Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[Top_Cat]

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

I forgot to mention that their wicket tallies should be similar or some other measure applied to limit bias (sampling, weights, etc.). Have to be careful, especially with a bloke like Alderman where half of his wickets came in two series'.

And that's why, again, despite the raw numerical difference, you can't say with any serious certainty that the difference is 'significant'. You need to take measures to remove bias and then test the difference. Even then, that's just for averages; you'd have to find some agreement on what else constitute decent metrics for bowling ability and allow for their bias' which you'll never, ever get.

 

[harsh.ag]

I agree with the arguments that the averages don't matter that much. Looking at the whole picture is more important. Performance against different countries, under pressure situations, consistency, strike rate etc.

For example, when comparing Garner to Lillee (only Botham prefers Garner, from those I have read), we would know who to pick. However, if you already have, say Marshall and McGrath in the line-up, then Garner would be preferable to Lillee, for balance.

But Marshall was better than Lillee, yes.

 

[Francis]

Marshall's an easy choice for me on this one, and I rate McGrath highly.

McGrath can be compared to England rugby player Martin Johnson in that he played his best during the end of his career. As such, people tend to rate Johnson one of the greatest ever (which he is), while forgetting that others like Eales, Mark Andrews, and even the overrated Ian Jones and overrated Robyn Brooke, were better than him.

McGrath... I followed his career closely in the 90s and for most of the 90s I'd regard Ambrose, Akram, Donald, as even for a period, Pollock, as having bigger impacts on games.

When did I first regard McGrath the best bowler in the world? The West Indies 1999. Warne was struggling with injury, Lara was hot, but McGrath carried the side incredibly. I think from 1999 he was better than any other fast bowler in the world, until he retired really.

McGrath's best period of form I ever saw was Perth 2004 to Edgebaston 2005. During that period he was up there with the very best bowlers I ever saw... and maybe if he played like that the whole of his career he'd be the best fast bowler ever.

I really think people overstate how good McGrath was during the 90s. For example, Stuart Clark wasn't the world's best bowler ever, yet for one year his stats were incredible and he was very clean, despite not massively impacting games.

People also overstate how much McGrath helped Warne. When people look at stats and say, "Warne was better when he played with McGrath..." Well I seem to recall Warne being far more valuable to Australia than McGrath those early years, and not very dependant on him.

The two things that have always helped McGrath are:
1. His stats remained tidy from 1995-1998, despite the fact I don't think he ever eclipsed the world's best bowlers during this period, although he certainly was amazing.
2. He finished his career on a high. As I said, McGrath from 2004-mid 2005 excelled any fast bowler I saw... his performances were much more impressive than Hadlee in his prime.

Given that some people think McGrath is the best fast bowler ever, I regard him as somewhat overrated, although of course he's one of the all-time greats.

 

[harsh.ag]

People also overstate how much McGrath helped Warne.

Hardly

 

[Ikki]

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.

What does that have anything to do with it? India weren't that great in either era. The point was that a large proportion of Lillee's Tests (unofficial counted) were against far better line-ups than the best that Marshall faced.

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.

This point has been expanded on in the past and I am fairly sure to even you: if Sobers statistical achievements with the ball weren't so far away from the reality then I would trust the contemporary opinions since I hadn't seen them in action for myself. Clearly, Lillee doesn't have that problem. Likewise in another discussion, I rate Viv as the best after Bradman even though he doesn't have the strongest statistical case (his is still in the vicinity, however).

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.

There is a clear difference so I'll spell it out for you: the point against Lillee for the SC Tests is valid but only to a certain point. He was renown for his cutters on dead tracks and its not like the SC teams at the time were that good so as to cause him problems. He basically had the wood over the best SC batsman at the time (Gavaskar). So, it seems as if the gripe is merely for not having played there more rather than Lillee having the ability to be successful there.

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.

I didn't say such a thing. Holding rates Lillee as the greatest.

 

[Ikki]

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)

I see, so he should be judged on whether the home sides were inclined to cheat him out of wickets then...not his actual ability.

Experts, former players, Marshall's own teammates, etc. Its clear Marshall is heralded too, but not to the same extent as Lillee (who in both ESPN Legends of Cricket and Wisden's Cricketers of the Century was named in the top 6 Cricketers of all time and the highest placed fast bowler).

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

Or he was more lauded because he was better, because he did better against the very best, he proved himself in a myriad of other ways that don't translate easy into stats. You want a better balanced home and away record, cool. How did Marshall do when bowling as a lone-wolf? Lillee did well with help and also when he had to shoulder the load. Do these things not count now?

