Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Slifer]

Mcgrath to me. Marshall had the benefit of bowling to batsmen without helmets, which might have jackedup his figures a bit. just a bit.
Mcgrath could have played in any era and would have had the same success. That blind spot for batsmen has never been expoited better.

Umm helmets were very much in wide use by the time MM debuted and were quite widespread by the time he retired. If youve seen clips of him bowling to batsmen without helmets (ex A Border) its because they choose not to wear 'em.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

the India team of the 90s and 00s is much better than the 80s. The batting line-up, especially, was awesome.

I'll give you that 2000s Indian batting > 1980s Indian batting. But not by the seemingly huge margin that you claim. All things considered, I'd say it's a close but fairly distinct margin.

But I am very interested in knowing as to why 1990s Indian batting is better than Indian batting of the 1980s, according to you? A batting line-up of a world-class Tendulkar, a home giant Azhar, a young champion Dravid, a footwork lacking FTB Ganguly, a Nayan Mongia and others doesn't exactly sound like an intimidating prospect to a bowler of McGrath's class.

Over-reliance on Tendulkar is a factor not to be overlooked when the 90s Indian side is being discussed.

FTR, since we are comparing two fast bowlers, the (de) merits of the batting line-ups just against pace are in question. And mainly in challenging away conditions where the ball is expected to do things in the air and off the deck.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

I can't believe there exist people that claim India were a better batting side in the 80s than in the 00s Now I've heard it all.

Even I am curious to know who has claimed that the 80s lineup is better than the one in 00s.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Just want to mention something in general and I'm assuming that Smalishah and others think the same way.

While we think Marshall is the better bowler (by a small margin), there is absolutely no issue if someone else thinks McGrath is better. Disingenuous claims to further a cricketing great's case is what puts most true cricket lovers off.

Needless to say that an opening attack of Marshall and McGrath would be a very challenging proposition for any batting line-up on any surface on the planet.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Umm helmets were very much in wide use by the time MM debuted and were quite widespread by the time he retired. If youve seen clips of him bowling to batsmen without helmets (ex A Border) its because they choose not to wear 'em.

Spot on! Helmets were widely in use after the Packer era (1977/'78). Although a few batsmen were habituated to batting bare-headed and preferred to continue that way, it wasn't because of a lack of availability.

 

[smash84]

Agreed that the standard of bowling in 90s was higher than 80s. What about 2000s vs. 80s? It is my opinion, and purely my own, that the global bowling standards reduced drastically post 1999/'00 or so. Many fine/great fast bowlers retiring in that period being the major reason.

This. So this.

Mcgrath to me. Marshall had the benefit of bowling to batsmen without helmets, which might have jackedup his figures a bit. just a bit.
Mcgrath could have played in any era and would have had the same success. That blind spot for batsmen has never been expoited better.

......dude when did you start watching cricket? 2009? Helmets have been around since WSC in the 70s. They were available all throughout the 80s.

 

[Slifer]

Just want to mention something in general and I'm assuming that Smalishah and others think the same way.

While we think Marshall is the better bowler (by a small margin), there is absolutely no issue if someone else thinks McGrath is better. Disingenuous claims to further a cricketing great's case is what puts most true cricket lovers off.Needless to say that an opening attack of Marshall and McGrath would be a very challenging proposition for any batting line-up on any surface on the planet.

Perfect example: "Really not that close. Moreover, Marshall's record is really flattered by 3 tests in India, he was pretty crappy in the others there." Guess by who??

 

[smash84]

Just want to mention something in general and I'm assuming that Smalishah and others think the same way.

While we think Marshall is the better bowler (by a small margin), there is absolutely no issue if someone else thinks McGrath is better. Disingenuous claims to further a cricketing great's case is what puts most true cricket lovers off.

Needless to say that an opening attack of Marshall and McGrath would be a very challenging proposition for any batting line-up on any surface on the planet.

awta

 

[stephen]

There's always the first time to experience things You just had your first experience. To make it even better I don't think I'd have Don Bradman as even in the top 3 undisputedly. He'd be joint third along with Sachin Tendulkar in my book.

I hope this forum ain't too much of a religious place coz you will hear lotsa blasphemous stuff from me.

Genuinely curious as to how you rate Bradman behind three other players, one of which is a pure batsman. What do you have to back up this belief?

Tendulkar is great, and arguably the second best batsman of all time (probably only rivalled by Sobers, Ponting and Lara), but unless you are counting sheer volume of runs there is no statistic which is in Tendulkar's favour. And Tendulkar has damned impressive statistics!

