Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[OverratedSanity]

Wanna show the citation for that?

Cricket is the only sport that can look at a 10 year mismatch in play and decide that rather than the conditions that control it have changed, it's just that the players all secretly suck now.

But then this is the same conservative sport that fretted for years over taking referee decisions out of the hands of 60 year olds.

It's not about players sucking, but their availability.

The proof, though flimsy, is that the decade did produce several other high quality pacers who, whenever they played, put up superb numbers: Shoaib, Bond, Asif, Clark mainly. But either due to injury/their own stupidity in Asif's case they just weren't playing that often. Those teams would've been far tougher to bat against if those guys had simply been more available,regardless of how flat the pitches were. This isn't to say other eras don't have bowlers with injury issues, but just pointing out that several non McGrath bowlers were putting up great numbers.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not about players sucking, but their availability.

The proof, though flimsy, is that the decade did produce several other high quality pacers who, whenever they played, put up superb numbers: Shoaib, Bond, Asif, Clark mainly. But either due to injury/their own stupidity in Asif's case they just weren't playing that often. Those teams would've been far tougher to bat against if those guys had simply been more available,regardless of how flat the pitches were. This isn't to say other eras don't have bowlers with injury issues, but just pointing out that several non McGrath bowlers were putting up great numbers.

Yup, along with the WI pace factory simply ending inexplicably.

So you didn't have a single great pace bowler who played the entire decade compared to the decades before and after.

 

[Xix2565]

This current min-era? Much better than early 2000s to early 2010s.

You already have worldclass performers like Bumrah, Rabada, Cummins, and then other potential greats like Shaheen, Jamieson, and the new SA quicks. The quality of second tier pacers like Hazelwood and Shami is also better. Anderson is still around and delivering the goods too.

Yes, pitches are better but the pitches are not producing worldclass bowlers, they are only assisting them.

Bowlers as good as they are can only work off the conditions provided though, and it's not like we haven't seen how dead/flatter pitches can basically render greats useless/ineffective. Still no proof that having more great/good bowlers is a bigger influence than pitch conditions in terms of getting more decisive (win/loss) results with less runs scored overall.

 

[subshakerz]

Bowlers as good as they are can only work off the conditions provided though, and it's not like we haven't seen how dead/flatter pitches can basically render greats useless/ineffective. Still no proof that having more great/good bowlers is a bigger influence than pitch conditions in terms of getting more decisive (win/loss) results with less runs scored overall.

Do you at least agree in principle that quality pace bowling stocks were lower globally in the 2000s and this made things easier on batsmen? You can argue that pitches made a bigger difference, fine.

 

[Xix2565]

Do you at least agree in principle that quality pace bowling stocks were lower globally in the 2000s and this made things easier on batsmen? You can argue that pitches made a bigger difference, fine.

You're the one arguing that pitches only accounted for about 20% of why batting was easier then, which is what I was disagreeing with. We've already seen how if the playing conditions are favourable enough currently that batters can make hay regardless of the quality of the opposition bowlers, so I'm not sure why the quality of bowlers then or now should matter as much compared to the much more relevant influence of the conditions players are playing in.

 

[subshakerz]

You're the one arguing that pitches only accounted for about 20% of why batting was easier then, which is what I was disagreeing with. We've already seen how if the playing conditions are favourable enough currently that batters can make hay regardless of the quality of the opposition bowlers, so I'm not sure why the quality of bowlers then or now should matter as much compared to the much more relevant influence of the conditions players are playing in.

Yeah but we both agree that pitches play a factor. I said 20% but who knows maybe its 30 to 50% or more? I am open to those arguments. I am just against making it the only issue which is too simplistic.

At least concede that quality bowling supply is also a factor, bigger for me than others, in a multifactored phenomenon of a batting friendly era and we have less to argue over.

 

[Flem274*]

Cricket is environmentally controlled, more than any other sport barring perhaps motor racing. It's pretty rare in a football code for the fans to see the pitch and immediately whinge there's no chance of an outright winner. Conditions control team composition and tactics which is why we celebrate teams and players who succeed no matter the conditions.

I don't think anyone really debates that pitches got a lot flatter and more homogenous during the 00s and this was a global push by boards to make games last 5 days for money. We're all in agreement on that one right?

