Malcolm Marshall vs. Sachin Tendulkar

[Slifer]

Unfortunately there is this tendency to say bowlers are more valuable than bats hence better, yet they don't apply this logic to all ATG bowlers.

Given a choice between an atg fast bowler and batsman, I'm going with the bowler. Case in point Sir Richard Hadlee. He help keep NZ unbeatable at home throughout the 80s and formidable away. Replace him with an atg batman and that's much less likely. Imo, Australia were virtually unbeatable for about a decade on the back of Glenn McGrath. Without him, Australia are not beating 90s WI. WI probably doesn't win in India in '83 and probably loses to Pakistan in '86 without Marshall. Just my 2 cents fwiw.

 

[Slifer]

These voting swings have been massive

Easy. There are far more Indians and Asians on here than there are West Indians.

 

[subshakerz]

Given a choice between an atg fast bowler and batsman, I'm going with the bowler. Case in point Sir Richard Hadlee. He help keep NZ unbeatable at home throughout the 80s and formidable away. Replace him with an atg batman and that's much less likely. Imo, Australia were virtually unbeatable for about a decade on the back of Glenn McGrath. Without him, Australia are not beating 90s WI. WI probably doesn't win in India in '83 and probably loses to Pakistan in '86 without Marshall. Just my 2 cents fwiw.

So why isn't Donald better than Tendulkar based on this logic?

 

[Slifer]

So why isn't Donald better than Tendulkar based on this logic?

Who said he wasn't? I already answered that and said I'm talking about the upper echelon of fast bowlers. I guess using your logic, you consider Javed Miandad to be a better player than Donald then.

 

[subshakerz]

Who said he wasn't? I already answered that and said I'm talking about the upper echelon of fast bowlers. I guess using your logic, you consider Javed Miandad to be a better player than Donald then.

No I don't have an instinctive bias towards bowlers in these rankings like that. I look at the quality of the cricketer somewhat equally between batting and bowling. They are yin and yang.

So pure bats aside from Bradman arent in your top ten cricketers ever, yes? Just checking your consistency.

 

[Saket1209]

No one? Are you sure about that? Grace? Bradman? Or Sobers??

On terms of Impact yeah. Literally cricket was not much known in the subcontinent before India won the world cup in 1983. Then people started caring about cricket and Sachin just made it like a religion in India. Even a beggar on the streets of India knowns the name of Sachin. Same I think goes for Pakistan. But not even 10% of Indian knows about sobers and Bradman is not rated as highly as he is rated everywhere. So yeah any Indian cricketer will have a far more impact on viewers of cricket than any cricketer because of the massive population. Apart from the subcontinent, fans are handful due to lesser population of other countries like Aus ,eng or carribbean. That's why Virat Kohli has got 250 million followers and anyone associate cricket with virat Kohli on the global level where cricket isn't popular. No one knows Marshall apart from true cricket fan even though he was better in terms of skill than most . So yeah this is how it works.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

On terms of Impact yeah. Literally cricket was not much known in the subcontinent before India won the world cup in 1983. Then people started caring about cricket and Sachin just made it like a religion in India. Even a beggar on the streets of India knowns the name of Sachin. Same I think goes for Pakistan. But not even 10% of Indian knows about sobers and Bradman is not rated as highly as he is rated everywhere. So yeah any Indian cricketer will have a far more impact on viewers of cricket than any cricketer because of the massive population. Apart from the subcontinent, fans are handful due to lesser population of other countries like Aus ,eng or carribbean. That's why Virat Kohli has got 250 million followers and anyone associate cricket with virat Kohli on the global level where cricket isn't popular. No one knows Marshall apart from true cricket fan even though he was better in terms of skill than most . So yeah this is how it works.

Made cricket bigger in India rather than Sub Continent. Imran was already a huge star in Pakistan before Sachin came.

Kohli, Sachin or whoever would be nothing without W.G Grace. Just enlighten me how is Sachin’s impact on cricket bigger than Grace??

 

[Slifer]

No I don't have an instinctive bias towards bowlers in these rankings like that. I look at the quality of the cricketer somewhat equally between batting and bowling. They are yin and yang.

So pure bats aside from Bradman arent in your top ten cricketers ever, yes? Just checking your consistency.

What part of upper echelon don't you understand? I'd take a Hadlee, Marshall or McGrath over a Sachin, Viv or Hobbs generally. Funny enough two of those three fast bowlers are more than useful at their secondary skill which makes it a no brainer for me. And those three match and imo exceed Sachin in terms of consistency across conditions. Top 10 cricketers for me would look something like this:

Don
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
McGrath
Kallis
Sachin
Wasim
Murali

Lots of recency bias admittedly because players like Miller, Hammond etc were a bit before my time so I rather not comment on them. But this list changes all the time but the top 5 or so are set in stone for the most part. Others like yourself might disagree which is fine.

 

[Saket1209]

Made cricket bigger in India rather than Sub Continent. Imran was already a huge star in Pakistan before Sachin came.

Kohli, Sachin or whoever would be nothing without W.G Grace. Just enlighten me how is Sachin’s impact on cricket bigger than Grace??

