Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[ankitj]

That's my new avatar now

 

[centurymaker]

knew it

 

[smash84]

knew what?

 

[centurymaker]

knew what?

knew this.

 

[Ikki]

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.

So, I didn't miss the point. You quoted the batting averages of Indian batsmen through the decades. What you've stated in the above is common sense (average is runs/dismissals) but your take that it showed how bad the bowling was in the 00s is a huge stretch and not really born from the facts. In a strictly statistical sense, your point actually is wrong. You could have more dismissals in one era than another, but if one of those eras lots of runs were scored the # of dismissals don't matter because the average according to the runs scored can still be high.

To make this clear in practice, as opposed to just theory:

In the 80s there were 81 Tests against Indian batsmen where 1090 wickets were taken; 13.46 wickets per match.

In the 00s there were 103 Tests against Indian batsmen where 1447 wickets were taken; 14.05 wickets per match.

So, even in the sense you want to try to argue; the bowlers were taking more Indian wickets in the 00s; but because they scored many runs their averages are still quite superior to their 80s countrymen.

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.

You're not even close and the above is not illustrated in the facts/stats. Let me show you just how wrong you are:

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=1;template=results;type=bowling"][B]England[/B][/URL]          [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         35.85     33.71	
[B]SR[/B]              77.6       63.7

Not only are England 2 runs cheaper, they are some 14 balls faster! This, despite the notorious difficulty of bowling in the 00s. Yet, according to you; they were much better in the 80s.

Another example:

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=8;template=results;type=bowling"][B]Sri Lanka[/B][/URL]        [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         39.53     30.27	
[B]SR[/B]              76.7       62.2

The difference is staggering. What is more staggering is your arbitrary ratings. Pakistan is "much much better" in the 80s according to you, but a team that was effectively a minnow in the 80s and became one of the best bowling attacks is only "much better". Nevermind the WIndies who were "much x4".

To further illustrate this point; I'll show you Pakistan:

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=7;template=results;type=bowling"][B]Pakistan[/B][/URL]         [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         30.68     34.73	
[B]SR[/B]              70.7       65.6

The difference in SL's averages is 9+ points, SR 14+ points. The difference in Pakistan's averages is 4+ points, SR 5+ points. In fact, when you adjust for the global averages between the 80s and the 00s (the 80s is 2 runs cheaper but almost 5 balls slower) they are pretty close. It means the difference between 80s and 00s Pakistan is 2 runs.

Let's go onto NZ, which you also disagreed with me and said were "much much better":

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=5;template=results;type=bowling"][B]New Zealand[/B][/URL]      [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         30.38     33.89	
[B]SR[/B]              71.4	   67.0

So, one a few points more expensive, one a few more faster. Adjusting for the era; pretty much dead even. And this is probably the best example in terms of perceptions being wrong. NZ had a decent line-up with Hadlee and in the 00s there wasn't really a notable bowler for NZ (excluding Bond's short career) yet the figures show that as attacks they more or less leaked the same.

You're also wrong about how much Australia improved, but I'll let you find the stats for that. I think the above clearly refutes your points and shows the ONLY attack between the 80s and the 00s that was much better in the former era was WI.

 

[Ikki]

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.

I acknowledged that, but my point is not to say Marshall was crap because overall his ratios are good. My point was to show he had a wild swing between performances, there was little middle-ground.

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.

But it doesn't matter even if you what you say is true. Sehwag was better away than some of his compatriots in the 80s. But the irony is if he isn't good, neither were they. And they could not dream to score as many runs as him on average, let alone at his strike-rate. So he is still largely superior.

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.

But you're still picking and choosing. If Amarnath was great in the WIndies against a great attack; he should've been even better at home where the pitches were heavily in his favour...yet he averaged 17! He is far too hit and miss to say he was a great player of pace bowling. He played some great innings, but on the whole has a disappointing record against bowlers who weren't even as good as some of those greats you mention.

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!

It's cool, I do not really get emotional on these boards. You may see me go at it for pages but in truth I just like the discussion and pushing the boundaries of our theories. I like to leave no stone unturned.

 

[smash84]

So, I didn't miss the point. You quoted the batting averages of Indian batsmen through the decades. What you've stated in the above is common sense (average is runs/dismissals) but your take that it showed how bad the bowling was in the 00s is a huge stretch and not really born from the facts. In a strictly statistical sense, your point actually is wrong. You could have more dismissals in one era than another, but if one of those eras lots of runs were scored the # of dismissals don't matter because the average according to the runs scored can still be high.

To make this clear in practice, as opposed to just theory:

In the 80s there were 81 Tests against Indian batsmen where 1090 wickets were taken; 13.46 wickets per match.

In the 00s there were 103 Tests against Indian batsmen where 1447 wickets were taken; 14.05 wickets per match.

So, even in the sense you want to try to argue; the bowlers were taking more Indian wickets in the 00s; but because they scored many runs their averages are still quite superior to their 80s countrymen.

Actually a straight comparison between eras is not correct in this case. The scoring rates were very different in both eras so you have to see the difference relative to the era averages. Which would yield a better comparison. The 80s were a much more defensive era so naturally you would see much lower runs scored in 5 days than in the 00s.

