Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Ikki]

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.

You're wrong, as The Sean has mentioned several times, yet you seemingly ignore for convenience. Lillee's average in the WSC is 23.91. The aforementioned bowlers have lower averages...but played fewer matches - in some cases very few, like Imran. Lillee was universally lauded as the great bowler of that tournament; you are trying to revise history. We aren't discussing Bishop or Waqar here; stop trying to create strawmen - as if my not discussing them means I am being biased. Lillee was arguably as good post stress-fractures as he was before - so I am not saying we should adjust his figures; I am saying he did what few players have done: totally reinvent himself and succeed enough to still be the best bowler in the world. You can't place an empirical value on this.

As for the rest of your post, I have actually answered your questions. If you read around it shouldn't be hard to find - they are in the last few pages.

 

[bagapath]

I know this is ridiculous. Irrational. Stupid. Illogical.
But, screw you all. I am going make a list of statistical and non statistical factors and compare these two head to head as cricketers.

1 Bowling AVG: Equals, with a slight edge to McGrath considering McGrath bowled in a more difficult era for bowlers
2 SR: Marshall
3 Econ: McGrath, considering run rates were higher for every other bowler during the 00s.
4 WPM: Equals
5 Ability to pick up 5fers: Marshall
6 All round success as bowlers: Equals. With a slight edge to Marshall because he never failed against any opponent. McGrath was less than great against SA.
7 Longevity: McGrath (considering the amount of international cricket played in the same 13 year career each of them had)
8 Pace: Marshall
9 Accuracy: Equals. With a slight edge to McGrath
10 Versatility: Marshall
11 Game changing ability: Equals.
12 ODIs: McGrath
13 Batting: Marshall
14 Fielding: Marshall
15 Fear factor in batsman: Equals. With a slight edge to Marshall because he could and did cause physical damage too.

 

[Sanz]

It's clear you don't appreciate what the terms subjective or objective mean; or have a radically different interpretation of them than me. But that's fine, I am done pointing out the obvious.

Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts;

Facts according to you in this case = Statistics.

Statistical Fact = Marshall > Mcgrath.

Your vote in the poll = Mcgrath

Your Vote in the poll <> Objective.

 

[Ikki]

Having watched both, I will easily take Amarnath over Sehwag against bowlers like Marshall/Mcgrath and I am sure many, who had the benefit of watching both the players will do the same.

See, so you are subjective. Your whole rationale is based on nothing more than your whim/your opinion. You think Amarnath is better because he looked better - an opinion based on a subjective perception. I think McGrath is better due to a break down of stats and other facts related to his era - an opinion based on objective facts. One can disagree on the reasonings based on stats - as two people can have different opinions on the same player based on different or even the same stats - but you cannot say that the stats I brought are "subjective". They are objective facts.

You think that looking at stats beyond the career ratios is "subjective". Therefore, in your definition, looking at era averages is "subjective". Let's get that right: I brought even more detailed stats to compare the two; and you said I was being subjective.

Now, you say it is a "statistical fact" that Marshall is better than McGrath. There is no such thing. You either need a dictionary or you're having a laugh.

 

[Slifer]

Well said. I chose Marshall because he would take wickets one over ahead of McGrath without giving any extra runs. He is the rarest of the rare kind, that did not compromise on accuracy for the sake of attacking. His strike rate was much lower and so was his average, in comparison with any fast bowler with 200+ wickets, including McGrath.

Also, in a team full of hungry lions - he played all his career with two other, sometimes three, giants bowling with him - getting a piece of flesh must have been quite a struggle. But from 1983 onwards, when he took the new ball for the first time in Kanpur and reduced India to 4 wickets for nothing much, he was the greatest leader of the greatest pace attack of all time. Only his unparalleled genius could reduce champions like Holding, Garner, Walsh and Bishop (and good pacers like Patterson) to glorified supporting acts. Until Ambrose took over the mantle from him in 1990, the West Indian attack had a clear leader and that was Macko. If Marshall and McGrath were to bowl together in a team, am sure Marshall would be the primus inter pares there as well. The difference between them is marginal; but it is clear that he is ahead of Pigeon in every aspect of pace bowling by a narrow, teeny wheeny margin.

By any chance did u catch the World XI team that MM and Hadlee bowled in tandem against in the late 80s (I think). If I recalll they played a worldXI on a wicket specifically prepared for runs but guess who was the standout even in the presence of Hadlee none other than MM (even though he only took 4 wkts).

BTW the post comparing MM and Mcgrath head to head classic!!!!!!