People can pick whoever they like and the reasons they find best but my reasoning is simple: Lillee is at the least in the statistical discussion and his legacy is unmatched in terms of all the post-70s pacers in being lauded as the best. Usually, I am skeptical about the latter factor; but when you consider what he did when facing those ATG line-ups then its quite easy to see where the praise stems from. Even as a bowling-pup Sobers considered him the greatest he'd ever seen.

Now, that's Lillee. As for McGrath, a player who I got to watch myself, I can gauge him in yet another dimension. He has a very complete record, did well home and away and also faced a generally higher standard of bowling than Marshall. These things tip discussions but only slightly. But we should have an honest discussion about them. Marshall may have been the best bowler when it came to good to very good batsman, but how was he against greats? I let people decide that for themselves.

 

[Ikki]

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

Decades after the fact?

If I've ever noticed one thing about great sportsmen is that they were competitive to a fault. For instance, take the Dream Team. It was by far the most dominant basketball team and killed off teams but everyone on that team was competitive. Even the practices got ugly. Michael Jordan used to play Golf after practice and Poker till the wee hours of the morning all in the search for competition. Examples like this abound: winners are winners and want to win everything. If its an eye-staring competition they'd want to win.

Considering the line-ups on show and the competitive nature of the players, I have a hard time believing they just took it easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfDjl1y1DsY
http://www.espncricinfo.com/worldseries/content/story/323763.html

Was it joke cricket?
Anything but. It was brutal with fast bowlers dominating and no quarter given. Some players said it was the hardest cricket they ever played. The matches were almost constant and there was no time for cricketers to play themselves back into form against lower-class opposition. "How the **** could you get back into form when you were playing Roberts, Holding, Garner day after day," Ian Chappell lamented.

 

[subshakerz]

Experts, former players, Marshall's own teammates, etc. Its clear Marshall is heralded too, but not to the same extent as Lillee (who in both ESPN Legends of Cricket and Wisden's Cricketers of the Century was named in the top 6 Cricketers of all time and the highest placed fast bowler).

One big reason Lillee is lauded so much is that he was fortunate to begin his career in the early 70s and was the first of the modern age of great fast bowlers, and gained a halo as a result as the prototype fast bowler whom his successors looked up to (along with his ultra aggressive attitude). By the time other great fast bowlers started emerging, he was already firmly established as no.1. That's fine, but it doesn't make him the best of them all. I doubt he would have been as raved about if he had debuted in the early 80s when fast bowlers were everywhere.

People can pick whoever they like and the reasons they find best but my reasoning is simple: Lillee is at the least in the statistical discussion and his legacy is unmatched in terms of all the other cricketers who laud him as the best. Usually, I am skeptical about the latter factor; but when you consider what he did when facing those ATG line-ups then its quite easy to see. Even as a bowling-pup Sobers considered him the greatest he'd ever seen..

No, Marshall has no statistical weaknesses, Lillee has gaps like having played only a few tests outside Eng, NZ and Australia and done squat in. Also, on the whole, Marshall's record just looks so much more impressive, it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If someone put forward their records to you and gave you no names, who would you pick? Would be easier for you to acknowledge this fact and then base your claim for him being the best based on other grounds of skill, legacy, etc.

 

[the big bambino]

One big reason Lillee is lauded so much is that he was fortunate to begin his career in the early 70s and was the first of the modern age of great fast bowlers, and gained a halo as a result as the prototype fast bowler whom his successors looked up to (along with his ultra aggressive attitude). By the time other great fast bowlers started emerging, he was already firmly established as no.1. That's fine, but it doesn't make him the best of them all. I doubt he would have been as raved about if he had debuted in the early 80s when fast bowlers were everywhere.

Well they were in the carribean. Bit thin on the ground elsewhere.

 

[bagapath]

lillee is basically an ashes champion who also did well in his home country versus other countries. he got terriffic coverage becase (a) he deserved it (b) he played where the press was paying more attention. outside the spotlight, he broke down in windies and got neutered in pakistan. his record is not as complete as marshall's. so it is not going to be possible to make a case for lillee when there are such statistical gaps in his resume. holding on to "expert opinion" is also pointless. these are the same "experts" who select tendulkar in all world XIs ahead of hammond, lara, headley and g.chappell. may be he belongs there. may be lillee is among the top 2 pacers of all time. but both points are debatable. their opinion is just what it is - an opinion.

as for marshall versus the greats.... he had a terrific record against gavaskar and allan border and a good one versus javed miandad. there are no chinks in his armor. he succeeded everywhere against everyone.