99% of cricket fans doesn't even know who is WG Grace and you are talking about his impact. Just scoring bundles of runs in county cricket by playing against some normal roadside player doesn't make you great. Maybe in initial cricket phase but now nothing. For me , even shubhman gill is better than them because they are playing professional cricket. Even I have more than 50000 runs near my home, that doesn't make me great.Isn't it ? If a player can play cricket at the age of something like 55 years that you can judge the level of cricket he was playing.

 

[subshakerz]

What part of upper echelon don't you understand? I'd take a Hadlee, Marshall or McGrath over a Sachin, Viv or Hobbs generally. Funny enough two of those three fast bowlers are more than useful at their secondary skill which makes it a no brainer for me. And those three match and imo exceed Sachin in terms of consistency across conditions. Top 10 cricketers for me would look something like this:

Don
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
McGrath
Kallis
Sachin
Wasim
Murali

Lots of recency bias admittedly because players like Miller, Hammond etc were a bit before my time so I rather not comment on them. But this list changes all the time but the top 5 or so are set in stone for the most part. Others like yourself might disagree which is fine.

Do not greatly disagree with that list , except Kallis.

 

[Slifer]

Maybe I should say great fast bowlers are more valuable (imo) than great batsmen everything else being equal. I'd take an Ambrose over a Lara any day of the week. Ditto Marshall vs Viv and I'm the most biased Viv fan there is. For Pakistan I'd rather an Akram over Javed.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Maybe I should say great fast bowlers are more valuable (imo) than great batsmen everything else being equal. I'd take an Ambrose over a Lara any day of the week. Ditto Marshall vs Viv and I'm the most biased Viv fan there is. For Pakistan I'd rather an Akram over Javed.

No. Ambrose is like 5th or 6th fast bowler while Lara is the 2nd or 3rd best bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Maybe I should say great fast bowlers are more valuable (imo) than great batsmen everything else being equal. I'd take an Ambrose over a Lara any day of the week. Ditto Marshall vs Viv and I'm the most biased Viv fan there is. For Pakistan I'd rather an Akram over Javed.

That's better. I just prefer to analyse each individually and see what is exceptional in making their case.

I might put Viv over Marshall, not sure. Cricket pundits tended to have a batsman bias while CW has the opposite.

Miandad isn't an ATG while Wasim is.

 

[Slifer]

No. Ambrose is like 5th or 6th fast bowler while Lara is the 2nd or 3rd best bat.

I wouldn't rate Lara that high but that's all I'll say.

 

[Saket1209]

Ambrose and lara both are great match winners but Ambrose away from home was a greater match winner than lara especially in Aus. In his career then won six games there and Ambrose was man of the match in 5 games. Lara record away from home and his inconsistency is a bit of a talk.

 

[Slifer]

That's better. I just prefer to analyse each individually and see what is exceptional in making their case.

Yeah I rethought it and both batsmen and bowlers are necessary for team success. But because of the nature of cricket, top bowlers relative to top batsman are more valuable. India during their recent golden run, I'd say their most valuable player(s) would be any one of Bumrah, Ashwin or Jadeja.

 

[Slifer]

That's better. I just prefer to analyse each individually and see what is exceptional in making their case.

I might put Viv over Marshall, not sure. Cricket pundits tended to have a batsman bias while CW has the opposite.

Miandad isn't an ATG while Wasim is.

Really??

 

[Adorable Asshole]

I wouldn't rate Lara that high but that's all I'll say.

Ambrose and lara both are great match winners but Ambrose away from home was a greater match winner than lara especially in Aus. In his career then won six games there and Ambrose was man of the match in 5 games. Lara record away from home and his inconsistency is a bit of a talk.

90s were the easiest era to bowl and opposite for batting. So we have to take it into account. Plus Lara resume is not much different than other competitors for the best after Bradman meanwhile Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, MacGrath are all better than him in that order.

Yeah I rethought it and both batsmen and bowlers are necessary for team success. But because of the nature of cricket, top bowlers relative to top batsman are more valuable. India during their recent golden run, I'd say their most valuable player(s) would be any one of Bumrah, Ashwin or Jadeja.

No Kohli is better than those home bullies.

 

[Coronis]

Sometimes when you score so consistently people take your runs for granted.

The hypocrisy is insane.

I was replying about pure impact on cricket where there are at least 3 guys in Grace, Bradman and Sobers who at least match if not surpass Sachin.

For first 3 names in ATG Xi, Bradman, Sobers and Marshall are definitely the first 3 names. If it’s making a team with 3 players of choice and rest okish players, I would probably have O’Reilly marginally ahead of Sobers who would be the 4th name.

Nah Gilly is probably picked before Marshall I’d say.

 

[Saket1209]

90s were the easiest era to bowl and opposite for batting. So we have to take it into account. Plus Lara resume is not much different than other competitors for the best after Bradman meanwhile Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, MacGrath are all better than him in that order.


No Kohli is better than these home bullies.

No there was just good amount of great fast bowlers that all. There is nothing called easiest era to bowl. If that the case then 80s was by far the easiest because of quick pitches ,bouncer rule , less protected helmets and so on. We say 2000s as the easiest era to bat because of the lack of great fast bowler in each team. Only McGrath was present in the first half. And apart from sr everything of Ambrose Is world class. Lara performance in aus ,Ind and nz is still a question. Average of 40 or less. Some good innings in aus but some bad series too in 96 and 2000 at peak of his career.