Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Ikki]

Neither closely, TBH. Although I remember in 06 there were some really, really, flat tracks where monster scores were made regularly. In 04 it was much more competitive.

 

[smash84]

actually the pitches were EXTREMELY FLAT in both the series. Sehwag's skill against pace can't really be judged with those kinds of pitches. I think Sanz is somewhat correct that if you have not seen Amarnath bat against pace then you can't pass a complete judgment. Sehwag's huge average in 06 is somewhat misleading too b/c he did have some trouble against Asif IIRC when Asif was moving the ball. He had one HUGE 200 or 250+ score on a road that really boosted his average otherwise it wasn't that great.

 

[Ikki]

actually the pitches were EXTREMELY FLAT in both the series. Sehwag's skill against pace can't really be judged with those kinds of pitches. I think Sanz is somewhat correct that if you have not seen Amarnath bat against pace then you can't pass a complete judgment. Sehwag's huge average in 06 is somewhat misleading too b/c he did have some trouble against Asif IIRC when Asif was moving the ball. He had one HUGE 200 or 250+ score on a road that really boosted his average otherwise it wasn't that great.

In 04? Not really. Not much different to many series in Aus or anywhere else really.

1st Test: India bowl out Pak for 407 and 216 only needing to bat once due to 675, created in large part due to Sehwag's triple century.

2nd Test: A similar win for Pak needing only 40 runs in the 2nd dig, after 489 in the first. India were bowled out for 287 and 241 in their innings.

3rd Test: India win once again only needing to bat once due for their 600 runs assisted by Dravid's 270; Pak bowled out for 224 and 245.

A lot of small scores there really. Even though India scored 600 in two innings, those same Test matches showed that bowlers getting batsmen cheaply was a fairly reasonable expectation.

Also, even if you remove Sehwag's triple century - - he averaged 43 for the rest. I have no problem saying Amarnath played some really memorable innings against some great attacks. But to say overall that he was a great player of pace is a stretch. If he deserves credit for doing so well away against the WIndies, he deserves criticism for his abysmal record at home. On the whole, saying Amarnath equates to Sehwag when comparing the line-ups of the 80s and 00s is a stretch to say the least.

 

[smash84]

In 04? Not really. Not much different to many series in Aus or anywhere else really.

1st Test: India bowl out Pak for 407 and 216 only needing to bat once due to 675, created in large part due to Sehwag's triple century.

2nd Test: A similar win for Pak needing only 40 runs in the 2nd dig, after 489 in the first. India were bowled out for 287 and 241 in their innings.

3rd Test: India win once again only needing to bat once due for their 600 runs assisted by Dravid's 270; Pak bowled out for 224 and 245.

A lot of small scores there really. Even though India scored 600 in two innings, those same Test matches showed that bowlers getting batsmen cheaply was a fairly reasonable expectation.

Also, even if you remove Sehwag's triple century - - he averaged 43 for the rest. I have no problem saying Amarnath played some really memorable innings against some great attacks. But to say overall that he was a great player of pace is a stretch. If he deserves credit for doing so well away against the WIndies, he deserves criticism for his abysmal record at home. On the whole, saying Amarnath equates to Sehwag when comparing the line-ups of the 80s and 00s is a stretch to say the least.

The Pakistan attack in the 04 series was pretty ordinary with the likes of Sami, Fazle Akbar, and a brand new Umar Gul in the attack along with Shoaib Akhtar. I doubt you can call any of those bowlers good (Shabbir wasn't really the same after his action was reported). Shoaib was the only good bowler in that attack and since Shoaib was never good at swinging the new ball or seaming it like Asif, his bowling was almost totally blunted by the pitches.

Which is why comparing him with sehwag is not a stretch. He failed in some conditions and Sehwag failed in some conditions. Maybe we can say that Amarnath performed better when conditions were tough for the team something like a Michael Bevan for ODIs. Can't say the same about Sehwag.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Regardless of the margin, Statistically Mcgrath is inferior to Marshall in almost every category, you still picked Mcgrath in this poll. That's subjectivity and not a statistical fact. When you yourself are not objective So don't go on accusing others of being subjective.