as for lillee versus the best team in the world, well, i think kapil dev had a better record versus windies despite bowling to them a lot in their home conditions and in india which is not conducive to pace bowling unlike australia which is lillee's home. that doesnt make kapil the best fast bowler of his era. imran and hadlee were better against windies than lillee and they were better than kapil too. so it doesnt make sense to harp on the "bowler vs best team" point beyond a point.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

lillee had terrific stats but there were gaps
lillee won matches in some places and could not in other places
he gunned for the best batters and won most of the battles

all these are facts;

marshall also did all of the above but he did it better, statistically

still, it is possible to make a case for lillee in "the best fast bowler ever" argument based on his style, his impact on the art of fast bowling and his overall aura. if we get into stats, then his case weakens and marshall wins hands down.

 

[harsh.ag]

Well they were in the carribean. Bit thin on the ground elsewhere.

When India has a great pacer, you know they are everywhere

 

[Ruckus]

lol miagra

 

[Top_Cat]

Decades after the fact?

If I've ever noticed one thing about great sportsmen is that they were competitive to a fault. For instance, take the Dream Team. It was by far the most dominant basketball team and killed off teams but everyone on that team was competitive. Even the practices got ugly. Michael Jordan used to play Golf after practice and Poker till the wee hours of the morning all in the search for competition. Examples like this abound: winners are winners and want to win everything. If its an eye-staring competition they'd want to win.

Considering the line-ups on show and the competitive nature of the players, I have a hard time believing they just took it easy.

Yes, decades after the fact. Why is that so hard to believe? As well as being competitors, they're also shameless self-promoters, want you to think they're ****ing awesome and will do anything to burnish that impression. I went to a dinner at AO and on my table was Chappelli, within 5 minutes (I know, I counted) he was mentioning to the ladies at the table he captained the Australian Test side. Wayne Phillips to Kirsty when she started at SACA, giving her the tour of the offices on her first day; "See that jumper on the wall? That's mine. Got when I played Tests." Dean Jones and Madras, etc. They have a vested interest in it alright and it's called ego. Competitive, sure, but often also completely insecure so you can be damn sure they're really interested in making sure everyone thinks the Supertests were the pinnacle of cricket because they played in it.

No-one's suggesting they took the Supertests easy but you just have to look at footage of the matches to see they weren't always going full-throttle either. Especially in the early days when no-one was turning up for the games.

 

[Ikki]

One big reason Lillee is lauded so much is that he was fortunate to begin his career in the early 70s and was the first of the modern age of great fast bowlers, and gained a halo as a result as the prototype fast bowler whom his successors looked up to (along with his ultra aggressive attitude). By the time other great fast bowlers started emerging, he was already firmly established as no.1. That's fine, but it doesn't make him the best of them all. I doubt he would have been as raved about if he had debuted in the early 80s when fast bowlers were everywhere.

That's probably a factor, but not the only factor. That's your own interpretation.

No, Marshall has no statistical weaknesses, Lillee has gaps like having played only a few tests outside Eng, NZ and Australia and done squat in. Also, on the whole, Marshall's record just looks so much more impressive, it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If someone put forward their records to you and gave you no names, who would you pick? Would be easier for you to acknowledge this fact and then base your claim for him being the best based on other grounds of skill, legacy, etc.

I just showed you one: name an opponent that he faced that compares with the great line-ups Lillee faced. That's a statistical weakness, because it is non-existent. It just depends how you want to look at it. People are used to simply looking at country averages, home and away, and stop it there.

If someone put forward their records, with the same contexts (opponents faced, WSC, etc) then I'd pick Lillee. The fact that you have to make the argument that a facile look at stats will give it Marshall is exactly what I am arguing against. Even the most ardent stats user knows context matters and it matters a lot.

@ bagapath: single batsmen does not a line-up make. Name a great line-up Marshall faced. He was a great bowler who never really faced a consistently strong batting line-up. Does this make him not great? No, but it means there is a good argument against him if that matters to you and it shows a facile look at the stats won't tell you this.

Yes, decades after the fact. Why is that so hard to believe? As well as being competitors, they're also shameless self-promoters, want you to think they're ****ing awesome and will do anything to burnish that impression. I went to a dinner at AO and on my table was Chappelli, within 5 minutes (I know, I counted) he was mentioning to the ladies at the table he captained the Australian Test side. Wayne Phillips to Kirsty when she started at SACA, giving her the tour of the offices on her first day; "See that jumper on the wall? That's mine. Got when I played Tests." Dean Jones and Madras, etc. They have a vested interest in it alright and it's called ego. Competitive, sure, but often also completely insecure so you can be damn sure they're really interested in making sure everyone thinks the Supertests were the pinnacle of cricket because they played in it.

