Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Outswinger@Pace]

How's it going, lads?

So what's the jury's final verdict - Marshall or McGrath?

 

[smash84]

Marshall is pretty much the choice on this forum but I think everyone who has voted will say that it is close and a difficult choice to make

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Marshall is pretty much the choice on this forum but I think everyone who has voted will say that it is close and a difficult choice to make

Yeah, that's what I would have thought too. Ikki is right on one point. At such a level of greatness, there isn't much that separates these guys.

I mean, what is to say that a bowling attack of Marshall-Lindwall-Hadlee-Ambrose would definitely fare better than Lillee-Trueman-McGrath-Imran in all conditions and all matches? The difference is minimal, as far as I can see.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, that's what I would have thought too. Ikki is right on one point. At such a level of greatness, there isn't much that separates these guys.

I mean, what is to say that a bowling attack of Marshall-Lindwall-Hadlee-Ambrose would definitely fare better than Lillee-Trueman-McGrath-Imran in all conditions and all matches? The difference is minimal, as far as I can see.

awta. I also don't think that Ikki ever denied this either.

 

[subshakerz]

When I think of Lillee I consider his WSC stats and his bowling against the World XI. Statistically, he is up there with the best. But more than that I think it was his capability to influence a match like few, if any, other pacemen. He could pretty much bowl anything and was a model for guys like Hadlee and even Marshall. He was pretty much idolised by the former. He not only had a period as a tearaway, but also one who was forced to be methodical due to his injuries - injuries that at the time no one thought possible of returning from. And that is Lillee in a nutshell - a fiery will that wouldn't give up. Marshall bowled wonderfully in a pack, Hadlee as a lone wolf; but only Lillee truly did both IMO and he was awesome to boot. He has more 10fers than Hadlee, despite having a significant period with some good bowling partners. He could not only bowl out the batsmen quickly, he could bowl marathon overs if needed.

Lillee, contrary to what you may think, was far from the complete bowler. His own captain admits he had trouble getting rid of tailenders, his keeper from what I recall in his book mentioned that he lacked a good yorker. And he never had any success on the subcontinent. It's interesting that his own bowling mate, Jeff Thomson, rates Marshall as the better bowler, saying that, "He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did."

'I didn't bowl your little outswingers' | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Also, Hadlee had more 10fers than Lillee, so that's wrong as well.

But I go back to his performances against the WSC and the World XI. If I have a doubt about the batsmen Marshall faced, I don't about Lillee. He was the best bowler in arguably the hardest competition Test cricket has seen - the WSC. He decimated the World XI line-up. Combine that with the universal praise he gets by the great batsmen and bowlers of his era and that nudges him ahead for me.

WSC cricket took place before the careers of Marshall, Hadlee and Imran took off (and Imran still actually has much better stats than Lillee during this tournament). So the competition essentially proved he at his peak was the better bowler on his own pitches than Garner, Holding, Roberts, John Snow, and a young Hadlee and Imran. By the way, he averaged around 27 in WSC, good but hardly great. His record against the best team of his time, the WI, also was modest.

Lillee, like Warne, had plenty of flair, aggro and personality that added to his image. Like Warne for spin, Lillee emerged as the flag bearer for the new pace era of the 70s. But that doesn't make him a better bowler than Marshall or Hadlee, who debuted right in the middle of the pace era.

 

[Ikki]

Tbf almost all these arguments i.e. facing less opponents, playing on few grounds, playing very few great bowlers etc etc can be used for Bradman too.

And let's, for the sake of argument, argue that it inflates his average by 10 points. He is still the greatest batsman by a milky way.

The same can be said about other bowlers too I suppose especially Imran. Imran was also a master of reverse swing which allowed him to get wickets on pitches not suited to fast bowling at all.

I think that being the darling of arguably the best and most influential cricketing nation (until recently) helps Lillee quite a bit.

TBF, when the WIndies were the best even their players were saying he was the greatest.

