Sachin Tendulkar vs Malcolm Marshall

[_00_deathscar]

Tailend wickets are important or you can have them 150/7 and they end up posting 375.

 

[_00_deathscar]

View attachment 40172

Where’s Steyn?

 

[Slifer]

@kyear2 changes criteria player by player. That's the only thing he is consistent on.

Brother, we all do it. One minute you're criticizing Ambrose for lack of showings in Asia, next minute you do the same for Marshall's who played extensively in Asia. I readily admit I'm mostly biased towards west Indians unless I'm hit with something that's almost indisputable. For example Lara vs Sachin, I favor Lara but Sachin was simply marginally better.

 

[kyear2]

tempted to vote for Statchin here because of unbelievable longevity and well rounded record.

But I generally value bowlers significantly higher (and bowling all rounders even higher). So would want to vote for Marshall

Tough call. In fact I am surprised that kyear2 has voted Marshall over here given how much better Tendulkar was as a slip fielder than Marshall. Or I shouldn't be surprised because as usual he won't apply his criteria consistently?

It's posts like that that I find hilarious. Are you implying that Sachin was comparable to Sobers, Kallis, Waugh, Richardson, Chappell, Ponting, Simpson, Hooper, Taylor, Botham etc?
I don't even have him anywhere near the next tier of guys like Greame, Flemming, Younis, Azhar, Lara, Richards, Border and such like. And that's not even including guys like Hammond, Barlow, Mitchell, Barry and Procter who were all top tier, or the spin specialists like Dravid and Jayawardene.

I have a top 10 and a top 30 +, and he doesn't feature in any. It's the difference makers at the position. I thought that was clear.

 

[Slifer]

Where’s Steyn?

For some reason they left Steyn off in their study. It was done in 2010 so I presume it's because he was still playing...

 

[kyear2]

If you had a crystal ball and you could get Sachin (in my view the best after Bradman) or Marshall’s (in my view the GOAT bowler) for their careers you take Sachin any day because of the 18 years of sustained excellence.

That's a good argument.

I don't propose a counter, but rather which would be more likely to push a team over the top to be number one at any point.

And also, if you had each at their peak for a tour you need to win or even for a year to face any opposition, which are you chosing?

 

[kyear2]

Bowlers take a significant proportion of their wickets dismissing useless 'tailenders'. Thats far easier than batsmen feasting on proper bowlers from Zimbabwe Bangladesh Afghanistan..

I wonder what the true bowling average is of our ATG bowlers without their cheap tailend wickets.

This has nothing to do with Sachin vs Maco, so....

The argument doesn't make any sense, because batsmen score most of their runs vs the 3rd through 5th / 6th bowlers as well. Didn't @Prince EWS show a stat from a Sachin innings earlier in the thread? So that's where it averages out.

Playing minnows is playing minnows.

 

[smash84]

It's posts like that that I find hilarious. Are you implying that Sachin was comparable to Sobers, Kallis, Waugh, Richardson, Chappell, Ponting, Simpson, Hooper, Taylor, Botham etc?
I don't even have him anywhere near the next tier of guys like Greame, Flemming, Younis, Azhar, Lara, Richards, Border and such like. And that's not even including guys like Hammond, Barlow, Mitchell, Barry and Procter who were all top tier, or the spin specialists like Dravid and Jayawardene.

I have a top 10 and a top 30 +, and he doesn't feature in any. It's the difference makers at the position. I thought that was clear.

I am guessing you never really followed his career properly. He was easily in the Border, Lara, Younis league as a fielder. The only thing he didn't do much was dive around. But it was extremely rare for him to shell chances. He was extremely safe. If a catch comes his way, it gets pouched. He wasn't very flashy which is why he doesn't get mentioned a lot but it is ridiculous to suggest he was in any way a significantly lesser fielder than Lara or Younis.

 

[smash84]

That's a good argument.

I don't propose a counter, but rather which would be more likely to push a team over the top to be number one at any point.

Yeah, Marshall isn't pushing Bangladesh to number one, no matter how hard he tries.

 

[Slifer]

Marshalls average and SR are also fairly boosted by playing in a pack.

Even while playing in a pack, only Steyn and Lillee and Hadlee have higher wpms (from my recollection). And Marshall played during a time of more draws and at a time when time lost during tests were not made up by starting a day early or going late.

As a matter of fact, after 58 tests or so, Marshall had around 290 wkts aka 5wpm. It dropped off after that with the emergence of the Bishop and Ambrose. Point being, even with more competition for most of his test career, Marshall was taking around the same wkts per match as Hadlee and Lillee!!

And since average and sr are boosted by playing on a pack, I'm curious to know your take on Murali vs Warne...