 

[Sanz]

See, so you are subjective. Your whole rationale is based on nothing more than your whim/your opinion. You think Amarnath is better because he looked better - an opinion based on a subjective perception. I think McGrath is better due to a break down of stats and other facts related to his era - an opinion based on objective facts. One can disagree on the reasonings based on stats - as two people can have different opinions on the same player based on different or even the same stats - but you cannot say that the stats I brought are "subjective". They are objective facts.

You think that looking at stats beyond the career ratios is "subjective". Therefore, in your definition, looking at era averages is "subjective". Let's get that right: I brought even more detailed stats to compare the two; and you said I was being subjective.

Now, you say it is a "statistical fact" that Marshall is better than McGrath. There is no such thing. You either need a dictionary or you're having a laugh.

Ofcourse I am subjective because I am using my opinion after watching both the players. But so are you by manipulating the stats based on your preferred criteria. If you are going to be manipulating stats based on your little criteria, it is being subjective because not everyone is going to accept that subjective criteria.

You also made another statement "as high as I rate Marshall I have reservations about the quality of the batsmen he faced whereas I don't at all with McGrath"

Is that not being subjective ?

Also here you are making the exact same point about Wasim Akram about the subjectivity of watching a player and then forming an opinion about him :-

I.......I rate Wasim so highly and am surprised people call him overrated. I think the category you say is accurate, then it is a measure of some other things. For me, how Wasim did against both Australia and WIndies (two ATG sides) says enough about him as a bowler.If you didn't watch him regularly, you really missed out why he was so special. He was also in International cricket for some 19 years, which is incredible.

All this in one single thread in addition to voting for Mcgrath as the better bowler despite all (or majority of) statistical facts pointing otherwise. Once again, you are also subjective when it suits you, so please do not accuse others of being subjective.

 

[Darth018]

I find it quite amusing how some people here don't wanna adjust to the era and yet they are the same ones calling Marshall "the greatest bowler of all time" and things of that nature. Marshall is not even a top 15 bowler if you don't adjust to the era.

Either adjust to the era which makes McGrath better than Marshall or don't adjust to the era which makes Marshall better than McGrath but doesn't even put him in the top 15 bowler's list. Choose one or the other you can't have it both ways.

I'm quite disappointed I expected better from forum page users. Its like you guys care more about Marshall winning this poll against McGrath than you do about the other one. I would have thought adjusting to the era would have come naturally to all when comparing bowlers of 2 different generations but I guess not.

I originally didn't have an opinion on this but I'm voting for McGrath now because I am really liking Ikki's posts he is really about some of the few people making fair arguments here.

 

[centurymaker]

if Mcgrath had to bowl in 1980s he might have struggled....

 

[Darth018]

if Mcgrath had to bowl in 1980s he might have struggled....

He didn't struggle in the flat track era so I see no logical reason to suggest he would struggle in a bowler one. Logically he should have much better statistics.

 

[kyear2]

I find it quite amusing how some people here don't wanna adjust to the era and yet they are the same ones calling Marshall "the greatest bowler of all time" and things of that nature. Marshall is not even a top 15 bowler if you don't adjust to the era.

Either adjust to the era which makes McGrath better than Marshall or don't adjust to the era which makes Marshall better than McGrath but doesn't even put him in the top 15 bowler's list. Choose one or the other you can't have it both ways.

I'm quite disappointed I expected better from forum page users. Its like you guys care more about Marshall winning this poll against McGrath than you do about the other one. I would have thought adjusting to the era would have come naturally to all when comparing bowlers of 2 different generations but I guess not.

I originally didn't have an opinion on this but I'm voting for McGrath now because I am really liking Ikki's posts he is really about some of the few people making fair arguments here.

So if Marshall isnt even a top 15, could you kindly name at least the 10 who are better than him.

 

[Ikki]

Ofcourse I am subjective because I am using my opinion after watching both the players. But so are you by manipulating the stats based on your preferred criteria. If you are going to be manipulating stats based on your little criteria, it is being subjective because not everyone is going to accept that subjective criteria.

You also made another statement "as high as I rate Marshall I have reservations about the quality of the batsmen he faced whereas I don't at all with McGrath"

Is that not being subjective ?

Pretty much all stats we use are a manipulation of data. An "average" is the amount of runs divided by the dismissed innings for a batsman. It's a way to try to discern the ability of a batsman to score on a match by match basis.

How is looking at era averages any different to this? Instead of trying to take in data which is wholly relevant - like era averages - you try to play this as a manipulation (a pejorative term in this case) for merely trying to make the data more reliable.

