Malcolm Marshall vs. Sachin Tendulkar

[Adorable Asshole]

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.

90s have the lowest batting average of any decade. You had players like Hayden who could hardly bat in the 90s average around 60 in the 2000s.

That wasn't his career peak at all lol. More like his nadir.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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

Only 1 spot for WK really. Though I wouldn’t agree I could see a reasonable case for Knott or a specialist keeper in Evans when you already have Bradman,Smith and others.

 

[Coronis]

Only 1 spot for WK really. Though I wouldn’t agree I could see a reasonable case for Knott or a specialist keeper in Evans when you already have Bradman,Smith and others.

I’d say the gap from Gilly to anyone else is the biggest apart from Bradman so not picking him early would be a bigger disadvantage.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

99% of cricket fans doesn't even know who is WG Grace and you are talking about his impact.

Absolute nonsense. I genuinely don’t want to reply to this nonsense.So, here is what David Frith has to say,

David Frith summed up Grace's legacy to cricket by writing that "his influence lasted long after his final appearance in first-class cricket in 1908 and his death in 1915”. "For decades", wrote Frith, "Grace had been arguably the most famous man in England", easily recognisable because of "his beard and his bulk", and revered because of "his batsmanship".Frith added a view that even though Grace's records had been overtaken, "his pre-eminence" had not, and so Grace "remains the most famous cricketer of them all, the one who elevated the game in public esteem".

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Thanks, this is a useful exchange.

I prefer to say quality bowlers are more essential to team success than quality batsmen. But does that make them inherently greater cricketers relative to other bats their level? Not so sure.

 

[subshakerz]

Really??

Might. Both are close. Marshall being the best bowler ever will likely put him ahead.

 

[Saket1209]

Absolute nonsense. I genuinely don’t want to reply to this nonsense.So, here is what David Frith has to say,

David Frith summed up Grace's legacy to cricket by writing that "his influence lasted long after his final appearance in first-class cricket in 1908 and his death in 1915”. "For decades", wrote Frith, "Grace had been arguably the most famous man in England", easily recognisable because of "his beard and his bulk", and revered because of "his batsmanship".Frith added a view that even though Grace's records had been overtaken, "his pre-eminence" had not, and so Grace "remains the most famous cricketer of them all, the one who elevated the game in public esteem".

I said I don't believe in gully cricket record. Influential man of England doesn't mean he had a great Impact on world cricket. Plus he played during an era when cricket was just a game of two countries so how can he have influence on world cricket. He played till the age of 60 or something now you can only imagine the level of cricket that time when an 60 year old grandpa is playing with a hard ball. Imagine him facing marshall at age of 60 , he would be an another phil hughes.

 

[Saket1209]

90s have the lowest batting average of any decade. You had players like Hayden who could hardly bat in the 90s average around 60 in the 2000s.

That wasn't his career peak at all lol. More like his nadir.

Yeah because of the amount of great fast bowler during the time and not because the pitches were tough. Pitches were tougher in 80s plus the rules were more in the bowler's favour. Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Kapil, Bishop, Merv Hughes, Javagal, Vaas, and the list goes on. I have not seen this amount of great fast bowler in any decade. And rules were equal for everyone. If sachin can average 60 in that decade playing agaisnt the likes of everyone why can't lara. He averaged 48 at the end of the decade. His average increased in the 2000s due to less amount of great bolwers. He averaged 60 in that decade. He averaged 40 in the second half of 90s which can be classified as the toughest phase of cricket as all teams were competitive and great bowlers in everyteam. Sachin averaged more than 60 during that phase. The best thing about lara was his great peaks and daddy hundreds but the worst thing about him was he wasn't consistent enough for an ATG.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Really??

Viv has a nearly perfect home away record, his entire career was in one of the hardest eras to bat, he has dominated more ATG/near ATG bowlers than any other batsmen in history, strikes @70, perfect record across 4 innings. It's close, tho I'll give Marshall the nod as well.

 

[kyear2]

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

Just meant one min Sachin is up, then a big swing, then Maco. Been seesawing a bit

 

[subshakerz]

Just meant one min Sachin is up, then a big swing, then Maco. Been seesawing a bit

Yeah. I like this close polls where you can tell people have to actually think.

 

[Slifer]

Thanks, this is a useful exchange.

I prefer to say quality bowlers are more essential to team success than quality batsmen. But does that make them inherently greater cricketers relative to other bats their level? Not so sure.

You are correct. I was wrong to just jump to that conclusion.

 

[subshakerz]

You are correct. I was wrong to just jump to that conclusion.

No it's useful because a lot of us here make that assumption sometimes.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah because of the amount of great fast bowler during the time and not because the pitches were tough. Pitches were tougher in 80s plus the rules were more in the bowler's favour. Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Kapil, Bishop, Merv Hughes, Javagal, Vaas, and the list goes on. I have not seen this amount of great fast bowler in any decade. And rules were equal for everyone. If sachin can average 60 in that decade playing agaisnt the likes of everyone why can't lara. He averaged 48 at the end of the decade. His average increased in the 2000s due to less amount of great bolwers. He averaged 60 in that decade. He averaged 40 in the second half of 90s which can be classified as the toughest phase of cricket as all teams were competitive and great bowlers in everyteam. Sachin averaged more than 60 during that phase. The best thing about lara was his great peaks and daddy hundreds but the worst thing about him was he wasn't consistent enough for an ATG.

Because Sachin was simply better in the 90s and better overall. In the 90s I'd go Sachin, Steve Waugh then Lara. Overall Sachin then Lara.

 

[honestbharani]

Marshall > McGrath > Lara > Sachin > Kallis

 

[Migara]

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.

Marshall taking out Pakistanis at the rate Imran was taking WIndies evened that battle.

 

[Migara]

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:

This is bit of a flawed argument/ You cannot compare bowlers vs batsman head to head. There are 3 fast bowlers and six batsmen. Ideally impact of a fast bowler should be compared with the impact of two batsmen. Here Marshall vs Lara + Tendulkar.

And Still I think Marshall has more impact.

 

[Coronis]

Kallis > Marshall > McGrath > Tendulkar > Lara

You are correct sir.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Marshall > McGrath > Lara > Sachin > Kallis

Kallis is better than McGrath as cricketer. I'm not big Kallis fan but he is getting underrated hard here.

 

[Slifer]

This is bit of a flawed argument/ You cannot compare bowlers vs batsman head to head. There are 3 fast bowlers and six batsmen. Ideally impact of a fast bowler should be compared with the impact of two batsmen. Here Marshall vs Lara + Tendulkar.

And Still I think Marshall has more impact.

Reread what I wrote. I already said just automatically rating great bowlers over great batsmen as cricketers wrong. I do still think they're more valuable though.