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.
Nope, it's the same exact thing. There is no such thing as "standard" format. We happen to use averages and sr because they're pretty simple and straightforward. However, in terms of comparing players from different eras they are poor.
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.
No, it's not different. Marshall is a bowler of the 80s like many other bowlers and shared their circumstances to a large degree. Marshall is not an island on his own. If that were the case, then Lohmann has nothing to do with his era; then Blythe has nothing to do with his era. And as Darth mentioned, Marshall is not even in the top 15 averages of all time when you take stats at face value without adjustment.
You either accept one or the other, or you're a hypocrite.
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.
That's fair enough; but we can go even further: McGrath played 3 Tests against B/Z; including them only serves to dilute the sample - they don't even effect his figures anyway. Without them, the era average of McGrath is 30.71. You can do the same for Marshall WRT to SL; but his era average is still only 30.37.
But what are you doing? Did you not say this is an unfair manipulation? Oh...only when it suits you I guess.
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.
Which thread? You're the most misguided crusader I've seen. If there is a thread where many are subjective and the whole point of the thread is to be subjective, there is no harm in being subjective. When there is a thread comparing players and saying who is better; to say one is better than the other, despite the enormous gulf in their records, then being subjective is not a good thing IMO. Anyway, it has nothing to do with this thread - why not bring it up then? It seems you have a bit too much time on your hands, or a lot of straws.
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.
TBF, I don't think the difference between Sehwag, Lara and Ponting is huge; nor do I think the same of VVS. But even if I thought there was a sizeable gap such opinions are easily resolved when you look at the fact that Ponting, Lara and Laxman had a substantial playing period in the 90s whereas Sehwag hasn't.
Laxman averages 50 in the 00s, not far off Sehwag's 52. Lara averages 54 and Ponting 58. Maybe this is a more accurate reflection - I think it is but then it's not definitive.
And this, in a nutshell, is why looking at other stats other than their career ratios is apt. You have just provided a good example why the "standard" stats are often pretty crappy. One can adjust for era, or look at their record in a more detailed way - home, away, for example - or what have you. But you say these are "manipulations".
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.
This is the same non sense you have spouted before. There are some stats that Marshall may come out ahead and there are others that McGrath will. When you adjust for eras and I don't even mean that in a technical run-per-run basis; but the conditions they faced and the batsmen they faced - the line-ups they faced - then one can make an argument on facts to sway it towards McGrath. Or there are facts like; Marshall only faced 5 teams, McGrath 10. How about over-rates? How do you numerically gauge those differences, if at all? Let's get this straight though; there is no "fact" that one player is better than another.
Ankit has an analysis he posted in this thread. I think it's flawed as it is too strict without leeway for some context; but it's not bad; you'll see how close they are in that respect. And as he has mentioned in his post here; they are too close to make a definitive statement either way. You can have your opinion, but your critique of the criteria I have been using is not only poor; it is hypocritical. Because I know that most people will consider Marshall a top 15 player - including yourself - yet you would have to call it "manipulation" by your own logic just to consider him so.
Anyway, I've said my bit here. I can tell I am going to have to argue the same thing in 100 different ways and it still won't get across so I'll spend that time actually watching cricket.