You're not even close and the above is not illustrated in the facts/stats. Let me show you just how wrong you are:

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=1;template=results;type=bowling"][B]England[/B][/URL]          [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         35.85     33.71	
[B]SR[/B]              77.6       63.7

Not only are England 2 runs cheaper, they are some 14 balls faster! This, despite the notorious difficulty of bowling in the 00s. Yet, according to you; they were much better in the 80s.

One of the premises of my argument is that bowling in the 00s is not THAT notoriously different only that there was generally a dearth of quality bowling (coupled with some terrible wickets).

Actually there is hardly any difference over here. The higher SR of the 80s just shows the defensive nature of the game back in the 80s. There should not be too much difference if you adjust global averages. If you want to do a straight average comparison then see the straight figures for Willis, underwood, botham in the 80s with their 00s counterparts.

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=8;template=results;type=bowling"][B]Sri Lanka[/B][/URL]        [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         39.53     30.27	
[B]SR[/B]              76.7       62.2

The difference is staggering. What is more staggering is your arbitrary ratings. Pakistan is "much much better" in the 80s according to you, but a team that was effectively a minnow in the 80s and became one of the best bowling attacks is only "much better". Nevermind the WIndies who were "much x4".

To further illustrate this point; I'll show you Pakistan:

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=7;template=results;type=bowling"][B]Pakistan[/B][/URL]         [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         30.68     34.73	
[B]SR[/B]              70.7       65.6

The difference in SL's averages is 9+ points, SR 14+ points. The difference in Pakistan's averages is 4+ points, SR 5+ points. In fact, when you adjust for the global averages between the 80s and the 00s (the 80s is 2 runs cheaper but almost 5 balls slower) they are pretty close. It means the difference between 80s and 00s Pakistan is 2 runs.
.

While you are adjusting for global averages here and not using straight averages. why don't you adjust for global averages in other cases too? The difference will then become smaller.

SL had gotten much much better of course and I never argued on that in the first place.

[URL="http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=wickets;team=5;template=results;type=bowling"][B]New Zealand[/B][/URL]      [B]80s[/B]       [B]00s[/B]
[B]Average[/B]         30.38     33.89	
[B]SR[/B]              71.4	   67.0

So, one a few points more expensive, one a few more faster. Adjusting for the era; pretty much dead even. And this is probably the best example in terms of perceptions being wrong. NZ had a decent line-up with Hadlee and in the 00s there wasn't really a notable bowler for NZ (excluding Bond's short career) yet the figures show that as attacks they more or less leaked the same.

You're also wrong about how much Australia improved, but I'll let you find the stats for that. I think the above clearly refutes your points and shows the ONLY attack between the 80s and the 00s that was much better in the former era was WI.

I wonder what kind of adjustment in eras you are making since the adjust always seems to end up in your favor? ..........

As I mentioned earlier that your analysis is faulty because it does not have any uniformity. For India you don't look at the average of the eras. For bowling attacks you are adjusting arbitrarily. There seems to be no consistency in the analysis.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Since the Aussie vs Windies thread just closed out of nowhere (don't know why the debate was still going on and I didn't even get a chance to vote )

I know man tell me about it. All because of a damn ****** that makes a person grow 10 years in 4 years time and can't even read English properly. I try and report his posts after being told not to retaliate back and in response not only do they do nothing about it they close the damn thread. For **** sake man. I don't really care if I get infracted or even banned now which I will since some mods finds his whinging flattering I guess.

Anyways, I am not really surprised that Marshall is winning this poll since I have seen some people's attitude towards adjusting to the era in my thread which if you do Mcgrath would come out better.

 

[The Sean]

I know man tell me about it. All because of a damn ****** that makes a person grow 10 years in 4 years time and can't even read English properly. I try and report his posts after being told not to retaliate back and in response not only do they do nothing about it they close the damn thread. For **** sake man. I don't really care if I get infracted or even banned now which I will since some mods finds his whinging flattering I guess.

Anyways, I am not really surprised that Marshall is winning this poll since I have seen some people's attitude towards adjusting to the era in my thread which if you do Mcgrath would come out better.

I'm not a mod Blaze, but I don't see how a post like this is going to help.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I'm not a mod Blaze, but I don't see how a post like this is going to help.

I'm not complaining about you man. I know this was an aggressive post.

Just had to let some steam out after literally nothing was done about it even after I followed the mod instructions and them closing the thread on top of doing nothing at all about it even after a week. I needed to take that out and I don't really care if they ban me for it really.

 

[ankitj]

I don't know why I have not posted this as yet: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

Marshall and McGrath come out really, really close (and so does Ambrose).

 

[smash84]

I don't know why I have posted this as yet: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

Marshall and McGrath come out really, really close (and so does Ambrose).

lol...........yeah man.....even I had forgotten all about this post

 

[Fusion]

I know man tell me about it. All because of a damn ****** that makes a person grow 10 years in 4 years time and can't even read English properly. I try and report his posts after being told not to retaliate back and in response not only do they do nothing about it they close the damn thread. For **** sake man. I don't really care if I get infracted or even banned now which I will since some mods finds his whinging flattering I guess.