Tendulkar
181 tests
298 innings
14965 runs
248* highest score
56.25 average
51 centuries
61 half centuries

Bradman
52 tests
80 innings
6996 runs
334 highest score
99.94 average
29 centuries
13 half centuries

Bradman also played until he was 40 (which it's possible Tendulkar might do) and showed no signs of slowing down. He even lost a good number of peak years to WWII. He has an average some 4.5 standard deviations above the mean, which is obscene. How can he be rated more highly or even equally to any other batsman?

 

[centurymaker]

Genuinely curious as to how you rate Bradman behind three other players, one of which is a pure batsman. What do you have to back up this belief?

Tendulkar is great, and arguably the second best batsman of all time (probably only rivalled by Sobers, Ponting and Lara), but unless you are counting sheer volume of runs there is no statistic which is in Tendulkar's favour. And Tendulkar has damned impressive statistics!

Tendulkar
181 tests
298 innings
14965 runs
248* highest score
56.25 average
51 centuries
61 half centuries

Bradman
52 tests
80 innings
6996 runs
334 highest score
99.94 average
29 centuries
13 half centuries

Bradman also played until he was 40 (which it's possible Tendulkar might do) and showed no signs of slowing down. He even lost a good number of peak years to WWII. He has an average some 4.5 standard deviations above the mean, which is obscene. How can he be rated more highly or even equally to any other batsman?

tendulkar's not even done enough to secure the 2nd position so this comparison is haha silly.
however he's certainly in the top 5/6.




15 ATGs (in no particular order )

richards
chappell
tendulkar
lara
bradman
sobers
hammond
headley
hobbs
ponting
gavaskar
hutton
waugh
dravid
Pollock / B Richards/kallis

excluding bradman the difference among these guys is mimimal

the 2nd best player won't be more than 15% better than the 15th best player.

2nd to 3rd probably 1-3%

this is how close they are to each other IMO.

 

[Ikki]

it is quite debatable actually. Marshall had to bowl at home bullies as well as batsmen who were guns away from home.

He didn't, Amarnath was awful at home so that is one less reliable batsman that you can tout. The others, apart from Gavaskar, and the aforementioned Amarnath, were crap away from home.

The idea that the 80s lineup was as good as the 90s/00s one is revisionism.

????? WOW i knew u were desperate but wow!!!

I deal in facts:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Played 9, was great in 3 and ranged from below par to abysmal in the other 6.

Please read carefully what I wrote again.

"Sehwag played just one test away from home in which McGrath was also participating."

Away from Sehwag's home, that means outside India. That only test was the ICC XI vs. Aus played at Sydney, 2005.

The intention was to specifically analyse the merits of the Indian batsmen in away conditions against McGrath. Sehwag vs. McGrath does not give us a decent sample size. I've already mentioned what I think would have happened if such a contest would have taken place.

Sorry mate, for some reason I read that completely the opposite way. Anyway, not sure if that is very important. Sehwag in India, really, is a monster, and McGrath did well against him. In Aus it is even more to McGrath's advantage.

It's good if I clarify something at the onset. Stats are one of the many pointers I use for reference. Expert opinions, visual impressions and unquantifiable merits (like batting well with the tail) go a long way in my assessment of a player.

Mohinder Amarnath, IMHO, was a genuinely great player of fast bowling. Much superior to Ganguly or Laxman. That is based on a wide range of opinions and in Jimmy's case, stats seem to bear it out. His away average, as you very rightly pointed out, is 50+.

If you reckon that Laxman or Ganguly were as good as (or possibly better than).Amarnath in playing pace, then I'm interested to know the reasoning behind that.

IMO you can't pick and choose. Amarnath may have been great against the WIndies (and only away from home - he averaged 17 at home), but he was also poor elsewhere, against inferior opposition. This legacy of him built up steers away from reality. And that is; someone like Ganguly averaged about the same as him; Laxman more and was far more consistent in scoring runs home and away.

The implication being that the level of difficulty a Tendulkar or a Gavaskar faced while batting would have been more or less the same. Is there a way to quantify that? Not a blight on you or the argument in any sense, but I always experience this classical problem when trying to compare across eras!

It's difficult to compare but, really, the 90s was the most competitive era in terms of bowlers. In hard stats they come ahead; and it wasn't just one all-time great surrounded by some mediocrity...but genuinely great bowling attacks.

For the sake of argument, let's call them equals. My point is: what about Dravid? He is only a hair's width from them and Gavaskar had no such teammate to compare with.

Agreed that the standard of bowling in 90s was higher than 80s. What about 2000s vs. 80s? It is my opinion, and purely my own, that the global bowling standards reduced drastically post 1999/'00 or so. Many fine/great fast bowlers retiring in that period being the major reason.

Also the pitches eased out and that is something both of us agree on. The fact that McGrath performed brilliantly in such an era must also be kept in mind, in the context of this thread.