Even the statement you highlighted is based on stats/facts I used to make that statement - I showed you batting averages between eras and noted the batting line-ups country by country. I didn't, for instance, say "after watching the 00s I think the batsmen were much better" because watching itself is not a very accurate nor objective way to make a judgement on the standard of batting.

Also here you are making the exact same point about Wasim Akram about the subjectivity of watching a player and then forming an opinion about him :-

Here, I am referring to (although I did not elaborate) Wasim's ability to unroot even the most settled of batsmen and his ability to take important wickets in a bunch. But it's hard to build such a case on the available stats on statsguru - I would have to do an innings by innings explanation of what I meant and that is what I mean by "if you had watched him you would understand". Nonetheless, I would call that a subjective assessment because which wickets are important which situation is dire is up for question. But what does that have to do with this thread, anyway?

The irony is that the post you quote is similarly along the lines of why I am arguing against you here. I am saying that in a certain class of bowlers, people separating them on the basis of 1-2 runs/balls in avg/sr are giving it too much value. But as batsmen Sehwag and Amarnath aren't that close - they aren't in the same class. Someone "watching" and thinking it so is different to what I was referring to with Wasim and his all-time great competitors.

All this in one single thread in addition to voting for Mcgrath as the better bowler despite all (or majority of) statistical facts pointing otherwise. Once again, you are also subjective when it suits you, so please do not accuse others of being subjective.

My opinion is based on stats/facts, your opinion is based on...an opinion. If I had brought up some ridiculous stat like how many 5fers McGrath had on the first Monday of June v Marshall; I could see what you're saying. But the stats I brought are wholly reasonable - if not more accurate and relevant - and for you to equate that to your judgement of Amarnath based on what you "watched" ... well it is a stretch too far.

 

[Jacknife]

I find it quite amusing how some people here don't wanna adjust to the era and yet they are the same ones calling Marshall "the greatest bowler of all time" and things of that nature. Marshall is not even a top 15 bowler if you don't adjust to the era.

Either adjust to the era which makes McGrath better than Marshall or don't adjust to the era which makes Marshall better than McGrath but doesn't even put him in the top 15 bowler's list. Choose one or the other you can't have it both ways.

I'm quite disappointed I expected better from forum page users. Its like you guys care more about Marshall winning this poll against McGrath than you do about the other one. I would have thought adjusting to the era would have come naturally to all when comparing bowlers of 2 different generations but I guess not.

I originally didn't have an opinion on this but I'm voting for McGrath now because I am really liking Ikki's posts he is really about some of the few people making fair arguments here.

Because you happen to agree with him he's the one making a fair argument. Maybe people just rate Marshall higher than McGrath, how is that a ridiculous notion and who are you to say you expected better of people of what is a very subjective choice, when comparing two ATG players.
I can except if someone wants to rate McGrath higher, that's fair enough but I'm sorry, I can't tale someone seriously who doesn't even rate Marshall in the top 15 bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

Because you happen to agree with him he's the one making a fair argument. Maybe people just rate Marshall higher than McGrath, how is that a ridiculous notion and who are you to say you expected better of people of what is a very subjective choice, when comparing two ATG players.
I can except if someone wants to rate McGrath higher, that's fair enough but I'm sorry, I can't tale someone seriously who doesn't even rate Marshall in the top 15 bowlers.

He's saying that if you don't adjust for eras then you can't have Marshall in the top 15 bowlers. I think he is referring to cricket in the early 1900s and prior where averages were half of Marshall's.

And he's completely right. Either you adjust so you can fairly compare or you say Marshall isn't in the top 15 or whatever based on unadjusted averages.

Frankly, I wasn't even making it a point to adjust averages to inflate Marshall's average or deflate McGrath's. I don't think their eras are so different that it would make them completely different in their efficacy. It is more accurate to do, but that wasn't my point. I was merely suggesting that the batting Marshall faced was of a lower quality/depth and the bowling was aided by more helpful pitches. So when people just come and say that "Marshall is superior in every facet" they have to realise that the difference between them is not as first appears.

 

[Darth018]

So if Marshall isnt even a top 15, could you kindly name at least the 10 who are better than him.

Records | Test matches | Bowling records | Best career bowling average | ESPN Cricinfo

If you would kindly bother reading my whole post I said he is not even a top 15 "if you don't adjust to the era" If I'm not mistaken. I never said I agree with just the basic stats though.

I believe your one of the people that doesn't wanna give McGrath the benefit of the doubt by not wanting to adjust to the era. I also believe your the one that made a very ridiculous post about how Marshall is the "Bradman of bowlers" on another thread. That's really quite laughable. Even if we take the Bradman part as an exaggeration how exactly is Mashall anywhere near being the "greatest bowler of all time" if your not adjusting to the era?

