Malcolm Marshall vs Jack Hobbs

[capt_Luffy]

Longevity sure, peers nah.

Averaging 57 when the 2nd bests struggle to pull 40 is a valid point imo.

 

[kyear2]

If you had to rate Marshall out of 100 as the perfect pacer and Hobbs as the perfect bat, what scores would you give?

Looking like a set up, but regardless 99.

Hobbs is difficult because he's on the same grading curve as Bradman, who's getting a 100. He didn't face the toughest of fast bowling competition, but he did have the pitches to contend with..... 95

 

[kyear2]

That's a different trade. And well, Grum or Davidson for Sutcliffe; when Australia is the one needing an opener; is kinda......

And England needs a fast bowler besides Trueman.

Ok, O'Reilly for Sutcliffe, otherwise I'm just sticking with Simpson and Haydos

 

[capt_Luffy]

And England needs a fast bowler besides Trueman.

Ok, O'Reilly for Sutcliffe, otherwise I'm just sticking with Simpson and Haydos

Lillee is a perfect deal and a bigger upgrade on Anderson than Billy is on Laker. Trumper and Sutcliffe complements each other great also, Cummins is arguably better as a first change anyways and England would be more than happy to get Lillee to partner Trueman and Barnes off the deal.

 

[kyear2]

Averaging 57 when the 2nd bests struggle to pull 40 is a valid point imo.

Era, infancy.

This is not a point made up for this argument, I've been consistent about it. This is why I don't rate players pre WWI, and generally have a cut off of the 30's. Plus what does it say About the opposition when you're scoring 100s at 46?

But he played so damn long and overlapped with Bradman, so , and no argument being top 4 all time.

 

[kyear2]

Lillee is a perfect deal and a bigger upgrade on Anderson than Billy is on Laker. Trumper and Sutcliffe complements each other great also, Cummins is arguably better as a first change anyways and England would be more than happy to get Lillee to partner Trueman and Barnes off the deal.

Why would I give up my 2nd best fast bowler for your 3rd best opener who wouldn't see the field though?

Plus I'm not using Trumper over Simpson

 

[subshakerz]

Looking like a set up, but regardless 99.

Hobbs is difficult because he's on the same grading curve as Bradman, who's getting a 100. He didn't face the toughest of fast bowling competition, but he did have the pitches to contend with..... 95

99 wow even I don't rate Marshall that high. That is arguing like he is a literal perfect cricketer.

I think longevity and not facing generally high quality batting lineups would hold him back. I put Marshall at 95 ish.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why would I give up my 2nd best fast bowler for your 3rd best opener who wouldn't see the field though?

Plus I'm not using Trumper over Simpson

3rd (scratch that, 4th) best bowlers. Losing Lillee nowhere hurts Australia as much as Cummins, Lindwall, Davidson and O'Reilly is their backup; and Sutcliffe just is a bigger upgrade on Hayden, Simpson, Morris, Lawry, Ponsford, etc.
Fair enough, though I don't think Simpson is much close to Trumper; but let's disagree on that.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Era, infancy.

This is not a point made up for this argument, I've been consistent about it. This is why I don't rate players pre WWI, and generally have a cut off of the 30's. Plus what does it say About the opposition when you're scoring 100s at 46?

But he played so damn long and overlapped with Bradman, so , and no argument being top 4 all time.

Depends. Golden Age was different from now, but it wasn't particularly cricket in infancy.
It might not be a point you value, but it's a very important point imo. I rate players pre WWI and my cutoff is 1860s, when over arm became legal. We can disagree on that, but being ahead of peers is always a crucial point.
As for scoring 100s at 46, I mean Jimmy is England's best current pacer at 42; and have performed well till last year. Must mean other teams are trash? It wasn't a logical response.

 

[kyear2]

99 wow even I don't rate Marshall that high. That is arguing like he is a literal perfect cricketer.

I think longevity and not facing generally high quality batting lineups would hold him back. I put Marshall at 95 ish.

He possessed express pace, could and did swing the ball in both directions, the most devastating bouncer, perfected the cutter.

Perfect record in all conditions and vs everyone. Played no minnows to improve his numbers, look what his contemporaries did vs SL.

Longevity is perfectly fine for an express pacer, actually better than most. Tyson, Bishop, early Lillee, Holding, Shoaib.

Gavaskar, Miandad, Gooch, Gower, Crowe, Border, and that's just the greats and the two ATGs. Most teams had pretty decent batting lineups. He faced better players than Hobbs did.

No bowler comes close to the combination of his arsenal and record. The combination of s/r and er, home and away record and as an opening bowler he lost a total of 3 matches.

If you want to dock him for longevity, 98

 

[capt_Luffy]

He possessed express pace, could and did swing the ball in both directions, the most devastating bouncer, perfected the cutter.

Perfect record in all conditions and vs everyone. Played no minnows to improve his numbers, look what his contemporaries did vs SL.

Longevity is perfectly fine for an express pacer, actually better than most. Tyson, Bishop, early Lillee, Holding, Shoaib.

Gavaskar, Miandad, Gooch, Gower, Crowe, Border, and that's just the greats and the two ATGs. Most teams had pretty decent batting lineups. He faced better players than Hobbs did.

No bowler comes close to the combination of his arsenal and record. The combination of s/r and er, home and away record and as an opening bowler he lost a total of 3 matches.

