....

"We were sitting down playing cards and his long pants had ridden up to his calves and I spotted he had weights strapped to his ankle. 'What are they for?' I asked him. He told me he wore them ll the time when he wasn't playing, to build up the muscles in his legs. It didn't matter whether he was relaxing in the hotel or shopping, Maco would have those weights strapped to his legs. 'When you take them off for a match, Mikey,' he said, 'You feel like you can run all day.' I was astonished, but here was a young man thinking and doing that little bit extra that would enhance his career. If you watched Maco bowl, he would sprint to the crease, really pound in so his legs would get through a lot of work. But he had put in the work, his legs were so strong." pp72-3

wow interestignstory...never heard of it before...

 

[Top_Cat]

The likes of Marshall and Lillee were far more likely to try a variety of deliveries in any given over, and were more inclined to try and blast you out, as opposed to simply staying patient, and waiting for an error.

Think that mischaracterises McGrath and Pollock's bowling, tbh. You don't take top level wickets without having the ability to move the ball. Marshall just moved it more.

Things were different, though. Back then you could really get in a batter's face, waste an over of nothing but short stuff and follow it up with full swinging balls going for edge or the bloke's stumps/pads. From the 90's, behaviour and bouncers were far more strictly regulated so guys have had to be more calculated. Just can't intimidate in the same way any more and that extends right down to grade level.

 

[tooextracool]

Think that mischaracterises McGrath and Pollock's bowling, tbh. You don't take top level wickets without having the ability to move the ball. Marshall just moved it more.

Things were different, though. Back then you could really get in a batter's face, waste an over of nothing but short stuff and follow it up with full swinging balls going for edge or the bloke's stumps/pads. From the 90's, behaviour and bouncers were far more strictly regulated so guys have had to be more calculated. Just can't intimidate in the same way any more and that extends right down to grade level.

Yeah margin for error is much smaller for bowlers at the moment. We've heard a great deal about how many bowlers had great bouncers in the 70s and 80s but it wasnt too hard to intimidate when few batsmen played with proper grilled helmets. McGrath and Pollock and to a lesser extent Asif are products of their own generation where batsmen are far more confident with not just better protective gear but also more powerful bats to put away deliveries with even slight miscalculations in line/length. Think people have the tendency to miss this point, especially when making futile comparisons of players across eras.

 

[slog sweep]

Think that mischaracterises McGrath and Pollock's bowling, tbh. You don't take top level wickets without having the ability to move the ball. Marshall just moved it more.

I never said that Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath bowled one straight ball after another. I said that the modern fast bowler was more likely to hit the seam, and try and move the ball off the pitch, as opposed to trying to swing it through the air, like a lot of the great fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s. Neither Pollock or McGrath were big swingers of the ball, but rather they hit the deck hard, and moved it off the wicket. The truly elite like Marshall, Akram, Lillee and Holding are able to do both, depending on the prevailing conditions, and the type of pitch they are playing on.

I have no doubt there has been a change of mindset in fast bowlers, from the times of Lillee and Marshall, to the more modern era. In the 70s and 80s, it was all about attacking, being aggressive, and striking as quickly as possible.

Guys like Pollock and McGrath had a different mentality. Their mindset was one of building scoreboard pressure, operating in the corridor of uncertainty, staying patient, hitting the right areas, and pressuring the batsman into a false stroke, or waiting for a slight lapse in concentration. Obviously they are still asking questions of a batsman's technique, but it's a more conservative approach, as opposed to the all out aggression mindset of previous generations.

It was simply an observation on how the culture of cricket has changed, and how much the tactics differ from era to era.

 

[Top_Cat]

I never said that Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath bowled one straight ball after another. I said that the modern fast bowler was more likely to hit the seam, and try and move the ball off the pitch, as opposed to trying to swing it through the air, like a lot of the great fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s. Neither Pollock or McGrath were big swingers of the ball, but rather they hit the deck hard, and moved it off the wicket. The truly elite like Marshall, Akram, Lillee and Holding are able to do both, depending on the prevailing conditions, and the type of pitch they are playing on.

