shortpitched713
International Captain
Wait, isn't Sobers the main rival to Imran as greatest ever all-rounder?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Marshall Vs Sobers
- Thread starter Jumno
- Start date
Coronis
International Coach
Of course not, he’s not modern enough. You’re thinking of Kallis
HouHsiaoHsien
International Debutant
Yes. The same way I find it tough to chose between Hobbs and Marshall
kyear2
International Coach
Ahhhhh.
For the record I rate Sobers the 3rd best batsman ever, the most versatile bowler of all time and one of the top 5/ 8 or so slip fielders / catchers to have played the game.
I believe there been 4 great phenomenons to have graced this game.
Sir Donald Bradman
Sir Garfield Sobers
The West Indies Pace Battery
McWarne
He sits among the two man pantheon of our sport.
I personally, genuinely, "unpopularly" and unapologetically believe Marshall belongs in that conversation. The best batsman, bowler and all rounder.
Of all players in the modern game (with multiple credible opponents) he along with Tendulkar has the most well rounded records, home and away (yes all the top tier guys are close), with success against everyone and in all conditions.
Marshall faced off against, Gavaskar, Gooch, Miandad, Waugh Sr and Border. Plus guys who in other eras would have had much more enterprising averages like Gower, Smith, Crowe, Taylor, Boon, Jones etc.. of note though, and unlike the other bowlers of his era, he never faced any minnows to lower his numbers. To those who counter that he never faced his own team, and as with the Aussie batting line up vs Warne, who do we really think benefitted from that missed opportunity the most?
Between his skill set, conditions tested in and record, he is unmatched. He conquered on pitches meant to neutralize him and for those who believe he was protected by the other bowlers, look at his wpm at his peak, Garner's performance before and after Marshall came along and the amount of games missed by Garner and primarily Holding during his career. Walsh wasn't nearly the bowler he would become and Ambrose only ascended as Marshall declined. He protected them.
Marshall lost 4 matches in his career as an opening bowler... The Bob Holland match at Sydney (which inspired him to learn the cutter from Lillee), vs Pak in '86 where we got lbw'd, sorry bowled (I'm kidding) out for 53 on the last day, '87 in NZ where he was hobbled for the series (and didn't even bowl in the final innings) and the Border match in '89 where he still managed 5/29 and 1/17 in the flattest of conditions, vs a strong batting lineup while the others just didn't show up.
But when he didn't play, we lost.
He adapted as his career progresses, he started with the out-swinger and quickly noted that success in most conditions would require both, so he learned and mastered the in-swinger as well. He leaned the cutter from Lillee to better counter spinning or slow conditions and to even perform better later in innings. He learned everything he could, then subsequently passed it down to everyone he could.
He was brutal and unyielding, but also among the most cerebral, he worked out batsmen weaknesses quicker than most and exploited them mercilessly, not to mention, like Warne he often set his own fields.
Statistically, anecdotally and by peer rating (along with Wasim and Warne making both the Cricinfo and Wisden all time teams) he was the best. For our top 100 rankings as I was being skewered for having the audacity to place Sobers first, I also said that I have a top 3, and quite frankly the order isn't set in stone.
In a sport where there's arguments that bowlers have a slightly greater value and importance than batsmen, and for the man who for me is the greatest and best bowler of all time and, (along with Richards) propelled his team to, at the time, the greatest team ever (and even now a top 2 team), he doesn't deserve at least an argument for a seat at the table?
He knocked the bat from Sunny's hand, broke Gatting's nose and sadly ended a career, yet he mesmerized with swing and seam on the slowest of pitches. He possessed ferocious pace, banana swing and an excellent cricketing brain. He tested your technique, your will and your courage in ways probably only Lillee and Lindwall ever has, but for longer and better. To quote, he had all the toys and knows how and when to use them.
kyear2
International Coach
You ego is enormous.
I've often said, and for years, and been criticized for it btw, that while all 3 are in the top tier, there's a clear order (all this for me I feel the need to point out), with McGrath ahead of Hadlee, with 3 reason mentioned. One of which being that McGrath transitioned to the dead era with no drop off, while Hadlee played in mostly helpful conditions.
Anything else you've discovered this year, or just this?
