subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I cannot see an argument, statistical or not, to pick McGrath over Marshall. Let us leave the stats behind and assume they are equal, though most objective observers should give Marshall an edge. Let us examine them as bowlers.
McGrath's main bowling pros were his height, accuracy and cricketing brain. He relied less on swing and more on subtle variations through cutting across the seam and extracting bounce from the wicket to bowl in the trouble corridor for the batsman, usually around off stump. He was relentless in probing the batman for his weaknesses and giving away nothing. Even on flat wickets, his exceptionally tight line meant batsmen were never free to score runs and were usually kept on a leash.
Marshall was different and had a bigger bag of tricks. His lack of height, rather than being a disadvantage, allowed him to skid the ball and make him even more uncomfortable to face. Skidding the ball meant that, unlike a lot of bowlers, he could be successful on all types of surfaces without relying on the pitch's bounce. Like McGrath, he had a fantastic cricketing brain, and was able to spot batsmen's weaknesses very quickly, and had all the tools to exploit them. He was a master of swing, seam, cutters, with a sharp yorker and a nasty bouncer. When swing was not an option, he could just adjust his bowling completely to bowl a tight line with cutters as he did so magnificently in Sydney 88 on a spinner pitch.
Both had terrific all-round records and were rarely if ever dominated in their careers. But the key difference between them for me is the intimidation factor i.e., pace. Marshall was express pace for most of his career, while McGrath was fast-medium at best. Now granted, pace is not everything, and for the vast majority of the time, they were likely be equally succesful in taking wickets. But I do think there are a very few occasions when pure pace can produce results on a flat wicket that metronomic line and length cannot. Marshall showed this ability to create fear in the batsmen on unresponsive wickets through speed in India 83 and in Adelaide in 84 when the ball was coming up to knee's height.
That to me is the crucial difference between the two. I mean, logically speaking, if you have two worldclass bowlers with near equal records, why would you not choose the one with more pace and variety? Surely he will be able to handle most situations a bowler faced slightly more effectively, no? Pace in skillful hands is always an asset. Again, the difference is small but notable.
McGrath's main bowling pros were his height, accuracy and cricketing brain. He relied less on swing and more on subtle variations through cutting across the seam and extracting bounce from the wicket to bowl in the trouble corridor for the batsman, usually around off stump. He was relentless in probing the batman for his weaknesses and giving away nothing. Even on flat wickets, his exceptionally tight line meant batsmen were never free to score runs and were usually kept on a leash.
Marshall was different and had a bigger bag of tricks. His lack of height, rather than being a disadvantage, allowed him to skid the ball and make him even more uncomfortable to face. Skidding the ball meant that, unlike a lot of bowlers, he could be successful on all types of surfaces without relying on the pitch's bounce. Like McGrath, he had a fantastic cricketing brain, and was able to spot batsmen's weaknesses very quickly, and had all the tools to exploit them. He was a master of swing, seam, cutters, with a sharp yorker and a nasty bouncer. When swing was not an option, he could just adjust his bowling completely to bowl a tight line with cutters as he did so magnificently in Sydney 88 on a spinner pitch.
Both had terrific all-round records and were rarely if ever dominated in their careers. But the key difference between them for me is the intimidation factor i.e., pace. Marshall was express pace for most of his career, while McGrath was fast-medium at best. Now granted, pace is not everything, and for the vast majority of the time, they were likely be equally succesful in taking wickets. But I do think there are a very few occasions when pure pace can produce results on a flat wicket that metronomic line and length cannot. Marshall showed this ability to create fear in the batsmen on unresponsive wickets through speed in India 83 and in Adelaide in 84 when the ball was coming up to knee's height.
That to me is the crucial difference between the two. I mean, logically speaking, if you have two worldclass bowlers with near equal records, why would you not choose the one with more pace and variety? Surely he will be able to handle most situations a bowler faced slightly more effectively, no? Pace in skillful hands is always an asset. Again, the difference is small but notable.
......
