Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[Ikki]

Found some stats: In WSC against WI, Lillee's record was: 42 wickets in 9 matches (5 in WI); AVG. 26.2, SR. 41.9.

 

[Slifer]

Found some stats: In WSC against WI, Lillee's record was: 42 wickets in 9 matches (5 in WI); AVG. 26.2, SR. 41.9.

And his wickets in India and Pakistan?? And at the risk of repeating myself, but WSC donot constitute test matches. We can also include stats for all other cricketers who played WSC but alas they would be futile because WSC has never and will never be considered as tests. WSC was not tougher than tests, if ne thing it was tougher for the batsmen. The bowlers relatively speaking had it easier. And I'm still trying to wrap my brain around y MM should be penalised for not facing his own lineup vs Lillee when Lillee's record (at the risk of repeating myself yet again) is "ok" vs the WI. And btw u make it seem as if MM faced amateur batting lineups in the 80s. He had to contend with Indian lineups consisting of : Gavaskar, Vengsakar, Armanath etc. I clearly remeber MM coming up against Aussie lineups that consisted of : Taylor, S Waugh, M Waugh, Boon and Dean Jones. Not too shabby if u ask me.

I'll conclude by making one last point. I'm almost certain that if MM had Lillee's record (test record) and Lillee had MM's this wouldnt even be a debate. You would be arguing how MM didnt have as good an away record and how he excelled because he bowled mostly at home on his own designer wickets. Much like the argument u use in 'other' debates.

 

[bagapath]

Marshall himself said Lillee was the best.

Viv Richards recently said Virat Kohli's batting reminds Viv of himself. These guys can say anything and get away with it. We can ignore these sorts of comments IIkki (how are you mate!!).

 

[Slifer]

Found some stats: In WSC against WI, Lillee's record was: 42 wickets in 9 matches (5 in WI); AVG. 26.2, SR. 41.9.

Found some stats against WI in WI, Lillee's record was : 23 wickets in 5 supertests at 28 and sr of 47. Not very impressive if u ask me.

 

[akilana]

Found some stats: In WSC against WI, Lillee's record was: 42 wickets in 9 matches (5 in WI); AVG. 26.2, SR. 41.9.

Why does it matter? Marshall was the better bowler.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Viv Richards recently said Virat Kohli's batting reminds Viv of himself. These guys can say anything and get away with it. We can ignore these sorts of comments IIkki (how are you mate!!).

Tbf its not totally impossible that Marshall himself learned a lot from watching Lillee bowl so that might have been why he said it.

 

[Ikki]

The thing is everybody said it. Lillee was the standard, the benchmark, for fast bowling greatness. Richard Hadlee basically idolised him. One can put whatever weight they want on it...but lets stop pretending like Lillee isn't in the discussion. Its quite obvious the likes of Marshall, Lloyd, Viv and Holding (all who considered Lillee #1 of their era/all-time) didn't need him to have another series in the sub-continent to show what he was made of. This forum is very well read on stats and relies on them (I'm one of them) but they get too concerned with them and neglect contemporary opinions and context when making judgments.

@ Slifer, if you don't consider WSC or the ROTW matches Tests then I can't change your mind. But basically everyone who partook in the WSC Tests said it was the highest standard of cricket they ever played. There is nothing to differentiate between the ICC World XI Tests played against Australia which are recognised and the WSC Tests which aren't. In fact, the one-off nature of the former makes it less relevant IMO. To me, it just comes across as someone wilfully ignoring it to serve an argument. Because in terms of gauging them as players it makes little sense to ignore them.

Marshall is not being penalised but he is being compared to bowlers who did play much tougher line-ups. Lillee sticks out as the perfect example. It's ironic that Lillee is being 'punished' because of things out of his hands (playing SC more) yet Marshall's era being relatively weak in terms of batting line-ups should just be ignored. The point is that a straight stats comparison doesn't suffice. Just as you would factor in that one spinner bowled on uncovered wickets when comparing to a spinner that didn't, you also consider the relative strength of batting around the world.

When it comes to India and Pakistan, my main question is: so what? They weren't great line-ups. It's not like Lillee didn't play the two best teams of the time. The only reason it is something to talk about is because of the pitches. We can use our intellect to note that Lillee was considered a dangerous bowler on dead pitches and was renown for his cutters. He had all the tools to succeed there. He used those tools to great effect against better batsmen than the Pakistanis or Indians. If it was something to note that it was missing from his record, they would have noted it then and the lauding of him wouldn't have happened.

So why people can't get over that bridge is a mystery to me. I can understand if you simply think Marshall was better, but is the only reason you're not rating Lillee as high or better because he didn't play enough there? Imagine if Marshall, after his first series, against India didn't play them anymore because his team didn't tour there/was injured and that remained of his record. Are you going to consider him a lesser bowler because of it? Even if he had all the tools to succeed there? Even if all and sundry said he was the best fast bowler ever, despite it?

@ bagapath: Saying someone reminds them of their batting is a bit different to saying X is the greatest ever. Hey mate!