The thing about bowling is that you still have to take the wickets, it's also easier batting in a stronger team, you still have to score the runs. It's also a give and take, Garner generally cleaned up the tail. Hadlee often was either on, or came back on to finish up. It didn't help winning records, but sure as hell assisted with his 5 wicket hauls.
Bullying lesser lineups? I'll remember that for future discussions.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Good post and I don't disagree much except with the above as I already rate Marshall no.1.
I think it is a fair knock on Marshall to say that he generally faced lesser quality lineups. That doesnt mean he didn't face a handful of great batsmen but many middle of the road lineups. The reason him not facing his own team is more of a problem is because unlike McWarne and Viv, they still faced strong enough opposition to counter this idea that they had it easy.
I think if you go down the list, Hadlee, McGrath, Ambrose, Imran, Wasim, Lillee, Steyn all faced stronger lineups more consistently. Marshall binged a far bit. If you look at his Aussie record, he probably took advantage of the weakest Aussie teams in history twice in a row.
Add to the fact that Marshall likely was shielded the more severe effects on his records from early age and post-peak by virtue of the attack he was in, and I think his record can be seen as not as exemplary but he ends up more first among equals of sorts.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Dont be so prickly. I was pushing back against this notion that I am pulling Hadlee down for Imran's sake. You know that isn't true.
kyear2
International Coach
Other way round, and the rivalry exists purely on this forum,
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I actually am not convinced fully that Imran is the 3rd greatest cricketer.Other way round, and the rivalry exists purely on this forum,
kyear2
International Coach
The only tough opponents that Hadlee and Imran faced that Marshall didn't was the WI one. Hadlee averaged 22 against them, and Imran had by far his best numbers against them as well. So let's get that out of the way.
If Australia and India were so easy, why did Imran averaged 28 in both countries? Yes, they weren't the strongest teams, but they fought hard at home and both had challenging conditions for touring bowlers.
Bradman faced absolute nonsense compared to who Maco faced, Hobbs didn't exactly face an AT XI either. In the 2000's Tendulkar had his share of record correction as well. The names listed were all competent, who in the 2000's would have cleaned shop. Stat padding is playing minnows and cleaning up tails, he did neither.
Marshall has a good a case as anyone to be seen as a top 3 cricketer.
From the Wisden voting it was Richards, Hobbs and Warne. From the Cricinfo team voting the said it was Warne or Tendulkar.
Marshall has as good a case as any of them, if not better.
HouHsiaoHsien
International Debutant
There was some time back I had him and Sobers tied for two. I have Sobers a smidge ahead now
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
Nah. It only exists for some people.Other way round, and the rivalry exists purely on this forum,
kyear2
International Coach
I would love to engage you on this, but I know where it would lead. Your compatriot already believes it's my life's mission to destroy his idol.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
A question could be asked though how much you can make up for longevity by practically having a 7 year career??
HouHsiaoHsien
International Debutant
Marshall was good enough from 1980 and till the end. Plus he’s literally perfect in all other aspects. I’m not saying he’s indisputably the best like Bradman, but to me, he has a reasonable case as the best bowler ever
kyear2
International Coach
I would suggest that's because you rate Sobers lower as a batsman than some, and rate Imran as a bowler higher than most.
I rate Sobers 3rd, and Imran 8th
Sobers bowling to Imran's batting, Sobers also wins out, but closer.
For me the slip catching just pushes it further ahead.
Subz would counter with the captaincy, but don't think it's close there either, even if he says even, Imran's already behind on the other 2.
kyear2
International Coach
From 80 to 91 is more than long enough for an express fast bowler.
HouHsiaoHsien
International Debutant
Even I do rate Sobers ahead, tho as a bowler I rate Imran higher than most
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I believe he is the best bowler ever. But I also believe his career was pretty short by ATG standards and that should be hold accountable. When I talk about Great players, I don't simply mean how good they were, longevity isn't just a measure of goodness for me. More so, longevity means contributing for a much greater period of time. Sobers for example hit the field for 20 years straight. That's a deciding factor for me right there, as I don't believe how good you were for 6-7 years, you can overcome one who had such a level of output for 20+. And of course, another thing I think Marshall has a huge advantage from is being shielded in his formative years unlike Hadlee or Sobers.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Well as a peace offering, I will submit that I am leery to put Imran that high if he wasnt seen so supreme in his career, even though I recognize his achievements as underrated. Top 5 yes for me, top 3 maybe on points but I hesitate.