What bemuses me about cricket punditry is the refusal in some sections to connect the dots between the drop off in successful bowlers and the conditions. No one has ever presented a mechanism for bowlers getting worse globally and suddenly, especially when to my knowledge a similar batting spike hasn't occurred since Bradman's time and well, they had Bradman, less test nations and younger test nations at that.

It all seems to come back to "they just did because I said so" which...is far less elegant an argument than condition control. Great talents getting injured has a bit more depth but that's always been the case. Bruce Reid being a prime example. The West Indian decline another but they can only field 4 guys at once. One team shouldn't have such a drastic effect when the great West Indies sides faced teams who weren't as competitive as their 2000s versions.

"They just did" can also be reversed on a dime. The West Indian battery, Imran, Hadlee etc were rubbish because there were no great batsmen. Only Viv, Miandad, Gavaskar and Border averaged 50. Chappell ran and hid. Crowe was on one knee half the time and Botham was fat. Sri Lanka were trash and South Africa weren't allowed to play. Global batting in the 80s was crap and you can easily tell because I said so which means the 80s bowlers were just bullies of trash batting.

So yeah, just stating the bowlers got bad overnight is a poor argument.

Ages ago I ran a few numbers because I'm a punishing nerd and looking at my screenshot of it the top 20% of bowlers in the 00s averaged 27 or lower. Between 2018 - 2021 the top 20% averaged 21 or lower. I don't recall the wicket qualifier (probably 50) but the whole thing up to average 35 included 60 odd players for the 00s and 30 for 2018 onwards. Between 2018 - 2021 if you averaged 28 or higher you were in the bottom 20%, a big move from needing to average 34 or more in the 00s.

I don't think such a massive shift was or could be caused by a global overnight talent deficit in the big money professional era where boards are pouring money into making better bowlers. The idea players control everything is a nice human-centric narrative we all buy into but tbh the groundsmen have considerable power to decide who has a good game and who doesn't.

 

[subshakerz]

Cricket is environmentally controlled, more than any other sport barring perhaps motor racing. It's pretty rare in a football code for the fans to see the pitch and immediately whinge there's no chance of an outright winner. Conditions control team composition and tactics which is why we celebrate teams and players who succeed no matter the conditions.

I don't think anyone really debates that pitches got a lot flatter and more homogenous during the 00s and this was a global push by boards to make games last 5 days for money. We're all in agreement on that one right?

What bemuses me about cricket punditry is the refusal in some sections to connect the dots between the drop off in successful bowlers and the conditions. No one has ever presented a mechanism for bowlers getting worse globally and suddenly, especially when to my knowledge a similar batting spike hasn't occurred since Bradman's time and well, they had Bradman, less test nations and younger test nations at that.

It all seems to come back to "they just did because I said so" which...is far less elegant an argument than condition control. Great talents getting injured has a bit more depth but that's always been the case. Bruce Reid being a prime example. The West Indian decline another but they can only field 4 guys at once. One team shouldn't have such a drastic effect when the great West Indies sides faced teams who weren't as competitive as their 2000s versions.

"They just did" can also be reversed on a dime. The West Indian battery, Imran, Hadlee etc were rubbish because there were no great batsmen. Only Viv, Miandad, Gavaskar and Border averaged 50. Chappell ran and hid. Crowe was on one knee half the time and Botham was fat. Sri Lanka were trash and South Africa weren't allowed to play. Global batting in the 80s was crap and you can easily tell because I said so which means the 80s bowlers were just bullies of trash batting.

So yeah, just stating the bowlers got bad overnight is a poor argument.

Ages ago I ran a few numbers because I'm a punishing nerd and looking at my screenshot of it the top 20% of bowlers in the 00s averaged 27 or lower. Between 2018 - 2021 the top 20% averaged 21 or lower. I don't recall the wicket qualifier (probably 50) but the whole thing up to average 35 included 60 odd players for the 00s and 30 for 2018 onwards. Between 2018 - 2021 if you averaged 28 or higher you were in the bottom 20%, a big move from needing to average 34 or more in the 00s.

I don't think such a massive shift was or could be caused by a global overnight talent deficit in the big money professional era where boards are pouring money into making better bowlers. The idea players control everything is a nice human-centric narrative we all buy into but tbh the groundsmen have considerable power to decide who has a good game and who doesn't.