No-one's suggesting they took the Supertests easy but you just have to look at footage of the matches to see they weren't always going full-throttle either. Especially in the early days when no-one was turning up for the games.

I look at Tests in the 90s that I haven't watched and it looks like they're taking it easy. In fact, most games on tape that I don't know the context of, have very little inclination to take an interest of the result, I don't remark very highly. The same goes across all sports. Its weird, but that's the truth. Ironically, I've heard a lot that the fielding in the WSC was a much higher standard than Tests, which isn't through a lack of effort.

I am sure they have ego, but what you're levelling is that Chappell, Viv, Imran, Lillee, etc, all lied about how tough the Supertests were. I mean, I can take they may exaggerate for one reason or another...I am not going to buy that they were taking it easy. Frankly, it featured the best Test players around the world barring a few exceptions. I would expect it, even if I didn't know their opinions on the WSC, that it would be a competitive environment. It's incredulous that people could argue that because of the standard of play they shouldn't be considered Tests...which was the initial point (they should definitely count).

In the end, who is going to truly know bar those players?

 

[bagapath]

@ bagapath: single batsmen does not a line-up make. Name a great line-up Marshall faced. He was a great bowler who never really faced a consistently strong batting line-up. Does this make him not great? No, but it means there is a good argument against him if that matters to you and it shows a facile look at the stats won't tell you this.

Ikki.

1. India had the best batting lineup against spinners in the 90s and 00s. Murali did well against them but not Warne. In fact comparatively Murali did way way better than his rival because Warne got destroyed by the Indians everytime he rolled his arm. Who was the better bowler of the two?

2. Australia had the best batting line up the world at that time. Best hitters, long innings players, stylists, classical test match batters...they had the best batters in business. Warne never got to bowl against them. But Harbhajan bowled them out many times at home conditions. What does it say about their relative abilities?

 

[harsh.ag]

Marshall did face the Taylor, Boon, Border, Waugh, Deano line-up which is as good as it gets, to be honest.

Lillee faced the equally good Windies line-up, and the slightly inferior Pakistan line-up, whose best batsmen, Miandad, Marshall did face.

Apart from Boycott, Marshall faced the might of the English line-up in Gower and Gooch.

The NZ line-up Marshall faced was better than the one Lillee did.

The Indian line-up was virtually the same, though Lillee played just three tests against them, so it doesn't matter.

Very little to choose, to be honest. Only the Pakistan side of Majid, Zaheer, Miandad, Mohsin, Iqbal, Mudassar etc is the key difference.

 

[the big bambino]

When India has a great pacer, you know they are everywhere

One bloom in the desert is a surprise. It isn't everywhere.

 

[Top_Cat]

I am sure they have ego, but what you're levelling is that Chappell, Viv, Imran, Lillee, etc, all lied about how tough the Supertests were. I mean, I can take they may exaggerate for one reason or another...I am not going to buy that they were taking it easy.

Come on. From my own damn post;

No-one's suggesting they took the Supertests easy

And from Rob's original post on the matter;

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.

In the end, who is going to truly know bar those players?

Exactly. But, by the same token, let's say someone comes out and says "Yeah, the Supertests weren't always taken completely seriously.", I personally think it less likely that the players are going to come out and cop to that than to just agree when others claim it was the highest standard of cricket at all times.

 

[the big bambino]

I agree with ikki's pov. Marshall was great but was lucky in some of the dross he faced. Whereas Ambrose faced down and dominated some top batting line ups and is why I rate him better than Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

Ok, for the record can someone tell me who are all of these great batsmen that Lillee faced that Mashall didn't. And please don't mention the W.I batting line up, becase as Bagapath noted Warne, nor Mcgrath faced the best lineup of their era either. Also if I remenber correctly there were some that said Viv should be devalued because he didn't face Marshall and co either. Also lets get a list of each of the most dismissed batsmen by both bowlers.

Even if their records were reversed, Marshall supporters could still claim that Marshall due to his extended play in the SC bowled in tougher conditions, the fact that he played in tougher conditions and had the better numbers, I don't see what Lillee supporters can legitimately cling to.

I get it, Lillee came after a rather long break of truely great bowlers after Davidson and Trueman ect retired and he was the first of the mosern greats. The long hair, the aggression, the pace and the skill was all there and he was an ATG. I also understand how he came back from his injury which was seen as possibly career threatening and does add to his legacy but I don't see how he can how it can be said that he was clearly the greatest.