Marshall vs Imran (as bowlers)

[subshakerz]

They weren't the best team in history, don't think that occured till the mid '80's and by then Lloyd, Roberts etc had retired, Viv and Greenidge was on the decline, Holding was oft injured and heading for retirement. The only.reasin they maintained that level was because of him. You can choose to believe it or not. Matters no to me.

By the time Marshall came as a regular in 83, they were already the top team ever. That dominance began in 79/80. Marshall only carried that forward.

Re Ambrose, he had a wrecked shoulder and he wasn't less effective, but yes, less destructive, doesn't take away from what he did or effect his standing... Unlike you I can accept that players had deficits.

Except you didn't earlier in Ambroses case. It had to be pounded into you.

Re Steyn and Imran, you totally ignore context.

Imran played in an era where Hadlee, and Marshall and before then Lillee was successful away from home, and Lillee for example is criticized for only playing on helpful surfaces. Australia were always a challenge, but everyone else had decent records there, India too wasn't a walk over in the 70's or early 80's but Marshall managed to do well as well. England was a bowlers paradise and the Caribbean had a mixed bag but it's share of helpful surfaces.

Steyn played in an era of flat ass pitches where mostly everyone struggled on them.

Imran, helpful era when his contemporaries out outperformed him in most of not all locales, Steyn, least helpful era since the '30's and '40's and outperformed his contemporaries.

Yes there's a reason why one performed better at home than away, what's the reason for the other?

How are these things not glaring obvious.

The problem is how harsh you are for Imran averaging a few points higher here or there and look over the context of his series, and ignore half of his career on flat pitches, yet give all these favors to Steyn even those he has notably higher averages. Double standards.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Malcolm Marshall was a Better Bowler Compared to Imran Khan. But if you ask me who will be in my team it will be Imran Khan as he was a better Batsmen and better Leader. Numbers alone doesn’t matter. It’s tough to judge the players. For example Steve Waugh had a pretty moderate average in ODIs but he was always there when team needed him the most and scored 120 against South Africa in the 1999 World Cup and I have never seen Sachin play an innings like that in his entire career. In the same way Imran Khan had the winning mentality to lead a Team to World Cup.

 

[kyear2]

Malcolm Marshall was a Better Bowler Compared to Imran Khan. But if you ask me who will be in my team it will be Imran Khan as he was a better Batsmen and better Leader. Numbers alone doesn’t matter. It’s tough to judge the players. For example Steve Waugh had a pretty moderate average in ODIs but he was always there when team needed him the most and scored 120 against South Africa in the 1999 World Cup and I have never seen Sachin play an innings like that in his entire career. In the same way Imran Khan had the winning mentality to lead a Team to World Cup.

1. We're just talking about bowling here, so the rest of it isn't being discussed.

2. I don't think we factoring in odi exploits

 

[CricketFan90s]

1. We're just talking about bowling here, so the rest of it isn't being discussed.

2. I don't think we factoring in odi exploits

Marshall was a better Bowler i already said that but Imran will be in my Test XI due to other factors.

 

[Coronis]

Bro calm down don’t take these threads so seriously

Ironic, coming from a guy who posts nothing but comparison threads.

 

[honestbharani]

Ironic, coming from a guy who posts nothing but comparison threads.

Yeah but maybe he doesn't take it seriously

 

[OverratedSanity]

Even though Marshall was a better bowler than Imran/Steyn, do we really believe that if Imran/Steyn had broken through and played for WI from 1980 onwards, then WI wouldn't have still been the greatest team ever? Come on, we all know what would've happened. WI would have been OP as hell and would still have beaten everyone everywhere. The whole "he made them the greatest team" thing doesn't make much sense to me when they had an assembly line of ATG players throughout their team even if some began to decline later in the 80s.

Also @kyear2 please stop comparing cricket to basketball and ****ing NFL ffs. Individual players like Brady and Jordan have more influence over their team and can elevate them far more easily than any individual player can in cricket because they are fundamentally different sports than cricket with rules that allow individuals to dominate much more. It's a very poor comparison.

 

[subshakerz]

Even though Marshall was a better bowler than Imran/Steyn, do we really believe that if Imran/Steyn had broken through and played for WI from 1980 onwards, then WI wouldn't have still been the greatest team ever? Come on, we all know what would've happened. WI have been OP as hell and would still have beaten everyone everywhere. The whole "he made them the greatest team" thing doesn't make much sense to me when they had an assembly line of ATG players throughout their team even if some began to decline later in the 80s.

Yes, this whole, 'this guy is a winner' has to be one of his lamest takes and that is saying a lot.

Also @kyear2 please stop comparing cricket to basketball and ****ing NFL ffs. Individual players like Brady and Jordan have more influence over their team and can elevate them far more easily than any individual player can in cricket because they are fundamentally different sports than cricket with rules that allow individuals to dominate much more. It's a very poor comparison.

Thanks for calling out this cringefest.

 

[kyear2]

Even though Marshall was a better bowler than Imran/Steyn, do we really believe that if Imran/Steyn had broken through and played for WI from 1980 onwards, then WI wouldn't have still been the greatest team ever? Come on, we all know what would've happened. WI would have been OP as hell and would still have beaten everyone everywhere. The whole "he made them the greatest team" thing doesn't make much sense to me when they had an assembly line of ATG players throughout their team even if some began to decline later in the 80s.