Most who watched Marshall and Mcgrath both and voted in this poll agree(according to the poll) that Marshall was superior and I don't think they ran into compare their stats. And you, who claims to be objective and believe only on statistical fact, ran to check the stats aka 'objective facts' and found that Marshall was statistically superior as well, and you still picked Mcgrath over Marshall. So much regard for objectivity and statistical facts.

 

[Slifer]

Regardless of the margin, Statistically Mcgrath is inferior to Marshall in almost every category, you still picked Mcgrath in this poll. That's subjectivity and not a statistical fact. When you yourself are not objective So don't go on accusing others of being subjective.

Most who watched Marshall and Mcgrath both and voted in this poll agree(according to the poll) that Marshall was superior and I don't think they ran into compare their stats. And you, who claims to be objective and believe only on statistical fact, ran to check the stats aka 'objective facts' and found that Marshall was statistically superior as well, and you still picked Mcgrath over Marshall. So much regard for objectivity and statistical facts.

MM is actually superior in every single category: Average, SR (by a fair bit ), WPM (slightly despite much more competition for wkts), better ratio of 10 fors and 5 fors (again amazing considering his competition). MM also averages sub 25 home and away vs all (except for 3 lowly tests in NZ), Mcgrath doesnt quite match this.

So its fair to say MM is statistically better overall

 

[Days of Grace]

But again it comes down to the eras they played in. Did Marshall have to play in India against the big 3, for example? Did he have to bowl on roads in Sri Lanka against Jayawardene and Sangakkara? Did he bowl against an increasingly improving English lineup in the 2000s?


These two bowlers are basically even. I would just pick whoever entertained me the best in his bowling spells, since over time they would probably get very similar results.

 

[smash84]

But again it comes down to the eras they played in. Did Marshall have to play in India against the big 3, for example? Did he have to bowl on roads in Sri Lanka against Jayawardene and Sangakkara? Did he bowl against an increasingly improving English lineup in the 2000s?


These two bowlers are basically even. I would just pick whoever entertained me the best in his bowling spells, since over time they would probably get very similar results.

I don't quite understand why MM gets penalized for not bowling against the Indian big 3? McGrath never got to bowl against arguable the best defensive opener in the history of the game so it evens out.

Dude not all pitches in the SC are roads. It anything the pitches in SL are probably the most sporty in the SC (please note that sporty just does not mean supportive of pace. MM played plenty of tests in Pakistan which probably has the worst pitches in all of SC. Also did Marshall get to bowl at the crap English batting line ups from the mid 90s to mid 2000s? You have to see it both ways

 

[kyear2]

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.

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.
.

Ok, You keep mentioning WSC when you talk about Lillee, but WSC actuall, as I have pointed out prviously would cause his average to go up. Holding, Imran, Proctor all had lower averages, though admittedly they (especially Imran and Proctor) played less matches. The fact that WSC was created to be a fast bowling exhibition and only about 3 batsmen escaped with any sort of reputation in tact, doesnt once again bode well for Lillee.
When ever Marshall's record is brough up you are quick to suggest that his stats need to be adjusted because of his era, but Lillee played in a much more friendly bowler era, and as some has incorrectly stated about Marshall, bowled in the pre-helmet and protection era and used terror as his primary weapon.
So if Marshalls record needs to be adjusted, then why no Lillee, and the fact that he bowled as part of a pack and as a lone wolf holds no bearing on his success. Murali, Hadlee and Imran proved ut can be done alone and it even helped statistically. You used his days in WSC to prove he bowled againts better opposition, but that didnt count in his stats which, unlike in the case with Mcgrath, are well behind Marshall in EVERY catergory. So what happens when we adjust his stats.
In your passionate case stated above, you fail to produce one piece of emperical or logical evidence to prove your argument.
If you want to use injuries as a reson for decline, you are entitled, but the you also have to adjust for Waqar and Bishop as well, but it is about what you did, not what could have been.
He also eschewed, for various ( perhaps legitimate) reason bowling in the Sub Continent, and took 92% of his Test wickets in two countries, two countries that are very conducive to fast bowling.