Lillee, contrary to what you may think, was far from the complete bowler. His own captain admits he had trouble getting rid of tailenders, his keeper from what I recall in his book mentioned that he lacked a good yorker. And he never had any success on the subcontinent. It's interesting that his own bowling mate, Jeff Thomson, rates Marshall as the better bowler, saying that, "He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did."

'I didn't bowl your little outswingers' | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Also, Hadlee had more 10fers than Lillee, so that's wrong as well.

Oops, sorry, for some reason I remembered Hadlee with 6. Regardless, the stat still represents my view: considering that Hadlee bowled his career without much help they are remarkably close. Hadlee gets a 10fer every 9.6 Tests and Lillee gets one ever 10 tests (7 v 9). Another interesting stat, Lillee (just barely though) averages more wickets per Test than Hadlee, even.

We've had discussions re the subcontinent, etc, so I am not going to get into that. Disagree with you, per usual.

WSC cricket took place before the careers of Marshall, Hadlee and Imran took off (and Imran still actually has much better stats than Lillee during this tournament). So the competition essentially proved he at his peak was the better bowler on his own pitches than Garner, Holding, Roberts, John Snow, and a young Hadlee and Imran. By the way, he averaged around 27 in WSC, good but hardly great. His record against the best team of his time, the WI, also was modest.

Lillee, like Warne, had plenty of flair, aggro and personality that added to his image. Like Warne for spin, Lillee emerged as the flag bearer for the new pace era of the 70s. But that doesn't make him a better bowler than Marshall or Hadlee, who debuted right in the middle of the pace era.

Marshall, yes. Imran and Hadlee, no. Imran actually did wonderfully even though he only played 5 matches. Hadlee had only debuted 2 years after Lillee; they were contemporaries. WSC also occurred for Lillee also post-stress fractures, lest we forget.

The 2nd para: already addressed. Cop-out then, cop-out now. I am sure the WIndies players and the rest of the world weren't just in awe of Lillee because "he put on a good show". Hadlee, who only debuted 2 years after Lillee idolised him. He said that whenever things went wrong he'd think "What would Lillee do?". This is a man who himself has a claim to the "greatest pace bowler ever" title. He gave a lot to cricket through his physical preparation and also his technical brilliance - Marshall got his leg-cutter from Lillee, for example.

Regardless, if you think Marshall is the greatest; Lillee belongs firmly in the discussion. But not this discussion as it is about McGrath .

 

[Sanz]

That's the thing; your assessment is subjective.

And yours isn't ? Is that why you voted for Mcgrath as the better bowler than Marshall despite the little fella having the better average, better SR, higher 10fer, 5er ratio ?

Do you really think it is right to say that one batsman that averages 10 (yes, 10!) more than another batsman are close?

You tell me, You never accepted that Dhoni is better ODI batsman than Gilchrist despite Dhoni averaging 12+ higher than Gilly.

People, especially Indians, have a rose-tinted view of that time because their batsmen were for the first time world class and lifted them out from minnow-hood. You're welcome to your opinion but Sehwag is in another class to Amarnath for me (higher one, of course) and I suspect most others. Unfortunately, for Sehwag, every time he makes a run the bowling is crap or the pitches are flat.

Ahh so the Indian thing had to play a role in this discussion. As annoying and as tempting it is to respond in kind, I think I have better things to do in life than to respond to such garbage stereotypes.

 

[Sanz]

How's it going, lads?

So what's the jury's final verdict - Marshall or McGrath?

It couldn't be any more clear with 38-9

 

[Ikki]

And yours isn't ? Is that why you voted for Mcgrath as the better bowler than Marshall despite the little fella having the better average, better SR, higher 10fer, 5er ratio ?

Let's get some perspective here; the difference between those two are negligible.

The difference between Sehwag and Amarnath is not negligible.

You tell me, You never accepted that Dhoni is better ODI batsman than Gilchrist despite Dhoni averaging 12+ higher than Gilly.

