Marshall vs McGrath vs Hadlee

[subshakerz]

No pacer, even the top tier, has a flawless record.

Marshall only has that one lame series in NZ where he had a back injury which is a hole in his record. This isn't really a big deal though and he is a clear success everywhere else.

McGrath has a moderate record in Pakistan and SL, which suggests to me that he could be blunted somewhat on unhelpful flatter surfaces.

Hadlee's poor series in Pakistan was early career. However, he didn't really prosper in his solo series in the WI by his standards which you would think would be the top challenge for his time. Also, according to peers of his time, he had a tendency to go into robo mode on unhelpful surfaces.

Does Marshall's pace give him the ultimate edge over the two seamers? What is your order of the three pacers?

 

[Slifer]

No pacer, even the top tier, has a flawless record.

Marshall only has that one lame series in NZ where he had a back injury which is a hole in his record. This isn't really a big deal though and he is a clear success everywhere else.

McGrath has a moderate record in Pakistan and SL, which suggests to me that he could be blunted somewhat on unhelpful flatter surfaces.

Hadlee's poor series in Pakistan was early career. However, he didn't really prosper in his solo series in the WI by his standards which you would think would be the top challenge for his time. Also, according to peers of his time, he had a tendency to go into robo mode on unhelpful surfaces.

Does Marshall's pace give him the ultimate edge over the two seamers? What is your order of the three pacers?

Afaic, there's no wrong answer with these 3. McGrath, really did bowl in a horrible era for pace and excelled like none of his contemporaries. Then there's Hadlee, the ultimate lone wolf fast bowler who excelled even with no other reliable partner to help relieve his burden. Finally, we have Macko, with as flawless as record as they come.

Hadlee/Marshall probably bowled in an era more favorable to bowling, but who's to say they wouldn't adapt to McGrath era like Steyn later did. Would McGrath have ended up with the figures he did had he been in the NZ team of the 80s as a lone wolf. How would he'd have done playing as part of the WI quartet in stead of one half of the McWarne duo? How would Macko have done partnering Warne or Hadlee for that matter.

Oh well, I'm a biased West Indian so I'll vote for Marshall.

 

[ankitj]

Marshall only has that one lame series in NZ where he had a back injury which is a hole in his record. This isn't really a big deal though and he is a clear success everywhere else.

If Marshall's stats in NZ were swapped with stats from one of his home series will his record become more flawless? I don't think so. He'd still have same number of good and average series. Tiny sample sizes that no one cared about until circinfo and howstat made country-wise stats accessible to nerds like us.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee

Marshall's extra pace gives him the edge in most scenarios.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Marshall / Hadlee

 

[BazBall21]

As bowlers

1) Marshall
2) McGrath
3) Hadlee.

As cricketers

1) Hadlee
2) Marshall
3) McGrath.

 

[subshakerz]

As bowlers

1) Marshall
2) McGrath
3) Hadlee.

As cricketers

1) Hadlee
2) Marshall
3) McGrath.

What puts McGrath above Hadlee for you?

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall / Hadlee

What puts Hadlee above McGrath for you?

 

[kyear2]

What made Marshall special was his total kit, to quote "he had all the skills and knew when and how to use them". He had had his brutal pace paired with subtle late swing in both directions, consistency, accuracy, and those skidding bouncers which he used to devastating effect. But what made him the absolute best was how he performed, and his match winning efforts on dead and even spinning wickets. His extra pace, intelligence and variations just made the difference in those conditions and accounts for his consistency and brilliance everywhere.
Like Viv, (and to a lesser extent Lara) he didn't benefit from playing minnows, he was just adaptable, he was the greatest.

 

[subshakerz]

What made Marshall special was his total kit, to quote "he had all the skills and knew when and how to use them". He had had his brutal pace paired with subtle late swing in both directions, consistency, accuracy, and those skidding bouncers which he used to devastating effect. But what made him the absolute best was how he performed, and his match winning efforts on dead and even spinning wickets. His extra pace, intelligence and variations just made the difference in those conditions and accounts for his consistency and brilliance everywhere.
Like Viv, (and to a lesser extent Lara) he didn't benefit from playing minnows, he was just adaptable, he was the greatest.

Marshall during his peak 83 to 88 averaged 6 wickets a test, while playing with Holding, Garner, Walsh, etc. That to me is one of the greatest bowling achievements of all time.

And if you look at his early career and post-peak, he was still reasonably close to worldclass standard.

 

[BazBall21]

What puts McGrath above Hadlee for you?