In the argument for MM vs Mcgrath, I constantly said that the two were very close and both open the bowling for my personal All Time XI, I cannot say the same about Lillee. His resume has too many holes and even with them, his stats dont stand to test againd MM, Mcgrath, Imran, Ambrose, Hadlee or even Donald. He was the king of bravado and romaticism and a hero of his country, but statistically he and Holding are practically equal and they shared the exact same era and so faced near identical opponents.
I have stated for a while that I consider him and Akram extermely over rated, but Akrams inclusion in an All Time Team can be explained away by the fact that he is on first change and he is probably the greatest (along with Imran) old ball bowlers of all time and the greatest exponent of reverse swing, and that would be his role in the team, I can see no similar reason for Lillee.
He was a GREAT bowler no doubt, but not above any that I would have mentioned earlier, and certainly not the undisputed greatest as you proclaim him to be.
You cannot use one argument againts Marshall when comparing him to Mcgrath and then ignore it when speaking about Lillee. If one rule applies it applies for all, if not, then if applies for neither.

 

[robelinda]

Both McGrath and Marshall are streets ahead of Lillee IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Both McGrath and Marshall are streets ahead of Lillee IMO.

Streets is a big call.

 

[smash84]

Both McGrath and Marshall are streets ahead of Lillee IMO.

I don't know about streets though..........

 

[Sanz]

But again it comes down to the eras they played in. Did Marshall have to play in India against the big 3, for example? Did he have to bowl on roads in Sri Lanka against Jayawardene and Sangakkara? Did he bowl against an increasingly improving English lineup in the 2000s?

Yes Marshall did bowl on the Roads in India, in fact he started he career on one of those roads. And let me tell you bowing on those roads against the likes of Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkart etc is much bigger accomplishment than Mcgrath bowling on the Spin friendly tracks in SL. Also let's not even talk about the English batting lineup that Marshall faced, in his first series against England Marshall faced Boycott, Gower, Botham, Gooch,Gatting etc, he averaged 29 compared to Mcgrath's 38 in his first series against England with much inferior batsmen.

 

[ankitj]

Yes Marshall did bowl on the Roads in India, in fact he started he career on one of those roads. And let me tell you bowing on those roads against the likes of Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkart etc is much bigger accomplishment than Mcgrath bowling on the Spin friendly tracks in SL. Also let's not even talk about the English batting lineup that Marshall faced, in his first series against England Marshall faced Boycott, Gower, Botham, Gooch,Gatting etc, he averaged 29 compared to Mcgrath's 38 in his first series against England with much inferior batsmen.

But to be fair to McGrath, he did exceptionally well against a very strong Indian batting in India.

 

[subshakerz]

But again it comes down to the eras they played in. Did Marshall have to play in India against the big 3, for example? Did he have to bowl on roads in Sri Lanka against Jayawardene and Sangakkara? Did he bowl against an increasingly improving English lineup in the 2000s?.

Marshall bowled against a strong Indian batting lineup in India and has great figures. He did the same against a strong Pakistan lineup.

And let's stop acting like McGrath had some pristine record. He averaged 29 in Sri Lanka and 31 in Pakistan. His overall average against SA in 27. And the English batting lineups prior to 2005 were not that great. Again, these are minor defects, but presenting him as having a superior record is simply wrong.

 

[Days of Grace]

So you're tell me that the Indian batting lineup was as strong in 1983 as it was in the early 2000s?


In the end, posters will choose a bowler and choose stats to support their argument.

 

[benchmark00]

And stats show that I'm better at poker than you ****.

 

[Sanz]

But to be fair to McGrath, he did exceptionally well against a very strong Indian batting in India.

He did, I have never claimed otherwise. What I am saying is that Mcgrath also faced one of the worst Indian batting team in the 1999-2000 series in Australia.

 

[smash84]

And stats show that I'm better at poker than you ****.

....Benchy WAFG

 

[Sanz]

So you're tell me that the Indian batting lineup was as strong in 1983 as it was in the early 2000s?

No, I am telling you that I will take the 1983 lineup over the 1999-2000 Indian batting lineup that toured Australia. Every Single time.

I am also saying that the pitches that Marshall bowled at in India were much flatter than Mcgrath ever bowled at in India.