I have no doubt there has been a change of mindset in fast bowlers, from the times of Lillee and Marshall, to the more modern era. In the 70s and 80s, it was all about attacking, being aggressive, and striking as quickly as possible.

Guys like Pollock and McGrath had a different mentality. Their mindset was one of building scoreboard pressure, operating in the corridor of uncertainty, staying patient, hitting the right areas, and pressuring the batsman into a false stroke, or waiting for a slight lapse in concentration. Obviously they are still asking questions of a batsman's technique, but it's a more conservative approach, as opposed to the all out aggression mindset of previous generations.

It was simply an observation on how the culture of cricket has changed, and how much the tactics differ from era to era.

I still don't think the McG's and Marshalls are worlds apart like you seem to be inferring in this post and others. The big variable has been pitches, there have been far more flat ones in the past 20 years. Bowler's from earlier years could be on the attack more often than more contemporary quicks simply because they had more occasions to show it off, less legislation preventing intimidation, etc. But on flat decks, guys like Marshall, Lillee definitely had the ability to throttle back, hit the channel, rely on seam movement, etc. and, for want of a better term, bowl a McGrath-esque style. Was one of the most heavily trumpeted assets of the best quicks from that time i.e. on the more rare occasions where they had little to work with, they still managed to take wickets.

Similarly, the best of more recent times proved could adapt. Playing on more flat decks, McGrath and co. had to bowl in that fashion more often but on the rare occasions where there was some juice in the deck or in the air, McGrath and others were just as destructive as Marshall and co. with big movement too. Marshall bowled with big swing but on a green deck, McGrath's seam movement was incredible, made many top batters look foolish. I definitely wouldn't agree that they were relying on false strokes on those occasions, they were definitely trying to rip through blokes, take the edge, etc.

Top operators of any era adapt to the prevailing conditions, have little doubt Marshall transported to the flat decks of the 00's would have been successful and McGrath transported to the early 80's would have been so too. Both quality, quality bowlers from what I've seen of them.

 

[MrIncredible]

I still don't think the McG's and Marshalls are worlds apart like you seem to be inferring in this post and others. The big variable has been pitches, there have been far more flat ones in the past 20 years. Bowler's from earlier years could be on the attack more often than more contemporary quicks simply because they had more occasions to show it off, less legislation preventing intimidation, etc. But on flat decks, guys like Marshall, Lillee definitely had the ability to throttle back, hit the channel, rely on seam movement, etc. and, for want of a better term, bowl a McGrath-esque style. Was one of the most heavily trumpeted assets of the best quicks from that time i.e. on the more rare occasions where they had little to work with, they still managed to take wickets.

Similarly, the best of more recent times proved could adapt. Playing on more flat decks, McGrath and co. had to bowl in that fashion more often but on the rare occasions where there was some juice in the deck or in the air, McGrath and others were just as destructive as Marshall and co. with big movement too. Marshall bowled with big swing but on a green deck, McGrath's seam movement was incredible, made many top batters look foolish. I definitely wouldn't agree that they were relying on false strokes on those occasions, they were definitely trying to rip through blokes, take the edge, etc.

Top operators of any era adapt to the prevailing conditions, have little doubt Marshall transported to the flat decks of the 00's would have been successful and McGrath transported to the early 80's would have been so too. Both quality, quality bowlers from what I've seen of them.

Well Said!!!!

 

[slog sweep]

The gap between the top 10 fast bowlers of all time is very small, and you can make an argument for any one of them, depending on personal preference and what you admire in a cricketer. When there is so little difference in terms of influence and statistics, I generally bring it back to skill, and sheer brilliance. Personally, that's what I most admire.