 

[subshakerz]

Brother, we all do it. One minute you're criticizing Ambrose for lack of showings in Asia, next minute you do the same for Marshall's who played extensively in Asia. I readily admit I'm mostly biased towards west Indians unless I'm hit with something that's almost indisputable. For example Lara vs Sachin, I favor Lara but Sachin was simply marginally better.

Bro, it's not that simple.

I criticized Ambrose relative to Imran/Steyn for lack of Asian showings. I am not going to make that critique of Ambrose with Lillee who has virtually no showings in Asia.

I critiqued Marshall only compared to Tendulkar who has the most experience of any cricketer to determine the best specialist of all time. Of course on a regular ATG level, Marshall is well accomplished in Asia.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't propose a counter, but rather which would be more likely to push a team over the top to be number one at any point.

If it's a team with Hadlee, McGrath and Steyn and club level bats, then Tendulkar.

And also, if you had each at their peak for a tour you need to win or even for a year to face any opposition, which are you chosing?

I choose Imran and Botham then. Oh wait, we've already established that peaks don't define cricketers

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, Marshall isn't pushing Bangladesh to number one, no matter how hard he tries.

This depends on the resources available to a team. For example, WI right now could use either player tbf. As a matter of fact most teams right now would benefit from either player.

All time wise, none of WI, Australia or England need a Sachin but Eng could use another alpha fast bowler. Pakistan/RSA don't really need a Marshall but they could use a Sachin. NZ, SL etc would benefit from both.

 

[subshakerz]

Even while playing in a pack, only Steyn and Lillee and Hadlee have higher wpms (from my recollection). And Marshall played during a time of more draws and at a time when time lost during tests were not made up by starting a day early or going late.

Playing in a pack doesn't damage your WPM that significantly. Garner, Croft, Holding, etc all had over 4WPM. However, Marshall taking 6 WPM during his peak is his best achievement.

And since average and sr are boosted by playing on a pack, I'm curious to know your take on Murali vs Warne...

Warne because Murali failed in Australia, which matters more than the pack advantage.

 

[subshakerz]

This depends on the resources available to a team.

Precisely why saying, XYZ player will help a team better and therefore is better is a bad argument by @kyear2

 

[capt_Luffy]

This depends on the resources available to a team. For example, WI right now could use either player tbf. As a matter of fact most teams right now would benefit from either player.

All time wise, none of WI, Australia or England need a Sachin but Eng could use another alpha fast bowler. Pakistan/RSA don't really need a Marshall but they could use a Sachin. NZ, SL etc would benefit from both.

England would definitely benefit with Sachin in middle order in place of Root or Barrington.... As a matter of fact, literally any All Time team, be it Aus, WI, SA, Pak, WI, or Bangladesh; would benefit significantly from either.

 

[smash84]

This depends on the resources available to a team.

Exactly my point.

 

[Coronis]

England would definitely benefit with Sachin in middle order in place of Root or Barrington.... As a matter of fact, literally any All Time team, be it Aus, WI, SA, Pak, WI, or Bangladesh; would benefit significantly from either.

Woah no way

 

[kyear2]

Brother, we all do it. One minute you're criticizing Ambrose for lack of showings in Asia, next minute you do the same for Marshall's who played extensively in Asia. I readily admit I'm mostly biased towards west Indians unless I'm hit with something that's almost indisputable. For example Lara vs Sachin, I favor Lara but Sachin was simply marginally better.

It's not even that dude, I'm explained repeatedly how I rate players and it's consistent.

You're rated primarily on you primary skill. I have 7 players who are on the top tiers of their primary skills, then in that group they are graded on impact plus secondary skills.

Bradman, then I have Tendulkar, Sobers and Hobbs (Richards, Smith, Lara, Hutton right behind) basically indistinguishable as batsmen so I rate them by bowlers faced, and Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee as bowlers.

Behind that group I still weigh heavily on primary skills but secondary skills obviously come into play. It's not as rigid as the top 7 because the top 15 or so are really close, so it changes a lot.

I factor in lower order batting, relief bowling and slip fielding, but all must have been impactful to some level.

Some people just look for **** to harp on.

 

[kyear2]

I am guessing you never really followed his career properly. He was easily in the Border, Lara, Younis league as a fielder. The only thing he didn't do much was dive around. But it was extremely rare for him to shell chances. He was extremely safe. If a catch comes his way, it gets pouched. He wasn't very flashy which is why he doesn't get mentioned a lot but it is ridiculous to suggest he was in any way a significantly lesser fielder than Lara or Younis.

It's a combination of factors.

The ones who created the half chances and take the blinders, then the guys are who also safe and you have to have a credible catch to matches ratio.
The same reason some don't rate Hammond or Chappell all-rounders.

I've seen Yonis take special grabs and proven much more consistently, same with Lara, Lloyd etc.