Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[the big bambino]

For a sample note the toilet that Marshall bowled against v Aust in the mid 80s. We were a fractured, disillusioned, bedraggled side still trying to recover from crucial retirements and a split within ranks that led to defections to SA.

Contrast that to Ambrose who bowled to Australia in one of our golden eras and you can see, that in that case, Ambrose is the better bowler.

 

[kyear2]

Are you just rating Ambrose above just Marshall, or are you calling him the best ever in your opinion?

And what is you ATG World XI?

 

[the big bambino]

Ambrose is the best I've seen. As for best ever that's hard as the case for bowlers is pretty close. I will say though I can't imagine a better bowler than Ambrose, ever.

I also think he kept a disintegrating WI competitive right up to his retirement and would have extended the WI empire to the extreme of 1997 if he wasn't injured for the Adelaide test that season. As strong circumstantial proof of that belief is the WI victory in Perth right after a heavy loss at Adelaide when Ambrose was back in the side.

EDIT: If forced to rate the best I couldn't split what I've seen from Ambrose to what I've read about SF Barnes

 

[Dan]

I think we're getting into the cricketing circular logic argument again.

By being a contender for 'best ever' - being that damn good in your role - you dominate your contemporaries so much that you devalue your own achievements.

Bradman has been criticised for feasting on weak bowlers - despite averages in the high 20s in Test cricket, guys like Maurice Tate, Hedley Verity and Harold Larwood were not weak bowlers. They were all good-to-ATG (my opinion on Larwood is well known), but their records look worse than they should simply because they came up against the best ever.

In a Bradmanless world, Larwood = Best Ever may not be such a weird-looking statement.

Marshall, by dominating the batsmen in world cricket (and a lack of easy tours worldwide due to the likes of Imran Khan and Richard Hadlee), devalues his own achievements. The idea that he came up against very few ATG batsmen can be countered by the thought that he was too good to allow batsmen to become ATGs against him.

Same applies to Lillee, perhaps to a differing extent.

Just woke up so the wording is probably a bit clunky, but I think the meaning is clear enough.

 

[the big bambino]

Maybe but its a comparison of apples and oranges. A proper look at the bowlers Bradman faced shows them to be quality. Same with the batsmen Ambrose tamed. However talking up the likes of Wood, Hilditch, Hookes, Phillips and Ritchie amongst others is putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[Top_Cat]

You have no idea how much angst you'd cause Flipper if he saw you'd lumped him in with Hilditch.

 

[watson]

For a sample note the toilet that Marshall bowled against v Aust in the mid 80s. We were a fractured, disillusioned, bedraggled side still trying to recover from crucial retirements and a split within ranks that led to defections to SA.

Contrast that to Ambrose who bowled to Australia in one of our golden eras and you can see, that in that case, Ambrose is the better bowler.

I see nothing of the sort. Here is the visual evidence. Enjoy;


Marshall: Malcolm Marshall 10 wickets vs England 2nd test 1988 Lords - YouTube

McGrath: Sachin Tendulkar BEST BATTLES vs Glenn McGrath - YouTube

Ambrose: CURTLY AMBROSE vs MIKE ATHERTON- all 17 test dismissals in order! - YouTube

Lillee: Dennis Lillee vs West Indies 1981/82 MCG - YouTube

 

[Slifer]

Maybe but its a comparison of apples and oranges. A proper look at the bowlers Bradman faced shows them to be quality. Same with the batsmen Ambrose tamed. However talking up the likes of Wood, Hilditch, Hookes, Phillips and Ritchie amongst others is putting lipstick on a pig.

ok so in fairness I compared Lillee and MM vs the teams they played in common and MM still came out on top and decisively as well. Plus 2/3 of MMs games were away whereas the reverse is true for Lillee. Whats the argument now?? That somehow Gavaskar, Miandad, Crowe, Armanath, Gooch etc all lost their ability to bat after Lillee retired and were shells of themselves vs MM???

As for Amby vs MM, well tbh u r right about Amby keeping the WI competitive long beyond when they were a great team. I often wonder what would have been the outcome of that series in 96/97 in Oz had he not been injured for the 4th test.

FWIW my top 5 looks as thus:

MM/Mcgrath
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose

* From the looks of it Dale Steyn might just eclipse all the names above by the time he's finished.

 

[the big bambino]

Watson.


All good viewing if you aren't 22 yards away. I was going to say Ambrose had greater longevity too but maybe that was a result of him starting later than Marshall. I think the length of both men's careers was approximate.

 

[the big bambino]

You have no idea how much angst you'd cause Flipper if he saw you'd lumped him in with Hilditch.

I suppose that was a low blow and I actually didn't mind Phillips but the experiment of him keeping failed very badly. Though I understand the reason why it was tried.

You sound like you know the blokes. Is that right? If so I'm sorry if I've bagged a mate. But maybe you can tell us what Ray Bright thinks of Phillips and his keeping I mean I can guess after almost tearing his remaining hair out after Flip missed his umpteenth chance off him. But if you have the inside story...

 

[the big bambino]

ok so in fairness I compared Lillee and MM vs the teams they played in common and MM still came out on top and decisively as well. Plus 2/3 of MMs games were away whereas the reverse is true for Lillee. Whats the argument now?? That somehow Gavaskar, Miandad, Crowe, Armanath, Gooch etc all lost their ability to bat after Lillee retired and were shells of themselves vs MM???