 

[Jacknife]

He's saying that if you don't adjust for eras then you can't have Marshall in the top 15 bowlers. I think he is referring to cricket in the early 1900s and prior where averages were half of Marshall's.

And he's completely right. Either you adjust so you can fairly compare or you say Marshall isn't in the top 15 or whatever based on unadjusted averages.

Frankly, I wasn't even making it a point to adjust averages to inflate Marshall's average or deflate McGrath's. I don't think their eras are so different that it would make them completely different in their efficacy. It is more accurate to do, but that wasn't my point. I was merely suggesting that the batting Marshall's faced was of a lower quality/depth and the bowling was aided by more helpful pitches. So when people just come and say that "Marshall is superior in every facet" they have to realise that the difference between them is not as first appears.

Like I said, I have no problem with anyone picking McGrath at all, very different kinds of bowlers but both brilliant at what they did but personally having watched both I would chose Marshall, for a lot of the reasons mentioned already.
I also agree with you there may be a adjustment from the 80's to 90's etc but how much and on what basis is almost impossible to do and marginal at best, saying that if Marshall bowled in the same era as McGrath, I would fancy he would have a similar record to what he does have now.

 

[kyear2]

Records | Test matches | Bowling records | Best career bowling average | ESPN Cricinfo

If you would kindly bother reading my whole post I said he is not even a top 15 "if you don't adjust to the era" If I'm not mistaken. I never said I agree with just the basic stats though.

I believe your one of the people that doesn't wanna give McGrath the benefit of the doubt by not wanting to adjust to the era. I also believe your the one that made a very ridiculous post about how Marshall is the "Bradman of bowlers" on another thread. That's really quite laughable. Even if we take the Bradman part as an exaggeration how exactly is Mashall anywhere near being the "greatest bowler of all time" if your not adjusting to the era?

I also made a post where I stated that as far as I was concerned Mcgrath is # as far as I was concerned. Marshall played in the same era as Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Holding, arguably all (except Holding) noted as top 10 all time. None of them had quite the same stats as Malcolm, additionally its not just about the stats. Malcolm btwn '83 and '88 was brutally fast, yes even faster than Wispering Death, he was accurate, he could swing the ball, brutal bouncer and when needed he could produce his cutters. Mcgrath didnt have half the variety, but he was great at what he did.
As I have discussed previously in this forum the pitches and batsmen in the 00's didnt suddenly become greater. At about 2003 most of the great bowlers of the 90's retired and averages everywhere went up as a result. As I had documented Mcgraths average 10 the 00's is actually lower than his 90's average. But when Ambrose, Donald, Akram, Walsh, Pollock, Waqar et al retired the void was never fully filled. Mcgrath, Warne and Murali were the remaining great bowlers and their averages never suffered. Of all the bowlers today only Steyn and probably Swann can be called great, and batsmen rejoice. There is no reason to believe that Marshalls average would have suffered as others from the 90's didn't. Class prevails.
With regard to adjusting for eras, the difference between the 80's and now is hardly comparable to the 19th century and up to the 1930's. The game as it is since the modern era 60's/70's to present hasnt changed that much, especially sine the late 70's and the advent of helmets. The biggest change in cricket since covered wickets and second new balls. So while there is adjustment required for the Barnes of the world, such a large adjustment cannot be merrited for Marshall and Mcgrath. Ambrose can be seen as a bridge between the two and his trasition from 80's - 90's was as seamless and Mcgrath's was from the 90's -00's.
I am not disparaging Mcgrath in any way, he is not over rated, but they are slender few who rate him above Maco.

 

[kyear2]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

 

[Jacknife]

I also made a post where I stated that as far as I was concerned Mcgrath is # as far as I was concerned. Marshall played in the same era as Hadlee, Imran, Lillee, Holding, arguably all (except Holding) noted as top 10 all time. None of them had quite the same stats as Malcolm, additionally its not just about the stats. Malcolm btwn '83 and '88 was brutally fast, yes even faster than Wispering Death, he was accurate, he could swing the ball, brutal bouncer and when needed he could produce his cutters. Mcgrath didnt have half the variety, but he was great at what he did.
As I have discussed previously in this forum the pitches and batsmen in the 00's didnt suddenly become greater. At about 2003 most of the great bowlers of the 90's retired and averages everywhere went up as a result. As I had documented Mcgraths average 10 the 00's is actually lower than his 90's average. But when Ambrose, Donald, Akram, Walsh, Pollock, Waqar et al retired the void was never fully filled. Mcgrath, Warne and Murali were the remaining great bowlers and their averages never suffered. Of all the bowlers today only Steyn and probably Swann can be called great, and batsmen rejoice. There is no reason to believe that Marshalls average would have suffered as others from the 90's didn't. Class prevails.
With regard to adjusting for eras, the difference between the 80's and now is hardly comparable to the 19th century and up to the 1930's. The game as it is since the modern era 60's/70's to present hasnt changed that much, especially sine the late 70's and the advent of helmets. The biggest change in cricket since covered wickets and second new balls. So while there is adjustment required for the Barnes of the world, such a large adjustment cannot be merrited for Marshall and Mcgrath. Ambrose can be seen as a bridge between the two and his trasition from 80's - 90's was as seamless and Mcgrath's was from the 90's -00's.
I am not disparaging Mcgrath in any way, he is not over rated, but they are slender few who rate him above Maco.

