Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Ikki]

McGrath is a greater bowler than Lee, without a doubt. But the latter does better than the former against S.Africa. Logic like the above only goes so far - just because Ambrose/Walsh did well (and TBF, they didn't face the Indian batting line-up of the 00s which was even better) doesn't guarantee Marshall would have. If there were many quality batting sides around Marshall's era and he had done well I'd be on your side of the fence. But I don't think there was, and that is where we clearly differ.

 

[indiaholic]

lol what a clown

Still not as good a clown as you.

 

[kyear2]

Once again the batting sides of the 00's was not any better than the ones of the 80's. Does anyone here believe that Sehwag and Hayden would have been as successfull if they had to face Imran, Marshall, Holding, Hadlee, Lillee, Ambrose, Akram, Donald on a consistent basis.
In a previous post it was suggested that Mcgrath was much better than Ambrose because Ambrose retired just as the pitches were flattened. But to counter that argument I showed that Mcgraths average was better in the 00's than the 90's. The players of today are not equiped to deal with great fast bowlers, hence why most seem all at sea againts Steyn or why Sehwag looks lost at the slightest hint of swing or seam. There is a dearth of quality fast bowling today which has resulted in inflated batting averages and boosted averages. But by a close examination of stats and by watching the players who can still tell the great ones apart. Great players, Batsmen and Bowlers transcend eras after say the 50's it fair to say that if you were succesfull in one era, you would have been in any era. Steyn, Mcgrath, Murali, Warne shows that success id possible even in this "dead" era, because class is class, regardless.
People adjust Richards average, not because of era, but because of style of play and opposition. Chappell played in the true helmetless era of the 70's and he was one of the true greats, just like Pollock, Sobers ect.
Stop trying to create differences in era to tear down players. Taking 376 wks at 20.94 and a S/R of 47, is nothing to scoff at and attribute just to a weak era. He played everywhere againts everyone, and he did it well. Leave it at that

 

[Ikki]

Your points are contradictory. On one hand you point to McGrath's average in the 90s being lower than the 00s to say that bowling didn't get harder and then you refute that by mentioning that the batting averages rose in the 00s - and they did, by some 3 points per batsman. McGrath simply got better...much better, even when bowlers everywhere were getting used to batsmen taking more risks (higher SRs) and suffering because of it (higher bowling ERs). Yet you use him as the distinguisher and not the global averages of every other bowler. Which is insulting to McGrath and every other bowler post 2000.

The reality is that whilst both are all-time greats, McGrath's era was more competitive; higher in quality and more in terms of depth. To mention this is to be accurate and discuss the differences between them. It's curious why this bothers some people - as if finding out the truth is something of an insult to Marshall. No one is arguing that because Marshall was a great in the 80s he wouldn't have been in McGrath's era; but it is debatable he would have had the same pristine record and stats. When you are discussing bowlers as great as this, such facets make a difference.

 

[kyear2]

His stats in the 90's were more of less the same as Donalds, Akrams, Ambrose ect. What he did was no more special that the names mentioned. The stats of the batsmen were better, not the quality. Name the other great fast bowlers after 2003. Strauss got a bouncer from Ishant at mid-low 80's and you have believed that he was bounced by lillee. The bowlers of this era just arn good enough and as such, batting stas have been inflated. Think Chappell or Greenidge would have taken this instead of the attacks they faced?

 

[Ikki]

Donald, Ambrose, Akram... you are talking about all-time greats. To be as good as them is to be essentially as great as anyone who has picked up a ball. The 90s was only the first half of his career, mind you. Suffice to say; he improved.

"The stats of the batsmen were better, not the quality", aside from the fact that in comparison to the 80s you're wrong; it is irrelevant for the purposes of comparing stats. Whether you like it or not bowlers averaged higher in the 00s; it was more expensive because batsmen were scoring more runs - averaging higher. Therefore an average of 21 in the 00s is not the same as an average of 21 in the 90s. You have to be bowling above yourself in the 00s to merely have the same average.

In the 80s, you had some great bowlers and some great batsmen; but in comparison to McGrath's era fewer and farther in between. With regard to Marshall; he never faced Chappell nor Greenidge (his own team where most of the best batsmen came from). Which is why mentioning the strength of the opposition is wholly relevant here and does not need to be swept under the carpet.

 

[smash84]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

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).

Actually this goes on to prove how poor the bowling was in the 00s compared to the 80s. The bowlers in the 00s just lacked the skills that their predecessors had. Anybody who has followed the game since the 80s will tell you that. The surprising thing is that whichever good bowlers from the 90s were present in the 00s did extremely well. Warne, Murali, McGrath, Pollock. So yeah actually these stats quite support the hypothesis that kyear2 and some of the other posters have come up with.

 

[smash84]

His stats in the 90's were more of less the same as Donalds, Akrams, Ambrose ect. What he did was no more special that the names mentioned. The stats of the batsmen were better, not the quality. Name the other great fast bowlers after 2003. Strauss got a bouncer from Ishant at mid-low 80's and you have believed that he was bounced by lillee. The bowlers of this era just arn good enough and as such, batting stas have been inflated. Think Chappell or Greenidge would have taken this instead of the attacks they faced?

What you say is actually borne out by the stats that ikki posted earlier. You can see my post above.