 

[kyear2]

Just a couple of questions.
How is it that Marshall's era was that much weaker that Lillee's and quite frankly IMHO it was more difficult to bowl to India's batting line up in India than to our's in Australia.

To use different players saying who they though is better only goes so far as Thompson, Border and Akran rates Marshall as the best ever and they are only two players who were universally seen as the best ever, Brasman as the best batsman and Sobers as the best all rounder and we all know how you view the latter, so comtempory and historical rating should mean nothing to you.

You say that we can't punish Lillee because he didn't play in the most difficult place to bowl, but want to punish Marshall for playing in a "weak" era. Can't have it both ways.

I am not saying that you have to belive that Marshall is better than Lillee, and you are free to rate anyone as the greatest, but don't try to make it seem that it is a given and certainty that Lillee is seen as the best. Their stats seen in an ATG perspective are not that close and Holding who more or less played in Lillee's era is closer (or superior depending on perspective) to him that Marshall and I see Holding and Lillee as equals with Lillee holding an edge due to the fact that he was much more durable and reliable.

 

[Coronis]

Who is Thompson?

 

[smash84]

Just a couple of questions.
How is it that Marshall's era was that much weaker that Lillee's and quite frankly IMHO it was more difficult to bowl to India's batting line up in India than to our's in Australia.

To use different players saying who they though is better only goes so far as Thompson, Border and Akran rates Marshall as the best ever and they are only two players who were universally seen as the best ever, Brasman as the best batsman and Sobers as the best all rounder and we all know how you view the latter, so comtempory and historical rating should mean nothing to you.

Nor sure but doesn't border rate akram as the best?

Who is Thompson?

, I think he missed that thread and PEWS comments on Mcgrath

 

[robelinda]

I have extensive footage of the 77/78 and 78/79 supertests, honestly the cricket is NOT a ridiculously high standard. The vibe is very relaxed, apart from the odd spell where the WI bowlers really decided to wake up. Was quite surprised at how slow the over rates were, VERY slow. In the one dayers it took teams 4 hours to bowl under 40 overs, no kidding. Now, im not saying ALL the WSC stuff was low key and casual, some of it was intense and great cricket, but there were a LOT of matches, and not all of them were played with test match intensity. Those who are older than me who watched more of it please comment too, i dont pay any attention to past players glorification of series they played, they all exaggerate.

 

[Top_Cat]

What?! You're not suggesting past players would have a vested interest in over-selling the WSC carnival Supertests are you?

 

[Slifer]

The thing is everybody said it. Lillee was the standard, the benchmark, for fast bowling greatness. Richard Hadlee basically idolised him. One can put whatever weight they want on it...but lets stop pretending like Lillee isn't in the discussion. Its quite obvious the likes of Marshall, Lloyd, Viv and Holding (all who considered Lillee #1 of their era/all-time) didn't need him to have another series in the sub-continent to show what he was made of. This forum is very well read on stats and relies on them (I'm one of them) but they get too concerned with them and neglect contemporary opinions and context when making judgments.

@ Slifer, if you don't consider WSC or the ROTW matches Tests then I can't change your mind. But basically everyone who partook in the WSC Tests said it was the highest standard of cricket they ever played. There is nothing to differentiate between the ICC World XI Tests played against Australia which are recognised and the WSC Tests which aren't. In fact, the one-off nature of the former makes it less relevant IMO. To me, it just comes across as someone wilfully ignoring it to serve an argument. Because in terms of gauging them as players it makes little sense to ignore them.

Marshall is not being penalised but he is being compared to bowlers who did play much tougher line-ups. Lillee sticks out as the perfect example. It's ironic that Lillee is being 'punished' because of things out of his hands (playing SC more) yet Marshall's era being relatively weak in terms of batting line-ups should just be ignored. The point is that a straight stats comparison doesn't suffice. Just as you would factor in that one spinner bowled on uncovered wickets when comparing to a spinner that didn't, you also consider the relative strength of batting around the world.

When it comes to India and Pakistan, my main question is: so what? They weren't great line-ups. It's not like Lillee didn't play the two best teams of the time. The only reason it is something to talk about is because of the pitches. We can use our intellect to note that Lillee was considered a dangerous bowler on dead pitches and was renown for his cutters. He had all the tools to succeed there. He used those tools to great effect against better batsmen than the Pakistanis or Indians. If it was something to note that it was missing from his record, they would have noted it then and the lauding of him wouldn't have happened.

So why people can't get over that bridge is a mystery to me. I can understand if you simply think Marshall was better, but is the only reason you're not rating Lillee as high or better because he didn't play enough there? Imagine if Marshall, after his first series, against India didn't play them anymore because his team didn't tour there/was injured and that remained of his record. Are you going to consider him a lesser bowler because of it? Even if he had all the tools to succeed there? Even if all and sundry said he was the best fast bowler ever, despite it?

@ bagapath: Saying someone reminds them of their batting is a bit different to saying X is the greatest ever. Hey mate!