Also @kyear2 please stop comparing cricket to basketball and ****ing NFL ffs. Individual players like Brady and Jordan have more influence over their team and can elevate them far more easily than any individual player can in cricket because they are fundamentally different sports than cricket with rules that allow individuals to dominate much more. It's a very poor comparison.

The thing is, we can agree to disagree. In cricket winning seems to mean nothing in these discussions, and I'm not saying that alone plays a part in the criteria, but it sure adds to it. And Marshall not McGrath needs that dimension added to be at the very top.

We keep bringing up this **** about if x had replaced them, they didn't, give them the credit for what they did, that line of argument is extremely disingenuous. Without McGrath Australia wouldn't have been the best in the world and one of the best two teams ever. Without Marshall the West Indies would not have been the dominating force they were well into the '80's. After '84 it was basically Marshall.and Garner that drove the team and an inconsistent batting line up. Look at his wpm during that period and compare to what the rest of the squad was doing.

And with regards to my comparisons to other sports, there apt and I'll continue to use them, an NFL team has 24 starters / specialists and the QB gets credit for victories, because like the strike bowler and as you'll have been so eager to point out the past couple days when the arguments suited your agenda, are the alpha males and drives results. Yes, if you're a winner to that extent you do deserve credit for it.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, this whole, 'this guy is a winner' has to be one of his lamest takes and that is saying a lot.


Thanks for calling out this cringefest.

For someone who has literally only two agendas on this forum it's incredibly rich for you to describe anyone else as being cringe.

Believe it or not the aim of the game has always been to win, not accumulate stats and in every other sport it's a factor.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Lara lost a lot of games so I guess he wasn’t top tier

 

[kyear2]

Lara lost a lot of games so I guess he wasn’t top tier

You're being idiotic as usual.

1. Said it doesn't take away from, but it's surely a plus to a resume.

2. Hadlee get credit for making NZ a much tougher challenge than they ever had any right being.

3. As great as Sachin and Lara were, they couldn't ever get the victories without the necessary blowing support and the batting around the Prince was minnow like.

But you know all of this.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

@kyear2 please stop comparing cricket to basketball and ****ing NFL ffs. Individual players like Brady and Jordan have more influence over their team and can elevate them far more easily than any individual player can in cricket because they are fundamentally different sports than cricket with rules that allow individuals to dominate much more. It's a very poor comparison.
[/QUOTE]
Disagree completely.

Cricket is perhaps the most "individual" team sport of all. One guy can bowl half the overs and take all the wickets.

 

[honestbharani]

Cricket is perhaps the most "individual" team sport of all. One guy can bowl half the overs and take all the wickets.

Yeah but one batsman cant bat by himself. In Basketball one player can literally score all the points for his team and do all the saves.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah but one batsman cant bat by himself. In Basketball one player can literally score all the points for his team and do all the saves.

Yes, but once they are fatigued or get into foul trouble they'll be subbed off.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, but once they are fatigued or get into foul trouble they'll be subbed off.

So will the bowler who bowls half the overs.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

So will the bowler who bowls half the overs.

Touché

 

[OverratedSanity]

Disagree completely.

Cricket is perhaps the most "individual" team sport of all. One guy can bowl half the overs and take all the wickets.

Yeah no, I don't agree. "Can" yes, but it's practically impossible to do so unless you're a spinner in a bad attack like Murali. Even in this thread we're talking specifically about pace bowlers. If a fast bowler consistently bowled half his team's overs, his career would end in like 3 years.

Basketball allows one player to massively dominate the ball because the dimensions of the court are so small and it's only 5 v 5. The best players consistently hog the ball and can carry teams to a level you can't in other ball games like, say, soccer. Even in NFL, a quarterback has the ball literally all the time when his team has possession. This is just not comparable to how much one one single pace bowler can consistently elevate his team in cricket.

They are also inferior sports played by weaklings, so I'm not bothering to discuss it further.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah no, I don't agree. "Can" yes, but it's practically impossible to do so unless you're a spinner in a bad attack like Murali. Even in this thread we're talking specifically about pace bowlers. If a fast bowler consistently bowled half his team's overs, his career would end in like 3 years.

Basketball allows one player to massively dominate the ball because the dimensions of the court are so small and it's only 5 v 5. The best players consistently hog the ball and can carry teams to a level you can't in other ball games like, say, soccer. Even in NFL, a quarterback has the ball literally all the time when his team has possession. This is just not comparable to how much one one single pace bowler can consistently elevate his team in cricket.

They are also inferior sports played by weaklings, so I'm not bothering to discuss it further.

Agree basket ball is not an ideal comp, but football is the ultimate team game, but it's expected the QB, like your pace bowler more often than not will pull your ass through.

And taking into the arguments I'm hearing for bowling all rounders, they are factors for the bowling and the batting, so even more impact than the QB who isn't on the field for defence.

Can't have it both ways. Especially when down playing wins then using winning the world cup to say Imran was a great captain.

 

[subshakerz]

You're being idiotic as usual.

1. Said it doesn't take away from, but it's surely a plus to a resume.

2. Hadlee get credit for making NZ a much tougher challenge than they ever had any right being.

3. As great as Sachin and Lara were, they couldn't ever get the victories without the necessary blowing support and the batting around the Prince was minnow like.

But you know all of this.

Any ATG bowler is going to win his side more games by definition. So this entire narrative of being a 'winner' is simply rewarding Marshall and McGrath for being in ATG teams.