Good writeup.

My counter arguments:

- Nobody is saying bowlers got bad, that is your take. We are saying that there were fewer quality bowlers around due to several factors.

- Saying that tougher pitches caused fewer worldclass bowlers requires more evidence from your side.

- WI, which accounted for half to 1/3 of great pacers for decades, last produced a worldclass talent in Ian Bishop in 88, well before pitches became flat. In other words, they didnt produce a single worldclass pacer in the decade before the 2000s. When Ambrose/Walsh left there was nobody to take over except the likes of Merv Dillon.

- Pakistan always had flat pitches, yet they produced Imran and then Wasim and Waqar who he personally groomed and all had full careers. Since then, they had worldclass talents of Shoaib, Asif and Amir and their careers were stopped mainly due to lack of professionalism and support. Full careers from all of them and suddenly world cricket looks very different.

- There was a 3-4 year gap in the 2000s between when Donald/Pollock faded and Steyn rose, and when McGrath retired and the next worldclass talent in Harris came. Was this gap due to bad pitches?

- Your number breakdown can also be taken as availability of better bowlers as well as better pitches too.

 

[Flem274*]

Good writeup.

My counter arguments:

- Nobody is saying bowlers got bad, that is your take. We are saying that there were fewer quality bowlers around due to several factors.

- Saying that tougher pitches caused fewer worldclass bowlers requires more evidence from your side.

- WI, which accounted for half to 1/3 of great pacers for decades, last produced a worldclass talent in Ian Bishop in 88, well before pitches became flat. When Ambrose/Walsh left there was nobody to take over except the likes of Merv Dillon.

- Pakistan always had flat pitches, yet they produced Imran and then Wasim and Waqar who he personally groomed and all had full careers. Since then, they had worldclass talents of Shoaib, Asif and Amir and their careers were stopped mainly due to lack of professionalism and support. Full career from all of them and suddenly world cricket looks very different.

- There was a 3-4 year gap in the 2000s between when Donald/Pollock faded and Steyn rose, and when McGrath retired and the next worldclass talent in Harris came. Was this gap due to bad pitches?

- Your number breakdown can also be taken as availability of better bowlers as well as better pitches too.

I won't address everything here yet but a quick comment on the decks:

- Australian decks got a lot flatter with the WACA dying, Melbourne being Melbourne, the Sydney thing becoming a meme etc
- NZC correctly decided to speed their pitches up so we didn't have to make such an adjustment overseas and flattened them as well. It was a stated policy.
- India got flatter. We had a 0-0 draw over there on some roads, and in 2010 it was pretty roady too.
- Lords, Colombo etc became famed for their flatness relative to expectation.
- Windies decks got more attritional and slow.

The 00s produced a lot of acclaimed spinners relative to the norm and I think that's a direct result of the cricket being played. The pitches were flatter so innings were longer and required some spin to keep things sane and get through the overs. The everyday good test pace bowler was seeing his average balloon. I'm not a huge Brett Lee fan for example but I think he, Ntini, Hoggard etc have more respectable averages in the 90s or 10s when conditions were creating shorter innings.

 

[StephenZA]

IMO its common sense. Bowling quality was just lower in the 2000 to early 2010s period and the batsmen made merry. Shoaib, Bond and Asif were the only consistently worldclass bowlers around aside from McGrath and they all broke down half the time. Pollock declined 2003 onwards. WI's pace legacy had ended.

Look at the great bowlers who played most of a decade:

70s - Lillee, Roberts, Holding

80s - Imran, Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Walsh

90s - Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McGrath

2000s - McGrath

2010s - Steyn, Anderson and Philander if you count them

You do realise that Pollock bowled mostly in the 2000s right?

...well obviously not

 

[ankitj]

So basically Marshall could do everything that McGrath could and do it 10 miles quicker

There have probably been 50 other bowlers who could do what McGrath did in just the last decade. It's about doing it well and doing it at the right time to get the batsman out.

I know I am making a very obvious point ?

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah but we both agree that pitches play a factor. I said 20% but who knows maybe its 30 to 50% or more? I am open to those arguments. I am just against making it the only issue which is too simplistic.

