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

[Prince EWS]

TEC in "you only bowl well if I say so regardless of how effective you were" shocker.

 

[vcs]

Actually, people said that Australia finally won in India in 2004 when they employed a more "defensive" style of bowling (somewhat akin to what S. African bowlers bar Steyn specialize in) and field placing. They really restricted the run-scoring rate in that series and played on the patience of the Indian batsmen. I can remember Kasprowicz in particular doing that role very well in that series.

 

[tooextracool]

TEC in "you only bowl well if I say so regardless of how effective you were" shocker.

Can you explain why there should be perfect correlation between bowling well and taking wickets? There is such a thing as luck in this world, there is also such a thing as a batsman playing poor shots and there is also such a thing as a poor batsman. To assume that someone bowled well/bowled poorly simply because of the numbers is one of the worst ways to analyze the game.

 

[vcs]

Can you explain why there should be perfect correlation between bowling well and taking wickets? There is such a thing as luck in this world, there is also such a thing as a batsman playing poor shots and there is also such a thing as a poor batsman. To assume that someone bowled well/bowled poorly simply because of the numbers is one of the worst ways to analyze the game.

You could say that if his stats in 2001 looked something like 15 wickets at 25, striking at 55. This is a classic case of the stats not leaving any room for further argument.

 

[Spark]

Heaven forbid bowling be about taking wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

Really? My understanding is that bowling was about winning games. Taking 2/40 from 25 overs doesnt exactly do that unless you have 5 bowlers like you who do exactly the same thing, which is unlikely.

 

[honestbharani]

Well there are many factors aside from how much swing a guy is getting that impact on whether we even get to see them too. Michael Kasprowicz, for example, used to swing the ball miles on the 'Gabba but since those skills weren't as useful as seam bowling as pitches flattened out, he didn't get picked as often as he might have.

There's other selection issues too. Can only speak of Australia but there have always been more blokes around who can seam the ball and bowl at Test level than swing bowlers who could. Whether true or not, swing bowlers have generally been looked at here as guys you pick for the right conditions only as they give away too many runs looking for swing. Those guys aren't going to get much of a go in the ODI side so it basically comes down why you would bother picking them at all. Only really top bowlers (Fleming, McDermott) got through and even then, Fleming only got a go once he ditched the idea of being a med-fast swing bowler, started hitting the seam and added 5-10Km/h to his pace.

So we've seen blokes who could swing the ball quite a ways being relegated to grade duties. They've been there but just not getting as much of a go even at state level. The more artful parts of cricket (spin, swing) tend to get trumped by conservatism in this country, I reckon.

Would perhaps explain why the cream of the crop Aussie batsmen seem to struggle so much the moment they see someone get some good swing???



Obviously exaggerating a bit there, but boy were they clueless at the MCG..

 

[nexxus]

Probably fair to say that Marshall's the better when compared to McGrath, Malcolm did play for Natal and Glenn didn't and that's all that really matters in the end I think.

But seriously, not really the most scientific way of judging it but even at the very end of his career, you could see that Marshall was something special. You could watch him bowl all day (and he probably was still fit enough to) and he's nip that ball around like he'd enabled some sort of cheat mode. Got his autograph (and the rest of that old Natal team) and I'd never sell it.

McGrath was awesome but whereas his policy was "I'm gonna get you in the end" Marshall was much more "I'm already sick of you, I want you gone now." The latter is always more entertaining.

 

[honestbharani]

TEC in "you only bowl well if I say so regardless of how effective you were" shocker.

PEWS in "I contribute sly one liners that don't take discussions anywhere" shocker..

 

[smash84]

PEWS in "I contribute sly one liners that don't take discussions anywhere" shocker..

 

[shivfan]

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.

I haven't read Whispering Death, but I believe that was about his cricket career....

In contrast, No Holding Back only devotes half of the book to his cricket-playing days. The rest is about his commentary, Stanford, his love of horses, etc.

 

[abmk]

DWTA. Most who watched both Gillespie and McGrath bowl that series said that Gillespie was the one that deserved more credit and was a constant threat all series. The figures might not really reflect that but McGrath kind of just put it out there outside off stump and prayed that someone would edge it but Gillespie genuinely tried to get batsmen out.

The 2004/05 version of McGrath bowled reverse, cutters etc and genuinely looked like a wicket taker.

really ? IMO, mcgrath was the better bowler in the 2001 series and gillespie the better bowler in the 2004 series

and no, mcgrath didn't just put it outside the off-stump and wait for the batsman to make mistakes in the 2001 series.

you don't strike at ~48 on SC against a good batting line-up that way !

17 wickets in 3 tests at @ 15.35 with a S/R of 48.1 in the 2001 series

took 14 wickets in 4 tests @ 25.4 and striking at 60 in the 2004 series (FYI mcgrath went wicketless in the chennai test in 2004 )

This when the Indian batting line-up was in FAR superior form in 2001 series than in the 2004 series

 

[robelinda]

McGrath was MUCH better in 2001, was pretty darn good in 2004 too. Gillespie was awesome in 2004.

 

[honestbharani]

McGrath was MUCH better in 2001, was pretty darn good in 2004 too. Gillespie was awesome in 2004.

TBH, I thought both of them were equally good.. but Gillespie a little better in 2001 as it looked as if he was more likely to get a batsman out than McGrath esp. after the first test..

 

[hang on]

i have watched a lot of marshall, and to my mind, i have never seen another fast bowler with the same range of skills at his disposal. from pure speed to swing, from cut/seam to bounce. a perfect combination of a pure fast bowler with the mind of a truly devious spinner!

that said, i have also watched a lot of tendulkar and would not have any hesitation in saying that he would not have had undue problems playing marshall. to my mind, both belong at the very pinnacle of their respective crafts, and would have had many an interesting tussle had the gods and the time lords allowed such olympian bouts to transpire.

 

[smash84]

i have watched a lot of marshall, and to my mind, i have never seen another fast bowler with the same range of skills at his disposal. from pure speed to swing, from cut/seam to bounce. a perfect combination of a pure fast bowler with the mind of a truly devious spinner!
.

Wasim Akram?

 

[hang on]

akram would be close. but marshall was primus inter pares, in a manner of speaking.

 

[smash84]

akram would be close. but marshall was primus inter pares, in a manner of speaking.

I don't think Marshall could swing the old ball. Marshall was probably a better bowling machine than Wasim but I would have to say that Wasim could probably do more with the ball. He could make the old ball swing both ways in the air and off the pitch. Something Marshall was not so good at because he wasn't really known for reverse swing.

 

[shivfan]

I don't think Marshall could swing the old ball. Marshall was probably a better bowling machine than Wasim but I would have to say that Wasim could probably do more with the ball. He could make the old ball swing both ways in the air and off the pitch. Something Marshall was not so good at because he wasn't really known for reverse swing.

On the contrary, Marshall swung the ball a lot after he passed the age of 30, as he changed his style of bowling to cope with the changing demands of advancing age....

Shaun Pollock has credited Marshall with teaching him how to bowl reverse swing.

 

[smash84]

Shaun Pollock has credited Marshall with teaching him how to bowl reverse swing.

He might have taught him to bowl reverse swing but having seen a bit of Marshall towards the end of his career I don't recall any reverse swing from him nor is he known for pulling it off on too many occasions.