Really?? Now you're putting stock into what the experts think?? They re r just as many 'experts' from Mark Nicolas to Ashley Mallett who think MM is the best. The point about playing in Asia is not just about the pitches. Maybe u r too young to remember this, but umpires back then (WI included) were notoriously biased towards their home team, for a fast bowler to come to these countries and excel was unique. Since u like to harp on MM not playing ne strong lineups (which is grasping at straws AFAIC ) lets compare MM and Lillee vs the teams they have in common ie NZ, Pak, IND, ENG:

Lillee: av 23.09 SR 52.5 econ 2.63

MM: av 20.47 SR 45.8 econ 2.67 (bear in mind for MM 2/3 of his games were away)

To conclude the whole point of this debate, yes I think MM is better than Lillee as he was great wherever he went. He had an outstanding average, sr, and WPM (when u consider the competition he had for wickets). IMO the only bowlers who come close to his completeness record wise are Mcgrath and Imran and the only bowlers in his league skill wise will be Imran and Wasim. Lillee was a great fast bowler who passed on many tricks of the trade to others, was hostile brave and highly successful but sorry he wasnt near as successful as MM. Added to that, Lillee showcased his skills on the relatively favorable/limited platforms of Oz and Eng and even if for the sake of argument u want to incl wsc or WorldXi they were also played in Eng or Oz. Thats y he is so lauded mostly by the anglo-centric media. MM on the other hand showcased his skills in Oz and Eng and was more successful. He was also more successful globally. Even against the exact same countries MM was more successful. Even MM's away record is superior to Lillee's home record case closed

 

[Burgey]

I reckon some people will think Marshall was better, others will think McGrath and still others someone else.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm not interested in getting in a stats war but, honestly, the difference between Lillee and Marshall statistically isn't definitive in my book because there's just not much difference between averaging Marshall's 20.47 and Lillee's 23.92.

Quick calculation; Lillee would need to have taken 60 more wickets in the same number of balls to match Marshall's average. This translates to, roughly, 2 or 3 more wickets per series. That, to my mind, is SFA and there are so many noisy factors in sport so as to render the difference pretty much negligible.

Of course that's pretty bloody rough and to do a solid statistical treatment, you'd need to couple a decent sampling regime with any analysis but I highly doubt there is a definitive stat which will separate them, certainly absolutely nothing I've seen on CW gets anywhere near. Instead you have your eyes and a bunch of good judges saying both were incredible bowlers (I know I loved watching both). Deal, the rest is masturbation.

 

[Coronis]

For me, the very top fast bowlers have practically nothing between them. Marshall and McGrath are the two I rate most highly, the two with the most impeccable records imo, but then you have the next few all dead even pretty much. Ambrose, Lillee, Hadlee etc. I'd be very happy to have any of them.

 

[uvelocity]

I'm not interested in getting in a stats war but, honestly, the difference between Lillee and Marshall statistically isn't definitive in my book because there's just not much difference between averaging Marshall's 20.47 and Lillee's 23.92.

Quick calculation; Lillee would need to have taken 60 more wickets in the same number of balls to match Marshall's average. This translates to, roughly, 2 or 3 more wickets per series. That, to my mind, is SFA and there are so many noisy factors in sport so as to render the difference pretty much negligible.

Of course that's pretty bloody rough and to do a solid statistical treatment, you'd need to couple a decent sampling regime with any analysis but I highly doubt there is a definitive stat which will separate them, certainly absolutely nothing I've seen on CW gets anywhere near. Instead you have your eyes and a bunch of good judges saying both were incredible bowlers (I know I loved watching both). Deal, the rest is masturbation.

a topic top_**** is well qualified to offer advice in

 

[Top_Cat]

Damn right!

 

[bagapath]

I'm not interested in getting in a stats war but, honestly, the difference between Lillee and Marshall statistically isn't definitive in my book because there's just not much difference between averaging Marshall's 20.47 and Lillee's 23.92.

3+ runs difference in bowling average is very significant imo. for example, the gap between alderman and lillee's averages is about the same.

 

[bagapath]

I have extensive footage of the 77/78 and 78/79 supertests, honestly the cricket is NOT a ridiculously high standard. The vibe is very relaxed, apart from the odd spell where the WI bowlers really decided to wake up. Was quite surprised at how slow the over rates were, VERY slow. In the one dayers it took teams 4 hours to bowl under 40 overs, no kidding. Now, im not saying ALL the WSC stuff was low key and casual, some of it was intense and great cricket, but there were a LOT of matches, and not all of them were played with test match intensity. Those who are older than me who watched more of it please comment too, i dont pay any attention to past players glorification of series they played, they all exaggerate.

i agree with this. i never took the WSC was test match quality stuff/ better than test cricket etc etc BS seriously. usually the "barry richards was the greatest test opener" theorists and the "lillee was the greatest fast bowler ever" club members like to quote WSC stats to "prove" why they are right.basically WSC games were, at best, good FC games that have, over time, been rightfully relegated to footnotes in cricket history.