I like observing the skills of a player, and the real cricketing geniuses like Richards, Lara, Warne, Akram and Marshall, who are just wonderfully brilliant and skillful, are the players that I generally rate highest. Having said that, I also greatly admire the courage and single-mindedness of a tough as nails warrior, like Allan Border or Steve Waugh. There is no science to it, and it all essentially comes down to personal preference. For what it's worth, I would rate McGrath in the top 6 fast bowers of all time, but I would probably rate Marshall as the best.

That's not that big a gap, is it?

As for swing bowling, that has very little to do with the state of the pitch, unless it's reverse swing, and you are relying on one side of the ball to become roughed up, and sometimes bowling on a hard surface, assists with this. In general, swing bowling comes down to the atmospheric conditions, and the position of the wrist. It's a technical thing. You have to get the wrist and the fingers in the right position, and release the ball in a certain way. For some fast bowlers, it comes naturally, while others never come to terms with it.

 

[Top_Cat]

The gap between the top 10 fast bowlers of all time is very small, and you can make an argument for any one of them, depending on personal preference and what you admire in a cricketer. When there is so little difference in terms of influence and statistics, I generally bring it back to skill, and sheer brilliance. Personally, that's what I most admire.

I like observing the skills of a player, and the real cricketing geniuses like Richards, Lara,
Warne, Akram and Marshall, who are just wonderfully brilliant and skillful, are the players that I generally rate highest. Having said that, I also greatly admire the courage and
single-mindedness of a tough as nails warrior, like Allan Border or Steve Waugh. There is no science to it, and it all essentially comes down to personal preference. For what it's worth, I would rate McGrath in the top 6 fast bowers of all time, but I would probably rate Marshall as the best.

That's not that big a gap, is it?

Fair enough. Not denying I'm the same with certain players (love Ponting, hate Kallis, etc.)

As for swing bowling, that has very little to do with the state of the pitch, unless it's
reverse swing, and you are relying on one side of the ball to become roughed up, and sometimes bowling on a hard surface, assists with this. In general, swing bowling comes down to the atmospheric conditions, and the position of the wrist. It's a technical thing. You have to get the wrist and the fingers in the right position, and release the ball in a certain way. For some fast bowlers, it comes naturally, while others never come to terms with it.

In terms of technique, the same can be applied to seam bowling. Good seamers get useful amounts of it on even the flattest pitches, can largely control the direction and getting fingers into the right position, keeping the seam upright, etc. is surely as much a technical/skillful thing as swing?

As far as I'm aware, the research on the topic doesn't add up to much. In my experience, the swing you get on matting differs drastically to that which you get on turf so there's that but I've seen differences in the amount of swing between turf pitches depending how damp the pitch is. I've heard various theories of the greater humidity in the immediate surroundings on grassier pitches but you'd think that would work in opposition to any Magnus/Bernoulli-type of phenomena in conventional swing (not much evidence in general).

There's also the obvious; a greener and therefore software pitch will preserve the shine longer and won't disturb the shape as much as a rough, dry pitch. Maybe that's the bigger factor but either way, I don't really agree that it's a pure skill thing and that the pitch doesn't play much of a role.

It's a toughie, though, because the 'evidence' for that is largely what I got playing the game. Could be that green pitches just meant more seam and with the vigorous nature of delivering the ball, when I looked up after letting go, I saw seam and mistook it for swing, etc.

 

[tooextracool]

Think there are many factors that relate to swing, and I dont think its as easy as saying it has everything to do with atmospheric conditions. For example, its hard to think of anyone over the last 20 years or so who has swung that ball as prodigiously in Australia as Marshall did at Brisbane in those clips. It cant just be that people have forgotten how to bowl, especially when you consider the likes of Wasim, Waqar and Donald all experts of swing bowling struggling to get the same kind of movement in Australia that we know they can get, and it cant just be that the atmosphere was playing tricks on them either. Certainly there must be some other factors involved that have hindered even some of the best swing bowlers around from being consistently effective across the world.