At least concede that quality bowling supply is also a factor, bigger for me than others, in a multifactored phenomenon of a batting friendly era and we have less to argue over.

It's a lesser factor that isn't worth as much discussion as you want unlike pitch conditions, so I'm not sure why you still feel like overrating the former's influence.

 

[subshakerz]

You do realise that Pollock bowled mostly in the 2000s right?

...well obviously not

I mentioned Pollock declined 2003 onwards.

 

[subshakerz]

I won't address everything here yet but a quick comment on the decks:

- Australian decks got a lot flatter with the WACA dying, Melbourne being Melbourne, the Sydney thing becoming a meme etc
- NZC correctly decided to speed their pitches up so we didn't have to make such an adjustment overseas and flattened them as well. It was a stated policy.
- India got flatter. We had a 0-0 draw over there on some roads, and in 2010 it was pretty roady too.
- Lords, Colombo etc became famed for their flatness relative to expectation.
- Windies decks got more attritional and slow.

The 00s produced a lot of acclaimed spinners relative to the norm and I think that's a direct result of the cricket being played. The pitches were flatter so innings were longer and required some spin to keep things sane and get through the overs. The everyday good test pace bowler was seeing his average balloon. I'm not a huge Brett Lee fan for example but I think he, Ntini, Hoggard etc have more respectable averages in the 90s or 10s when conditions were creating shorter innings.

I dont disagree with any of that. I have even said Steyn would be averaging better in England and Australia if he played a decade earlier.

 

[smash84]

There have probably been 50 other bowlers who could do what McGrath did in just the last decade. It's about doing it well and doing it at the right time to get the batsman out.

I know I am making a very obvious point ?

Mine was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment that Chappell made with respect to McGrath and Lillee. He said these words about Lillee and why he preferred Lillee McGrath.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Good writeup.

My counter arguments:

- Nobody is saying bowlers got bad, that is your take. We are saying that there were fewer quality bowlers around due to several factors.

- Saying that tougher pitches caused fewer worldclass bowlers requires more evidence from your side.

- WI, which accounted for half to 1/3 of great pacers for decades, last produced a worldclass talent in Ian Bishop in 88, well before pitches became flat. In other words, they didnt produce a single worldclass pacer in the decade before the 2000s. When Ambrose/Walsh left there was nobody to take over except the likes of Merv Dillon.

- Pakistan always had flat pitches, yet they produced Imran and then Wasim and Waqar who he personally groomed and all had full careers. Since then, they had worldclass talents of Shoaib, Asif and Amir and their careers were stopped mainly due to lack of professionalism and support. Full careers from all of them and suddenly world cricket looks very different.

- There was a 3-4 year gap in the 2000s between when Donald/Pollock faded and Steyn rose, and when McGrath retired and the next worldclass talent in Harris came. Was this gap due to bad pitches?

- Your number breakdown can also be taken as availability of better bowlers as well as better pitches too.

The West Indies last produced a worldclass talent just a few years ago. The trouble is that he played for England and after hitting Steve Smith got overbowled and had injury problems. Hopefully Jayden Seales can kick on.

 

[Slifer]

Somewhat true. Marshall can't be faulted for that though. He did well against the best his time had to offer.

??????????

 

[TheJediBrah]

There have probably been 50 other bowlers who could do what McGrath did in just the last decade. It's about doing it well and doing it at the right time to get the batsman out.

I know I am making a very obvious point ?

That's like saying there are 30 batsmen at your local club who could do what Bradman did, they just didn't do it at the right time to make runs and not get out

 

[ankitj]

That's like saying there are 30 batsmen at your local club who could do what Bradman did, they just didn't do it at the right time to make runs and not get out

I hope you realise I was praising McGrath and challenging this assertion that is often made about "could do everything he could but a little faster".

 

[Kirkut]

Do you at least agree in principle that quality pace bowling stocks were lower globally in the 2000s and this made things easier on batsmen? You can argue that pitches made a bigger difference, fine.

I'd also add that the batsmen these days are not as skilled against lateral movement as they were in 2000s.

But then the current era handle pace and bounce very well compared to the previous era. I can imagine Thorpe and Hussain glove a short ball at 86 mph while someone like Liton Das comfortably hooking it for four runs.