Malcolm Marshall vs. Sachin Tendulkar

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Marshall is rated behind none.

Now let that sink in.

There is no bowling equivalent of Bradman.

 

[h_hurricane]

What about Tendy vs McGrath then? McGrath has the longevity.

Mcgrath averaged 20.63 in his 11 year peak between 1995 and 2005.

Tendulkar averaged 57.65 in his 15 year peak between 1996 and 2010. Even more impressively, he averaged around 59 in his 18 year peak between 1993 and 2010.

Hard to separate really.

Mcgrath has nothing much to show outside this peak. Tendulkar has some good performances as a teenager though, which might just be the tiebreaker.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall is rated behind none.

Now let that sink in.

Depends on who does the rating, he can be behind Barnes, Lillee or Wasim among the pundits and McGrath here.

 

[subshakerz]

Mcgrath averaged 20.63 in his 11 year peak between 1995 and 2005.

Tendulkar averaged 57.65 in his 15 year peak between 1996 and 2010. Even more impressively, he averaged around 59 in his 18 year peak between 1993 and 2010.

Hard to separate really.

Mcgrath has nothing much to show outside this peak. Tendulkar has some good performances as a teenager though, which might just be the tiebreaker.

McGrath's has over 110 tests on the trot of worldclass bowling performance. That is around 30 tests ahead of the next best pacer. It really is a milestone.

However, McGrath to me wasn't bulletproof in the SC based on three okayish series in Pakistan and SL.

The teen performances to me does make Tendulkar special though.

 

[number11]

If I had to choose 1 for a team - it'd be Macko.
There are plenty of bats as good as Sachin, or much the same level, there are few if any quicks comparable to Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

Tendulkar is unarguably a top 5 batsman of all time.
Marshall is arguably the greatest bowler ever.

Tendulkar had greater longevity, in peaks I believe Marshall had greater impact. Tendulkar (as discussed with his Lara comp) didn't dominate series like Marshall did.

I think that bowlers are more important and have greater impact that batsmen.

Think they're both top 10 players and it's really close, I just think you get a slight advantage if you're objectively in the conversation as being the best ever.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Depends on who does the rating, he can be behind Barnes, Lillee or Wasim among the pundits and McGrath here.

Not even close

Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

Who do you think is the better bowler ?

www.cricketweb.net

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 world has shattered

Why?

Marshall was first selected after 1 first class match, I believe due to WSC, so early career was less than stellar. And express bowlers do wear down faster than batsmen, spinners and even medium pacers, but the associated impact is proportionally greater as well.

 

[subshakerz]

Not even close

Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

Who do you think is the better bowler ?

www.cricketweb.net

Yeah so 1/3rd of CW feels McGrath is better.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar is unarguably a top 5 batsman of all time.
Marshall is arguably the greatest bowler ever.

Tendulkar had greater longevity, in peaks I believe Marshall had greater impact. Tendulkar (as discussed with his Lara comp) didn't dominate series like Marshall did.

I think that bowlers are more important and have greater impact that batsmen.

Think they're both top 10 players and it's really close, I just think you get a slight advantage if you're objectively in the conversation as being the best ever.

I mean that's not a great argument. Tendulkar isn't in the argument for being the best because Bradman exists. If there was a bowling equivalent of Bradman, Marshall would be in the same spot as Tendulkar i.e. probably the one with the strongest argument for the #2 spot.

 

[subshakerz]

I think that bowlers are more important and have greater impact that batsmen.

Think they're both top 10 players and it's really close, I just think you get a slight advantage if you're objectively in the conversation as being the best ever.

If that is your reductive logic then your top 15/20 cricketers shouldn't have any batsmen aside from Bradman.

Tendulkar is a strong contender for the best bat after Bradman in a more crowded field than Marshall.

Marshall's claim for best ever pretty much is around his peak from 83 to 88. It's a relatively shaky basis to claim the best specialist cricketer ever after the Don.

Tendulkar, as mentioned, didn't just have one peak but a second peak too, as well as his boy wonder performances. And he played in a weaker team. Easily the most tested cricketer ever.