Anyways, I am not really surprised that Marshall is winning this poll since I have seen some people's attitude towards adjusting to the era in my thread which if you do Mcgrath would come out better.

This post is obviously unacceptable. You have ignored warnings and VM's from mods to not engage in this type of behavior. You leave us with no choice but to hand you a short break from the site.

 

[Ikki]

Actually a straight comparison between eras is not correct in this case. The scoring rates were very different in both eras so you have to see the difference relative to the era averages. Which would yield a better comparison. The 80s were a much more defensive era so naturally you would see much lower runs scored in 5 days than in the 00s.

Then that reflects in Marshall/80s bowlers having better averages because of this difference. You can't have it both ways.

One of the premises of my argument is that bowling in the 00s is not THAT notoriously different only that there was generally a dearth of quality bowling (coupled with some terrible wickets).

Actually there is hardly any difference over here. The higher SR of the 80s just shows the defensive nature of the game back in the 80s. There should not be too much difference if you adjust global averages. If you want to do a straight average comparison then see the straight figures for Willis, underwood, botham in the 80s with their 00s counterparts.

Even if we suspend belief that there is no difference, the stats even as they stand clearly refute your point. 2 points in average and 14 in SR is a huge difference.

Naming some players is not an argument - especially when the players you just named only 1 really played much of the decade. Willis retired by 84 with only 39 matches played and Underwood retired by 82 playing 11 matches (and not well either). Botham's bowling in the 80s was of a pretty average level.

You have to accept facts.

While you are adjusting for global averages here and not using straight averages. why don't you adjust for global averages in other cases too? The difference will then become smaller.

SL had gotten much much better of course and I never argued on that in the first place.

I have used adjusting in other cases; but you're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that the batsmen's' averages are inflated and then won't accept that in turn that also means the bowlers' averages will be also.

No, originally you said "Pakistan were much much better" but Sri Lanka were only "much better" .

I wonder what kind of adjustment in eras you are making since the adjust always seems to end up in your favor? ..........

There are only two things you have to adjust for - regardless why you think the causes of the differences might be (pitches, bowling standards, etc) - and that is that the 80s are some 2 points superior to the 00s in average but the 00s is almost 5 balls superior to the 80s in terms of strike-rate.

So whilst the averages come down for the 00s bowlers which might "help" them (really it's just a fairer way to gauge since the difficulties were together) their SRs go up which "hinders" them.

As I mentioned earlier that your analysis is faulty because it does not have any uniformity. For India you don't look at the average of the eras. For bowling attacks you are adjusting arbitrarily. There seems to be no consistency in the analysis.

Smali, with all due respect, it seems like you're clutching at straws. You've also made statements which are factually wrong. When I show you the global difference in bowling averages you are fine with it, until I then do a country by country comparison to show that teams were better in the 00s in terms of bowling attacks you then question the adjustments. There's nothing arbitrary about what I've done.

Now, to appease you, we'll check India:

The global batting average difference between 80s and 00s is 1.57 runs. That means the average batting average in the 00s was 1.57 runs higher than in the 80s (32.02 - 30.45 = 1.57). The difference between the batting averages of India's batsmen in the 80s and 00s is 3.85. Which means, the average Indian batsman's average is 3.85 runs higher in the 00s than in the 80s (35.98 - 32.13 = 3.85). More than the global average difference anyway.

I think you need to rethink your argument.

 

[grecian]

I don't often agree with Ikki, but to say the 80s bowling side of England was much better then the 00s is plain silly. Three good players yes, but your rather forgetting the likes of Capel, Pringle and countless other ****e. Also has Ikki said most of the best years of their careers were in the '70s.

Oh and pitches are immeasurably easier to bat on nowadays, IMHO. Particularly n England.

 

[Uppercut]

Bradman is quite clearly the eighth best cricketer of all time.

One of CW's finest moments.

 

[stephen]

One of CW's finest moments.

Yeah, that was the funniest thing to happen on this forum.

 

[MrIncredible]

Interesting discussion u fellas have going here. Voted for sir malcolm ever

so slightly over mr mcgrath. An even more interesting comparison would be

between mcgrath and lillee (imo). I have had the chance to read thru most of

these posts and i find it interesting this concept of adjusting for era.

 

[ankitj]

Interesting discussion u fellas have going here. Voted for sir malcolm ever

so slightly over mr mcgrath. An even more interesting comparison would be

between mcgrath and lillee (imo). I have had the chance to read thru most of

these posts and i find it interesting this concept of adjusting for era.

Lillee already averages 'considerably' lower than McGrath/Marshall, and he also doesn't have a 'complete' record. Adjusting for eras the way it's done here, would put Lillee well behind the other 2 gentleman. But let's wait and see if the same yardstick gets applied to Lillee too.

 

[centurymaker]

*RARE* SACHIN TENDULKAR vs MALCOLM MARSHALL - YouTube

17-18 year old kid facing veteran marshall on a good bowling pitch?

rob wag