Up until about 02/03 I'd say it was still generally of a high standard, at least to the standard of the 80s and whilst it started slipping it was still comparable somewhat. The era may have had less great bowlers, but the attacks were probably more even. And then again there is a chicken and egg scenario: were the bowlers just not good enough or did the pitches inhibit them from hitting such strides?

Another point to consider, IMO, is that I think around 00s the batsmen learned to play with more risk yet maximise their scoring. The SRs drop for bowlers, rise for batsmen but the averages of the batsmen increase, same for the bowlers - showing that they scored more whilst at the crease and got more money's worth for their shots.

And you still didn't get back on the Kapil-Shastri factor. The India team of the 80s batted deeper and had lower order players (Binny, Madan et. al.) who could play genuine pace better - courtesy of batting day in and day out on livelier pitches in that era. So, am not really sure if the Indian line-up of the 90s (over-reliance on Sachin was a factor) was that much greater than the one in the 80s, if at all.

I knew what you were trying to get at but there are comparable batsmen in the modern India squad. Might as well name someone like Chopra or Kaif. They don't really make the difference and I think Marshall would have liked less to face the modern Indian line-up.

There is another thread going on about the top 5 Indian batsmen. For me, 4 of them come from this era (Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman).

 

[Ikki]

I'll give you that 2000s Indian batting > 1980s Indian batting. But not by the seemingly huge margin that you claim. All things considered, I'd say it's a close but fairly distinct margin.

But I am very interested in knowing as to why 1990s Indian batting is better than Indian batting of the 1980s, according to you? A batting line-up of a world-class Tendulkar, a home giant Azhar, a young champion Dravid, a footwork lacking FTB Ganguly, a Nayan Mongia and others doesn't exactly sound like an intimidating prospect to a bowler of McGrath's class.

Over-reliance on Tendulkar is a factor not to be overlooked when the 90s Indian side is being discussed.

FTR, since we are comparing two fast bowlers, the (de) merits of the batting line-ups just against pace are in question. And mainly in challenging away conditions where the ball is expected to do things in the air and off the deck.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en..._average;team=6;template=results;type=batting

In terms of stats, the 80s comes behind the 00s by a long way, and is also behind the 90s (which, to be fair, was also much better era than both in terms of bowling).

 

[GotSpin]

Genuinely curious as to how you rate Bradman behind three other players, one of which is a pure batsman. What do you have to back up this belief?

Tendulkar is great, and arguably the second best batsman of all time (probably only rivalled by Sobers, Ponting and Lara), but unless you are counting sheer volume of runs there is no statistic which is in Tendulkar's favour. And Tendulkar has damned impressive statistics!

Tendulkar
181 tests
298 innings
14965 runs
248* highest score
56.25 average
51 centuries
61 half centuries

Bradman
52 tests
80 innings
6996 runs
334 highest score
99.94 average
29 centuries
13 half centuries

Bradman also played until he was 40 (which it's possible Tendulkar might do) and showed no signs of slowing down. He even lost a good number of peak years to WWII. He has an average some 4.5 standard deviations above the mean, which is obscene. How can he be rated more highly or even equally to any other batsman?

The guy is clearly obsessed with Tendulkar.

 

[Slifer]

He didn't, Amarnath was awful at home so that is one less reliable batsman that you can tout. The others, apart from Gavaskar, and the aforementioned Amarnath, were crap away from home.

The idea that the 80s lineup was as good as the 90s/00s one is revisionism.



I deal in facts:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Played 9, was great in 3 and ranged from below par to abysmal in the other 6.



Sorry mate, for some reason I read that completely the opposite way. Anyway, not sure if that is very important. Sehwag in India, really, is a monster, and McGrath did well against him. In Aus it is even more to McGrath's advantage.



IMO you can't pick and choose. Amarnath may have been great against the WIndies (and only away from home - he averaged 17 at home), but he was also poor elsewhere, against inferior opposition. This legacy of him built up steers away from reality. And that is; someone like Ganguly averaged about the same as him; Laxman more and was far more consistent in scoring runs home and away.



It's difficult to compare but, really, the 90s was the most competitive era in terms of bowlers. In hard stats they come ahead; and it wasn't just one all-time great surrounded by some mediocrity...but genuinely great bowling attacks.

For the sake of argument, let's call them equals. My point is: what about Dravid? He is only a hair's width from them and Gavaskar had no such teammate to compare with.



Up until about 02/03 I'd say it was still generally of a high standard, at least to the standard of the 80s and whilst it started slipping it was still comparable somewhat. The era may have had less great bowlers, but the attacks were probably more even. And then again there is a chicken and egg scenario: were the bowlers just not good enough or did the pitches inhibit them from hitting such strides?

Another point to consider, IMO, is that I think around 00s the batsmen learned to play with more risk yet maximise their scoring. The SRs drop for bowlers, rise for batsmen but the averages of the batsmen increase, same for the bowlers - showing that they scored more whilst at the crease and got more money's worth for their shots.