If you want to dock him for longevity, 98

I would dock him a couple of more points for his career between 1978 and 83; a five year strech in which he wasn't the leading bowler.

 

[kyear2]

3rd (scratch that, 4th) best bowlers. Losing Lillee nowhere hurts Australia as much as Cummins, Lindwall, Davidson and O'Reilly is their backup; and Sutcliffe just is a bigger upgrade on Hayden, Simpson, Morris, Lawry, Ponsford, etc.
Fair enough, though I don't think Simpson is much close to Trumper; but let's disagree on that.

Sorry, I'm still in NFL draft mode and this intrigues me.

I'm not giving up my opening fast bowler for an opener, who doesn't even make your first 11. Lindwall or Davidson.

If I'm the WI, I'm trading Holding for O'Reilly.

Simpson averaged over 50 as an opener and is also my 5th bowler and 1st slip. That's non negotiable.

 

[kyear2]

I would dock him a couple of more points for his career between 1978 and 83; a five year strech in which he wasn't the leading bowler.

Are you serious? He was selected in '78 after them seeing him in the nets and 1 first class game. He was a WSC replacement well before he was ready.

I would argue that by '81 he was ready and should have played, but he was up against the quartet, though he still got some games in. But that's how our selectors were, you wait your turn.
Even Lara should have played before he actually did.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Are you serious? He was selected in '78 after them seeing him in the nets and 1 first class game. He was a WSC replacement well before he was ready.

I would argue that by '81 he was ready and should have played, but he was up against the quartet, though he still got some games in. But that's how our selectors were, you wait your turn.
Even Lara should have played before he actually did.

I just said for his first 5 years career, he was on and off the team, and he was finished by 91; he was regularly the best bowlers for 7-8 years, not that long by ATG standards.

Sorry, I'm still in NFL draft mode and this intrigues me.

I'm not giving up my opening fast bowler for an opener, who doesn't even make your first 11. Lindwall or Davidson.

If I'm the WI, I'm trading Holding for O'Reilly.

Simpson averaged over 50 as an opener and is also my 5th bowler and 1st slip. That's non negotiable.

I don't get your point as Sutcliffe is a bigger improvement on Simpson than Lindwall is a downgrade on Lillee, but fine I guess. And I am having the Victor Trumper in my ATG Australia team; that's non negotiable for me.

 

[kyear2]

I just said for his first 5 years career, he was on and off the team, and he was finished by 91; he was regularly the best bowlers for 7-8 years, not that long by ATG standards.


I don't get your point as Sutcliffe is a bigger improvement on Simpson than Lindwall is a downgrade on O'Reilly, but fine I guess. And I am having the Victor Trumper in my ATG Australia team; that's non negotiable for me.

Which express fast bowler played that many matches? Hadlee played longer but a much less hectic schedule, not even including FC matches. 80 matches in that time frame with his workload is more than good enough.


I'm assuming you meant to say Lillee, and I greatly disagree. Lindwall's wpm is so far below Lillee's it's not in the same league. If it were me, that's a serious no. Lindwall for Sutcliffe.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Which express fast bowler played that many matches? Hadlee played longer but a much less hectic schedule, not even including FC matches. 80 matches in that time frame with his workload is more than good enough.


I'm assuming you meant to say Lillee, and I greatly disagree. Lindwall's wpm is so far below Lillee's it's not in the same league. If it were me, that's a serious no. Lindwall for Sutcliffe.

McGrath did. Hadlee also played much longer and plenty of FC himself.

Nah, Lillee was only ATG against one team. Averages 27 vs Pakistan and 25 vs WI (almost exclusively at home). Lindwall isn't really that far off Lillee.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath did. Hadlee also played much longer and plenty of FC himself.

Nah, Lillee was only ATG against one team. Averages 27 vs Pakistan and 25 vs WI (almost exclusively at home). Lindwall isn't really that far off Lillee.

The question was which express pace bowler and you reference McGrath that was at his fastest, fast medium, and most was "military medium".

And Hadlee who played many more years but only 5 more actual games and was renowned for cutting his pace very early on in his career to improve his accuracy (which Marshall didn't have to do). And also when comparing their test and FC careers Marshall did bowl more deliveries.

Objectively the longevity argument doesn't hold up.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath did. Hadlee also played much longer and plenty of FC himself.

Nah, Lillee was only ATG against one team. Averages 27 vs Pakistan and 25 vs WI (almost exclusively at home). Lindwall isn't really that far off Lillee.

Lindwall as well. Besides the minnows he only was great vs England, he averaged 30 vs the WI

 

[capt_Luffy]

The question was which express pace bowler and you reference McGrath that was at his fastest, fast medium, and most was "military medium".

And Hadlee who played many more years but only 5 more actual games and was renowned for cutting his pace very early on in his career to improve his accuracy (which Marshall didn't have to do). And also when comparing their test and FC careers Marshall did bowl more deliveries.

Objectively the longevity argument doesn't hold up.

Imran Khan.

No really man, then Marshall should had cut his pace? No??? You can spin it however you want, 8 years isn't long enough for me

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lindwall as well. Besides the minnows he only was great vs England, he averaged 30 vs the WI

Then how it's a no contest for Lillee precisely??