Apples and oranges. Not sure when I said Gilchrist is a better ODI batsman than Dhoni though. Player, sure; batsman?

In fact, here is my post when they were compared earlier this year: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2572115-post20.html

Ahh so the Indian thing had to play a role in this discussion. As annoying and as tempting it is to respond in kind, I think I have better things to do in life than to respond to such garbage stereotypes.

What I said should not be taken as an "Indian" thing. It is about how certain generations will revere certain players for their relative successes. What Amarnath achieved in the 80s was probably a big cause for pride amongst Indian cricketers in an age where bar Gavaskar there wasn't much else. In Sehwag's time the batting talent has been abundant and people don't have the same heartful connection with him.

But he is 10 points superior in average, nevermind his SR which is probably double too.

 

[The Sean]

By the way, he averaged around 27 in WSC, good but hardly great. His record against the best team of his time, the WI, also was modest.

Lillee averaged 23.91 in WSC. For some reason, some sources don't count the match in NZ where he took 12/89. Without that match his average is 26-odd, which must be what you're looking at.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He may have been very fit, but it's still an unknown for mine. To play about twice as many matches as he did to compare to McGrath is a huge ask. In terms of the speed Marshall bowled also, it is likely he would have had injuries. Just throwing it in there.

Marshall played a lot of other cricket, county and also did a number of seasons in Australia playing lower level stuff. Now, obviously the intensity was lower in a lot of that stuff, but if he ever had real concerns about his body and injuries, then I doubt he'd have been doing much of that.

 

[Sanz]

Let's get some perspective here; the difference between those two are negligible.

The point is that there is a difference and Marshall is superior in almost every category. Yet you are trying to devalue his performance based on your own personal preferences (i.e. subjective) which is fine with me but don't accuse others of being subjective because you yourself are almost always subjective among your picks.

You claim to favor stats when picking your preference, when simple stats do not work in your favor you start using filters.

The difference between Sehwag and Amarnath is not negligible.

As far as playing quality fast bowlers, it is. Almost every single individual who has watched them play fast bowlers, would agree that Mohinder Amarnath was a better player of fast bowling than Sehwag will ever be. This is not a knock on Sehwag, I am sure he would be thrilled if someone considered as good as Amarnath against fast bowling.

Apples and oranges. Not sure when I said Gilchrist is a better ODI batsman than Dhoni though. Player, sure; batsman?

Hmmm, So as an ODI batsman alone, Dhoni is miles ahead of Gilchrist then because the statistical difference is 12+ ??

In fact, here is my post when they were compared earlier this year: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2572115-post20.html

And that is really accepting that Dhoni is miles ahead of Gilchrist ? If that is the closest you could get to saying that Dhoni is better than Gilchrist then I must say, it is not close enough.

 

[Slifer]

The point is that there is a difference and Marshall is superior in almost every category. Yet you are trying to devalue his performance based on your own personal preferences (i.e. subjective) which is fine with me but don't accuse others of being subjective because you yourself are almost always subjective among your picks.

You claim to favor stats when picking your preference, when simple stats do not work in your favor you start using filters.



As far as playing quality fast bowlers, it is. Almost every single individual who has watched them play fast bowlers, would agree that Mohinder Amarnath was a better player of fast bowling than Sehwag will ever be. This is not a knock on Sehwag, I am sure he would be thrilled if someone considered as good as Amarnath against fast bowling.



Hmmm, So as an ODI batsman alone, Dhoni is miles ahead of Gilchrist then because the statistical difference is 12+ ??



And that is really accepting that Dhoni is miles ahead of Gilchrist ? If that is the closest you could get to saying that Dhoni is better than Gilchrist then I must say, it is not close enough.

Very true but I suggest u just allow this argument to rest. The fact is they r both great pacemen, among the greatest ever. Even though MM won this poll in a landslide, I think it has more to do with the fact that most people think he is slightly better and not by the margin reflected in this poll,

 

[smash84]

No **** Sherlock

 

[Slifer]

Lol

 

[Ikki]

The point is that there is a difference and Marshall is superior in almost every category. Yet you are trying to devalue his performance based on your own personal preferences (i.e. subjective) which is fine with me but don't accuse others of being subjective because you yourself are almost always subjective among your picks.

