Marshall vs McGrath vs Hadlee

[BazBall21]

Yeah. Marshall is faultless. The only caveats against him are having lots of things in his favour which aren't really fundamental, more external.

 

[shortpitched713]

SR/ER balance is completely context dependent, and a bit subjective.

Technically I'd want the lowest SR possible for my " ace strike bowler", in a strictly mathematical sense. And I like Steyn, and even Donald for that. However, depending on the support you have at the other end, the ability to apply pressure without giving runs can have a positive effect, so I definitely don't mark against Ambrose or Marshall for that given the quality they played with. But honestly, it's a really weird thing to use to separate them, when their averages, especially once adjusted for conditions are so close.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Steyn could go for runs when he was off and relative to the other 5 in this tier, could be taken apart. None of the others often were.

Ambrose could go ultra conservative at times, he would go short of a length, and while you wouldn't hit him, didn't seem like he was always trying to get you out.

At times neither of the two, compared to MM has viable plan Bs, especially in unhelpful conditions.

 

[BazBall21]

I don't care that much about SR or ER so I tend to favour a balance between the two.

 

[subshakerz]

SR/ER balance is completely context dependent, and a bit subjective.

Technically I'd want the lowest SR possible for my " ace strike bowler", in a strictly mathematical sense. And I like Steyn, and even Donald for that. However, depending on the support you have at the other end, the ability to apply pressure without giving runs can have a positive effect, so I definitely don't mark against Ambrose or Marshall for that given the quality they played with. But honestly, it's a really weird thing to use to separate them, when their averages, especially once adjusted for conditions are so close.

Well that is the thing, with ace fast bowlers, lowest SR usually leads to more runs while higher SR comes with less runs and applying pressure. But Marshall had both low SR and low ER.

 

[BazBall21]

Steyn could go for runs when he was off and relative to the other 5 in this tier, could be taken apart. None of the others were

Ambrose could go ultra conservative at times, he would go short of a length, and while you wouldn't hit him, didn't seem like he was always trying to get you out.

At times neither of the two, compared to MM has viable plan Bs, especially in unhelpful conditions.

Yeah. ER of 3.50 against Australia/England who were probably the best teams against pace bowling in his era.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't care that much about SR or ER so I tend to favour a balance between the two.

My knock on Steyn is that his ER is as out of balance with his exception SR, so if he wasn't taking wickets, he was getting smashed.

 

[BazBall21]

My knock on Steyn is that his ER is as out of balance with his exception SR, so if he wasn't taking wickets, he was getting smashed.

Yeah. His ER puts me off a bit more than some. Lillee obviously has his caveats but I like that he was a very attacking bowler with an ER below 3.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

What you're describing here is skill. Marshall was the most skilled bowler of the 5, including McGrath. But no duh, of course he would be. He was the shortest of them, and so lacked that natural advantage. Curry is going to be more skilled than Lebron, who will in turn be more skilled than Kareem Abdul Jabbar. That isn't the thing that determines which of them was greater, however, especially in the case of these fast bowlers when there's not a real difference in results and performance.

 

[h_hurricane]

Just watched highlights of the last day of below test and voting for Hadlee. Incredible bowling.

Might watch some highlights of other 2 great pacers some other time and change my vote. Very very close all 3.

 

[shortpitched713]

My knock on Steyn is that his ER is as out of balance with his exception SR, so if he wasn't taking wickets, he was getting smashed.

Or winning the ****ing game, where a lower strike rate ace bowler in the same situation would be letting it slip away from the other end. I've seen it happen on a number of occasions. It's the main knock against the Ambrose/McGrath/Asif approach, in that the batsman often does have to make some kind of a mistake, as the crazy inswing yorker to the toe probably isn't coming.

 

[Coronis]

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.

Again, the idea that Ambrose lacked penetration later on is pretty bs.

 

[Coronis]

Or winning the ****ing game, where a lower strike rate ace bowler in the same situation would be letting it slip away from the other end. I've seen it happen on a number of occasions. It's the main knock against the Ambrose/McGrath/Asif approach, in that the batsman often does have to make some kind of a mistake, as the crazy inswing yorker to the toe probably isn't coming.

I like the idea that McGrath would be letting a game slip away because he gets a wicket an over and a half after Steyn.

 

[shortpitched713]

Well that is the thing, with ace fast bowlers, lowest SR usually leads to more runs while higher SR comes with less runs and applying pressure. But Marshall had both low SR and low ER.

Which if it were the case, would mean he would have a much lower average than the others, which he doesn't*.

* When adjusted for conditions

 

[subshakerz]

Again, the idea that Ambrose lacked penetration later on is pretty bs.

To be fair, he had these weird periods even during his peak when his wicket-taking would drop.

 

[subshakerz]

Which if it were the case, would mean he would have a much lower average than the others, which he doesn't*.

* When adjusted for conditions

He does relative to the other ATGs of his time, at least a couple of points less.

 

[shortpitched713]

On a pure average stats consideration, I would take Hadlee out of the picture out of the 5. However I really rate his ability to play a lone hand and bowl marathon spells. So I got the argument to have Hadlee over Steyn and Ambrose, even if I didn't agree with it. It's the Marshall argument which I feel gets a bit of special pleading, as to why he's just supposed to be considered the greatest of the lot, when he doesn't seem to really outperform the others.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Again, the idea that Ambrose lacked penetration later on is pretty bs.

Pretty sure it’s true on flat pitches

 

[subshakerz]

Or winning the ****ing game, where a lower strike rate ace bowler in the same situation would be letting it slip away from the other end. I've seen it happen on a number of occasions. It's the main knock against the Ambrose/McGrath/Asif approach, in that the batsman often does have to make some kind of a mistake, as the crazy inswing yorker to the toe probably isn't coming.

I have watched Waqar, who had a similar MO to Steyn who I also watched, and it is exactly what happened. They couldn't build up pressure, they would give boundary bowls in their search for a wicket, and when conditions were slightly batting friendly, they could often be hit out of the attack.

 

[subshakerz]

On a pure average stats consideration, I would take Hadlee out of the picture out of the 5. However I really rate his ability to play a lone hand and bowl marathon spells. So I got the argument to have Hadlee over Steyn and Ambrose, even if I didn't agree with it. It's the Marshall argument which I feel gets a bit of special pleading, as to why he's just supposed to be considered the greatest of the lot, when he doesn't seem to really outperform the others.

Doesn't seem to be a compelling argument against Marshall though, except that he was part of a pack, but then he led that pack.