As for Amby vs MM, well tbh u r right about Amby keeping the WI competitive long beyond when they were a great team. I often wonder what would have been the outcome of that series in 96/97 in Oz had he not been injured for the 4th test.

FWIW my top 5 looks as thus:

MM/Mcgrath
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose

* From the looks of it Dale Steyn might just eclipse all the names above by the time he's finished.

I really have no opinion on MM v DK. My parochialism favours DK but I guess thats no reason so I'll keep out of it. Your points though are certainly valid.

However on the matter of Ambrose I'm certain. Great great bowler. The scariest man alive and probably ever.

 

[Slifer]

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.

Referenced the bolded part, I already showed our Aussie-centric friend the statistics where MM and Lillee played the exact same teams (NZ, Eng, IND and Pak) since apparently MMs stats are skewed from not having to play the best batting lineup of that era. Again MM came out decisively ahead (more so since MM played overwhelmingly away and Lillee the reverse). Most of the arguments for Lillee over MM are based on opinions and 'what ifs' no facts whatsoever.

 

[Slifer]

I really have no opinion on MM v DK. My parochialism favours DK but I guess thats no reason so I'll keep out of it. Your points though are certainly valid.

However on the matter of Ambrose I'm certain. Great great bowler. The scariest man alive and probably ever.

Fair enough. And there is absolutely no shame in favoring DK Lillee. Mayeb if I were an Aussie i might've felt the same way too. Regarding Ambrose, couldnt agree more he was one hel; of a bowler. Kept us above water when we were well past our 'sell-by' date.

 

[Top_Cat]

I suppose that was a low blow and I actually didn't mind Phillips but the experiment of him keeping failed very badly. Though I understand the reason why it was tried.

You sound like you know the blokes. Is that right? If so I'm sorry if I've bagged a mate. But maybe you can tell us what Ray Bright thinks of Phillips and his keeping I mean I can guess after almost tearing his remaining hair out after Flip missed his umpteenth chance off him. But if you have the inside story...

Have had my dealings with both when I was playing cricket. Flipper's good value, not a lot of time for Hilditch. Sorry to say I have no local knowledge on Bright but I doubt Flipper would disagree he wasn't the best 'keeper to spin... But yeah, from the bits I remember hearing from Flipper and others, there was tension between them over who opened for SA in the 80's. Flipper wanted the job in the Test side so hated being pushed down the order for Hilditch/Bishop especially since Hilditch was up the same Test spot. Hilditch won because SA selectors decided he should open for their own reasons which, obviously, increased his chances of being picked for said Test spot. Eh, old stuff.

 

[smash84]

.

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.

Really now. Imran doesn't get any brownie points for doing well in the SC from what I recall

 

[smash84]

Come on now Ikki, give it up dude. You argue hard (not that bad actually).......didn't you once try to prove that Warne was statistically better than Marshall?

 

[the big bambino]

Have had my dealings with both when I was playing cricket. Flipper's good value, not a lot of time for Hilditch. Sorry to say I have no local knowledge on Bright but I doubt Flipper would disagree he wasn't the best 'keeper to spin... But yeah, from the bits I remember hearing from Flipper and others, there was tension between them over who opened for SA in the 80's. Flipper wanted the job in the Test side so hated being pushed down the order for Hilditch/Bishop especially since Hilditch was up the same Test spot. Hilditch won because SA selectors decided he should open for their own reasons which, obviously, increased his chances of being picked for said Test spot. Eh, old stuff.

Cheers. One of the good things about cricket sites is you the occasional story of what team mates felt about each other. So thanks for that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well yeah, their personalities clashed a bit too. Hilditch is a rigid authoritarian, Flipper is an effusive attention-whore (good heart). Not that hard to figure out who was preferred by the SACA hierarchy for 2IC when an over-wrought emotional type like Hookesy was captain, especially once the Test selectors were interested in Hilditch.

 

[the big bambino]

Would have thought Bishop could have made way for Phillips I'm wondering.

 

[kyear2]

I think we're getting into the cricketing circular logic argument again.

By being a contender for 'best ever' - being that damn good in your role - you dominate your contemporaries so much that you devalue your own achievements.

Bradman has been criticised for feasting on weak bowlers - despite averages in the high 20s in Test cricket, guys like Maurice Tate, Hedley Verity and Harold Larwood were not weak bowlers. They were all good-to-ATG (my opinion on Larwood is well known), but their records look worse than they should simply because they came up against the best ever.

In a Bradmanless world, Larwood = Best Ever may not be such a weird-looking statement.

Marshall, by dominating the batsmen in world cricket (and a lack of easy tours worldwide due to the likes of Imran Khan and Richard Hadlee), devalues his own achievements. The idea that he came up against very few ATG batsmen can be countered by the thought that he was too good to allow batsmen to become ATGs against him.

Same applies to Lillee, perhaps to a differing extent.

Just woke up so the wording is probably a bit clunky, but I think the meaning is clear enough.

I have always personally seen it as there have been three true superstars/Giants of the game. Grace, Bradman and Sobers, but two true phenomenons of the game. Bradman's batting and the West Indies 4 pronged attack from '76 - '91. If one wants to look at how Bradman affected bowler's stats, look at how the West Indian bowlers plus Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Dev ect would have affected the batting stats of the era. For my money though the quartet was the most dominant force in the history of the game and like Bradman inspired/ forced more rule changes than at any other time.