You claim to favor stats when picking your preference, when simple stats do not work in your favor you start using filters.

Even if that were true, the difference between them in any category is slight. You simply can't grasp the difference between those two and Amarnath and Sehwag.

And of course I favour stats, but rarely the bland averages and SRs; unless they themselves are obvious enough to explain the difference between the two players. Most times, one has to have some sort of filter or equaliser to make the comparison fair. I would rather do that and appreciate a player by knowing their record truly than just spouting their overall ratios.

As far as playing quality fast bowlers, it is. Almost every single individual who has watched them play fast bowlers, would agree that Mohinder Amarnath was a better player of fast bowling than Sehwag will ever be. This is not a knock on Sehwag, I am sure he would be thrilled if someone considered as good as Amarnath against fast bowling.

It isn't. Amarnath has instances of playing them well and many of playing them terribly. You just pick and choose which one you'd like to remember.

Hmmm, So as an ODI batsman alone, Dhoni is miles ahead of Gilchrist then because the statistical difference is 12+ ??

It's incredible how every time you bring a point you get further away from reality than the last. The difference between the 2 is not 12 points and you are comparing an opener with, largely, a finisher. In ODIs these two averages are going to have vast differences; it doesn't mean one is vastly better than the other. Otherwise, Bevan is vastly better than pretty much every player in ODIs, including Tendulkar. Use some common sense.

And that is really accepting that Dhoni is miles ahead of Gilchrist ? If that is the closest you could get to saying that Dhoni is better than Gilchrist then I must say, it is not close enough.

He isn't. Dhoni is a better batsman, Gilchrist the better glovesman but I said if you considered captaincy then Dhoni is the better overall player.

I love how you try to intervene in a thread to "catch someone out" and by doing so you expose yourself.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I look forward to people rating the batsmen of the 00's much higher than they do now. The decade was a manna for bowlers, apparently.

 

[Sanz]

Even if that were true, the difference between them in any category is slight.

Well you obviously don't believe that to be true though, do you ? Otherwise there is no statistical justification other than your own subjectivity. So please do not accuse others of being subjective when you yourself are not.

For rest of your posts, I neither have time nor the energy to get into that all over again, been there done that and know very well how it ends up.

 

[Ikki]

Well you obviously don't believe that to be true though, do you ? Otherwise there is no statistical justification other than your own subjectivity. So please do not accuse others of being subjective when you yourself are not.

For rest of your posts, I neither have time nor the energy to get into that all over again, been there done that and know very well how it ends up.

Again, you seem to not be on the same page or are ignoring information wilfully. I don't believe it to be true because I think there are categories where McGrath is ahead and some, like average may, prima facie, appear in favour of Marshall but I think when you adjust the era the difference between them is gone. Of course, these are based on objective facts (i.e. era averages for bowling, era averages for batting, etc).

Your take on Amarnath is a visual one - "almost everyone that has watched them..." - but the statistics show there isn't a giant gap between them even against quality pace. Moreover, they show how inconsistent he was against quality pace - hardly a virtue when you want to establish that someone was characteristically good at something. Therefore your take is subjective one.

FTR: When I checked Sehwag averaged in the 40s against McGrath and Pollock; almost 50 against Steyn and 92 against Akhtar. It's a pretty decent record indeed. Which brings us back full-circle; the suggestion that the 80s line-up was as good as the 00s is a strenuous one.

 

[smash84]

FTR: When I checked Sehwag averaged in the 40s against McGrath and Pollock; almost 50 against Steyn and 92 against Akhtar. It's a pretty decent record indeed. Which brings us back full-circle; the suggestion that the 80s line-up was as good as the 00s is a strenuous one.

Did you watch the series' that Sehwag made merry in against Akhtar and Co?