 

[Saket1209]

Tendulkar for a longer basis but if I want to win a 5th test with series on line, I will go with Malcolm Marshall. Such an amazing bowler.

 

[kyear2]

If that is your reductive logic then your top 15/20 cricketers shouldn't have any batsmen aside from Bradman.

Tendulkar is a strong contender for the best bat after Bradman in a more crowded field than Marshall.

Marshall's claim for best ever pretty much is around his peak from 83 to 88. It's a relatively shaky basis to claim the best specialist cricketer ever after the Don.

Tendulkar, as mentioned, didn't just have one peak but a second peak too, as well as his boy wonder performances. And he played in a weaker team. Easily the most tested cricketer ever.

That's disingenuous and inaccurate because in the very next line I literally say that they are both top 10 players.

Wouldn't remotely call him the most tested player, that's Mike Atherton and with regards to weaker teams....
Look at the team mates and batting support he had during his career.
Then look at the performances, not the names, that Marshall had around him the end half of the 80's while still keeping the Windies as the best in the world.
Lloyd retired, Holding retired, Richards and Greenidge declined. The talent wasn't quite what people believe the second half of Marshall's career.

 

[Saket1209]

Marshall 1983-1989 peak is greater than Tendulkar's peak of 1993-2002. Averaging 57 is quite common for a batsman during their peak days but for bowlers averaging 19 for straight7 years and striking at 44 with almost 6 wickets in a game is quite exceptional. Plus he got wickets everywhere against everyside.

 

[subshakerz]

That's disingenuous and inaccurate because in the very next line I literally say that they are both top 10 players.

I know I am pointing the inconsistency. If ATG bowlers by default are more valuable then Donald should go ahead of Tendulkar too.

Wouldn't remotely call him the most tested player, that's Mike Atherton and with regards to weaker teams....
Look at the team mates and batting support he had during his career.

Atherton most severely tested. Tendulkar most widely tested.

Then look at the performances, not the names, that Marshall had around him the end half of the 80's while still keeping the Windies as the best in the world.
Lloyd retired, Holding retired, Richards and Greenidge declined. The talent wasn't quite what people believe the second half of Marshall's career.

Boohoo, poor Marshall bowling with riffraff like Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh, and that too demoted from being an opening bowler. Wonder how he did it.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall 1983-1989 peak is greater than Tendulkar's peak of 1993-2002. Averaging 57 is quite common for a batsman during their peak days but for bowlers averaging 19 for straight7 years and striking at 44 with almost 6 wickets in a game is quite exceptional. Plus he got wickets everywhere against everyside.

Tendulkar averaged 63 in his first peak 93 to 2002.

Then averaged 60 plus in his second peak 2007 to 2011

Marshall had one peak.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Marshall 1983-1989 peak is greater than Tendulkar's peak of 1993-2002. Averaging 57 is quite common for a batsman during their peak days but for bowlers averaging 19 for straight7 years and striking at 44 with almost 6 wickets in a game is quite exceptional. Plus he got wickets everywhere against everyside.

In the best era for bowling(bowling quality wise), Tendulkar averaged north of 59, despite starting the decade as a boy. It's not like any batsmen's peak like Kallis. Except SA(which he would rectify by dominating an even superior SA attack), he dominated attacks everywhere that decade.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

In the best era for bowling(bowling quality wise), Tendulkar averaged north of 59, despite starting the decade as a boy. It's not like any batsmen's peak like Kallis. Except SA(which he would rectify by dominating an even superior SA attack), he dominated attacks everywhere that decade.

Or Pakistan

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Tendulkar averaged 63 in his first peak 93 to 2002.

Then averaged 60 plus in his second peak 2007 to 2011

Marshall had one peak.

Except a very marginal dip, Tendulkar nearly constantly averaged 60 for 19 years, with a perfect record across conditions.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Or Pakistan

he toured Pak in 89, not the 90s. Plus he was barely 16, facing the two WW's. Cut him some slack