I knew what you were trying to get at but there are comparable batsmen in the modern India squad. Might as well name someone like Chopra or Kaif. They don't really make the difference and I think Marshall would have liked less to face the modern Indian line-up.

There is another thread going on about the top 5 Indian batsmen. For me, 4 of them come from this era (Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman).

Dude I knew u were desparate but stats picking just to prove a point. I can do the same with Glenn Mcgrath very easily. And ftr, the first few tests MM played in India were his debut tests playing in a WI 2nd XI. See this is y i didnt want this thread in the first place because of people like u.

Its fine if u wanna think Mcgrath is better but when u come with these disingenious arguments just leaves a really bad taste in ones mouth.

 

[Ikki]

Dude I knew u were desparate but stats picking just to prove a point. I can do the same with Glenn Mcgrath very easily. And ftr, the first few tests MM played in India were his debut tests playing in a WI 2nd XI. See this is y i didnt want this thread in the first place because of people like u.

Its fine if u wanna think Mcgrath is better but when u come with these disingenious arguments just leaves a really bad taste in ones mouth.

First you insinuate I make things up (since logic and stats don't work on me, evidently) then when I bring you stats you claim that it's stat-picking. So was I right or not? He was crap other than 3 of his 9 Tests where he was so brilliant it fixes his ratios. Of course, I agree with you; that is cricket - often, that is how it works; crap in some games, great in others. But my point was to show that even against this line-up Marshall had trouble and so I think he'd have had more trouble with the Indian line-up in McGrath's era. It's not merely that he just wasn't at his best against them at times but in some of those games he could barely buy a wicket or was very expensive. If runs against him in this instance don't matter because he was debuting or the line-up wasn't as strong (Hadlee, and Lillee to an extent are chuckling at this one); then by the same logic the runs Vengsarkar, Gavaskar et al made that boosted their reputations should also mean less.

What I find ironic in your constant pandering to reveal my bias is that you show your own in the process. If you're going to debate the point; then do so. Stop trying to get so personal to avoid discussion. It is fine if you think Marshall is better, but don't attack the poster because you are insecure about people critiquing his record.

 

[Spark]

Keep it civil fellas.

 

[Ikki]

As much as I respect the mods around here, the above warning really shouldn't apply to me. Did I say the poster in question can't/doesn't understand stats or facts? Did I insinuate his bias precludes him from giving an intelligible opinion? I didn't; but the poster in question has done so in my direction.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Genuinely curious as to how you rate Bradman behind three other players, one of which is a pure batsman. What do you have to back up this belief?

Rather simple - the best "cricketer" obviously will be someone who has done everything in cricket or at least close to everything. So all rounders get that extra bit of bias from me over there (not surprising since Kapil Dev has been me childhood hero).

The reason I rate Imran slightly over Sobers is because Imran demonstrated greater qualities in one other department which is very unique to our game only - captaincy. Imran's bowling and Sobers batting cancel out and vice versa. But still 183:182 is fair I guess.

Coming to Bradman not clearly number 3 coz I think Sachin is number 3. Maybe Bradman is on par with Sachin...again my bias - I haven't seen Bradman play. Stats only tell half the story everything else is conjecture and belief.

Live with the fact that there is a blasphemous person around. Call him insane, call him a ****** but just know that he ain't gonna put Bradman ahead of Sachin as far as batting stakes are concerned.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

The guy is clearly obsessed with Tendulkar.

See...you got it right. Why can't people be like you and go away instead of crying blasphemy. Teach them something, GotSpin

 

[Slifer]

First you insinuate I make things up (since logic and stats don't work on me, evidently) then when I bring you stats you claim that it's stat-picking. So was I right or not? He was crap other than 3 of his 9 Tests where he was so brilliant it fixes his ratios. Of course, I agree with you; that is cricket - often, that is how it works; crap in some games, great in others. But my point was to show that even against this line-up Marshall had trouble and so I think he'd have had more trouble with the Indian line-up in McGrath's era. It's not merely that he just wasn't at his best against them at times but in some of those games he could barely buy a wicket or was very expensive.

What I find ironic in your constant pandering to reveal my bias is that you show your own in the process. If you're going to debate the point; then do so. Stop trying to get so personal to avoid discussion. It is fine if you think Marshall is better, but don't attack the poster because you are insecure about people critiquing his record.

We already had this out before. DO I think MM would do worst vs India, no. I cant think of ne great fast bowler (Amby excepting) who played the great Indian lineups of the 90s and 00 who didnt have a very good to great record vs them. That list includes the very underated Courtney Walsh.

Anyway Ive already been warned so I'll leave well enough alone. Suffice to say that the poll results speak for itself.