Bowled on flatter pitches at home (especially second half of his career) and had an extraordinary record against top players. I can think of a few good players who did pretty well against Hadlee. Could argue team strength influences that but McGrath often set games up at the start before the rest of the Australian juggernaut got involved.

 

[shortpitched713]

McGrath
Steyn
Ambrose
Hadlee
Marshall

McGrath with daylight, the latter 2 get bumped down from a very tight pack, because Steyn and Ambrose should get rewarded for the extra Tests that they did play.

But it's super close between those 4. Hadlee or even Marshall would make an all-time team over either Steyn or Ambrose for a bowling all-rounder spot. Hell, I'd pick Ambrose over Steyn for batting at number 9, that's how close it is.

 

[shortpitched713]

In most people's minds what puts Marshall so far ahead of Steyn and Ambrose in these comparisons for GOAT pacer?

 

[subshakerz]

In most people's minds what puts Marshall so far ahead of Steyn and Ambrose in these comparisons for GOAT pacer?

Marshall:
- Mostly recognized as the best pacer of the 80s by his peers which was a pace-heavy decade
- Great record in and against virtually every country
- Awesome states with exceptional low average, low SR and low ER, unlike Steyn who has a high ER and Ambrose with a high SR
- Skillwise, didn't seem to have any limitation except for height which he made into an advantage with his uncomfy skidders

 

[BazBall21]

In most people's minds what puts Marshall so far ahead of Steyn and Ambrose in these comparisons for GOAT pacer?

Marshall is more proven in Asia than Ambrose, doesn't have a weak opponent like Ambrose does, and has a better balance between SR and ER. Steyn played in a tougher era for bowlers but he had the problem against left-handed batsmen and had a drop-off against Australia and England.

 

[subshakerz]

Bowled on flatter pitches at home (especially second half of his career) and had an extraordinary record against top players. I can think of a few good players who did pretty well against Hadlee. Could argue team strength influences that but McGrath often set games up at the start before the rest of the Australian juggernaut got involved.

I am not really that impressed by the flatter pitches at home thing in the 2000s since he played against a lot of pretty average sides during that time, he didn't play India then and he didn't do that well against SA either at home.

The reason I put McGrath ahead is that he had probably the longest stretch of tests of playing at a worldclass standard, likely well over 110 tests, well ahead of Steyn who is next in line. That longevity is amazing.

 

[BazBall21]

I am not really that impressed by the flatter pitches at home thing in the 2000s since he played against a lot of pretty average sides during that time, he didn't play India then and he didn't do that well against SA either at home.

The reason I put McGrath ahead is that he had probably the longest stretch of tests of playing at a worldclass standard, likely well over 110 tests, well ahead of Steyn who is next in line. That longevity is amazing.

Yeah McGrath against SA is a mini-blemish. They perhaps played pace better than any team Marshall faced though. Marshall coincided with a very modest era for Australian cricket.

 

[shortpitched713]

So analysis by checklist and some sort of "goldilocks" SR/ER balance?

I say ew to all that. Steyn and Ambrose didn't have a real weakness in any given set of conditions, a drop off in any given country is in all likelihood going to be lolsamplesize.

 

[BazBall21]

I like balance between ER and SR tbh. And Marshall is more proven than Ambrose in Asia. I give Ambrose credit for his outstanding record against Australia. A stronger side than anyone Marshall faced. Steyn had harsher challenges than Marshall on the whole too. Marshall is my #1 but no doubt he probably had the most favourable circumstances of all the ATG quicks apart from maybe Trueman.

 

[subshakerz]

So analysis by checklist and some sort of "goldilocks" SR/ER balance?

I say ew to all that. Steyn and Ambrose didn't have a real weakness in any given set of conditions, a drop off in any given country is in all likelihood going to be lolsamplesize.

Actually, yeah, if you are taking wickets quickly and consuming less runs while doing so, that is pretty much fast bowling nirvana, which is what Marshall had. Unlike other bowlers with super SRs like Waqar, Steyn and Rabada, they leaked runs and had high ERs. Marshall didn't and that made him special.

Steyn had a few weaknesses, one being inconsistency test by test. He could be knocked off his rhythm pretty easily compared to other ATGs. Plus a lack of a regulation inswinger which could have been handy.

Ambrose had a lack of swing which made him pretty predictable and manageable once his pace deserted him half way in his career and effected his penetration.

Marshall didn't seem to have weaknesses. Even when his pace declined, he had a mastery of cutters on unhelpful surfaces.