That would be a poll I'd be interested in seeing the outcome of Ambrose v McGrath, I wouldn't be surprised if it hadn't been done before though.

Thought it might have
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/37935-ambrose-vs-mcgrath.html

and this
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/31811-ambrose-v-mcgrath-2.html#post1386129

 

[Sanz]

Pretty much all stats we use are a manipulation of data.

Nice Try. But Statsguru is a manipulation of data in a standard format for every player. Every player's record is processed in exactly same way. What you do is pick and choose your criteria based on your preferences/rule of how you want to manipulate that standard statsguru data. You do not seem to have one standard for every player. Your set of rules change from one player to another.

How is looking at era averages any different to this? Instead of trying to take in data which is wholly relevant - like era averages - you try to play this as a manipulation (a pejorative term in this case) for merely trying to make the data more reliable.

It is different because the Marshall's bowling has nothing to do with other bowlers in 80s. But even if we consider your stats of "era averages", you are still wrong, because Mcgrath bowled in an era of higher strike rates than Marshall Did, yet his strike rate is much worse than Marshall's who bowled in an era where strike rate was 70+. This clearly illustrates that Marshall's wicketing taking ability.

The reason Mcgrath's average is closer to Marshall's is because his economy rate is a lot better than the avg. economy rate of his era whereas Marshall's economy is at par with his era. So the only thing we can conclude from your 'Era Average' is that Marshall was a much better wicket taking bowler (perhaps because of his variety) than Mcgrath's.

Even the statement you highlighted is based on stats/facts I used to make that statement - I showed you batting averages between eras and noted the batting line-ups country by country. I didn't, for instance, say "after watching the 00s I think the batsmen were much better" because watching itself is not a very accurate nor objective way to make a judgement on the standard of batting.

And what are batting averages for Marshall's era ? 29.99 (Excluding WI batsmen because Marshall didn't bowl to them)

And what are the batting averages for Mcgrath's era ? 29.57 (Excluding the Aussie batsmen because Mcgrath didn't have to bowl at them.)

Yet again average bating era argument goes in favor of Marshall.

Nonetheless, I would call that a subjective assessment because which wickets are important which situation is dire is up for question. But what does that have to do with this thread, anyway?

It has to do with this thread because in this same thread you accused other members of being Subjective, yet you yourself have made the same subjective argument to prove your point.

The irony is that the post you quote is similarly along the lines of why I am arguing against you here. I am saying that in a certain class of bowlers, people separating them on the basis of 1-2 runs/balls in avg/sr are giving it too much value. But as batsmen Sehwag and Amarnath aren't that close - they aren't in the same class. Someone "watching" and thinking it so is different to what I was referring to with Wasim and his all-time great competitors.

You still don't get it. Let me take another example, Ricky Ponting and Virender Sehwag have difference of only one runs in their averages, does that mean the difference between the two is not much ? Another Example, VVS & Sehwag have and average of 46 Vs 52, does that man Sehwag is that much better than VVS ?

Last one, Lara averages 52.88, Sehwag 52.26, Please let me know if think the difference value between those two as a batsmen only of .62 points.

My opinion is based on stats/facts, your opinion is based on...an opinion.

If your opinion, which is based on stats/facts, says that Mcgrath is a better bowler then that is wrong because according to the facts Marshall is the better bowler.

My opinion, which is based on watching both of them play for majority of their careers, is more acceptable (at least in this thread) than yours and ,in this case, also backed by Statistics.

 

[smash84]

I'm quite disappointed I expected better from forum page users. Its like you guys care more about McGrath winning this poll against Marshall than you do about the other one. I would have thought adjusting to the era would have come naturally to all when comparing bowlers of 2 different generations but I guess not.

I originally didn't have an opinion on this but I'm voting for Marshall now because I am really liking Sanz's posts he is really among some of the few people making fair arguments here