 

[kyear2]

I also rate Mcgrath very highly, but similar to Tendulkar he is in my all time team, due more to his longevity and sustained excellence. But in their prime I rate Lara and probably Ponting ahead of Sachin. Lara in particular possessed an unmatched genius and flair, but no where as consistent or technical as Tendulkar. Similarly Ambrose, Donald and Younis at their best were more spectacular and considerably more of a handful than the consistent Mcgrath, who once admitted to boring out batsmen. But Mcgrath and Tendulkar passed the test of time, and so deserve their lofty rankings, but genius, not quite so sure.
Just My Opinion.

 

[Ikki]

Actually this goes on to prove how poor the bowling was in the 00s compared to the 80s. The bowlers in the 00s just lacked the skills that their predecessors had. Anybody who has followed the game since the 80s will tell you that. The surprising thing is that whichever good bowlers from the 90s were present in the 00s did extremely well. Warne, Murali, McGrath, Pollock. So yeah actually these stats quite support the hypothesis that kyear2 and some of the other posters have come up with.

The above take is illogical. That's like saying because Australia had a better batting stats in the 90s the 80s had better bowling. The explanation is easy: India had a better batting line-up in the 00s and thus scored more runs.

As for bowling attacks between eras:

SL - better in the 00s
Eng - better in the 00s
Aus - better in the 00s
Ind - better in the 00s
WI - better in the 80s
Pak - better in the 80s
NZ - I'd say level - more expensive in the 00s but struck faster than the 80s.

Not to mention SA also actually played in the 00s. The bolded part of the above is just a myth. There were great all-timers in the 80s; but the attacks themselves weren't that good. The 00s as good at least, if not better on the whole.

P.S. Pollock actually did worse in 00s, but that is probably because of injury. Both Gillespie and Kumble did worse too. Murali, Warne and McGrath did do well though, which is not so shocking since they were at their peak as bowlers in the 00s.

 

[smash84]

The above take is illogical. That's like saying because Australia had a better batting stats in the 90s the 80s had better bowling. The explanation is easy: India had a better batting line-up in the 00s and thus scored more runs.

No. I think you missed the point. The average figure is calculated by the runs scored divided by the number of dismissals. Obviously as the number of dismissals will go up the average will come down.

SL - better in the 00s
Eng - better in the 00s
Aus - better in the 00s
Ind - better in the 00s
WI - better in the 80s
Pak - better in the 80s
NZ - I'd say level - more expensive in the 00s but struck faster than the 80s.

Not to mention SA also actually played in the 00s. The bolded part of the above is just a myth. There were great all-timers in the 80s; but the attacks themselves weren't that good. The 00s as good at least, if not better on the whole.

P.S. Pollock actually did worse in 00s, but that is probably because of injury. Both Gillespie and Kumble did worse too. Murali, Warne and McGrath did do well though, which is not so shocking since they were at their peak as bowlers in the 00s.

Actually England rarely fielded a better attack in the 00s except the last part i,e 09-10. The only time that they did in 05 they actually beat the Aussies. Otherwise an attack of Botham, Willis, Underwood, Dilley etc is greater than Harmison, Flintoff, Anderson, Giles, Panesar. Also the difference in class between the 00s and 80s is quite significant. WI had no one in 00s and arguably the finest attack ever assembled on a cricket pitch in the 80s.

So it is more like

Eng 80s much better
Pak 80s much much better
WI 80s much much much much better
NZ 80s much much better
Aus 00s much better
SL 00s much better
Ind 00s better

SA didn't exist back then but they had a good attack in 00s.

 

[GotSpin]

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.

Oh wow. You're a blasphemous person...Real shock value you are

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

Yeah I don't know what this means...

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

P.S. Pollock actually did worse in 00s, but that is probably because of injury. Both Gillespie and Kumble did worse too.

Surprising! Dizzy looked a very threatening bowler throughout the noughties except that unfortunate Ashes 2005. Beat the bat more than I can care to remember and with his cutters, extra zip and bounce off the seam, always looked a terrific bowler.

I am guessing his numbers post 2000 aren't significantly bad compared to the 90s. To my subjective naked eye, he looked top-notch though.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

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.

That's splitting hairs, tbh. No fine/great fast bowler is going to perform brilliantly in every single test of a series he plays. On the whole, Marshall's record in India is quite good and that does not in any way, shape or form mean that the man would be unplayable through every single session.

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.

The point is important because it suggests that the Indian batting line-up wasn't as great universally as people think. You mentioned they were much better away from home (compared to their predecessors) and that's why I brought it up. Looks like we have to agree to disagree on this point. I am cool with it.

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.

More than numbers in my argument, mate. Amarnath played genuine pace (West Indians, Imran, Thommo and Pascoe) quite well in an era where the pitches were livelier; as even you concede. Whether he was a better overall player than Laxman or Ganguly is for another day and another thread. Since, we are comparing two pace bowlers, performance against pace in pace-friendly conditions should be given a higher weightage.

In simple terms, I'd put a Jimmy Amarnath in to face McGrath on a lightning fast Perth pitch ahead of any Indian batsman except Dravid and Tendulkar of the 90s/2000s era. Same would be my choice if Marshall were the bowler on a pacy, bouncy first day Barbados track.

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).

Our opinions indeed are different. See my post there to understand why. Anyway, it's fine. Difference of opinions is what keeps this forum (and the servers) busy!

 

[smash84]

who is the guy in your avatar OSP?

 

[robelinda]

who is the guy in your avatar OSP?

You fail!!!!!

IDIOT ENGLAND FANS- Terry Alderman busted shoulder incident 1982 WACA - YouTube

 

[smash84]

hey.........the picture is not clear

 

[smash84]

nice video of the incident........Richie was total class........They don't make them like Richie anymore

 

[ankitj]

 

[smash84]