subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yup. Imran debuted much earlier and retired later than him. Marshall had a much shorter career by ATG standards too which kind of boosted his record.
-
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
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
What would Marshall average if he debuted in the early 70s like Imran and Hadlee?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
If he had a longer career in terms of years, there is little doubt he would average a point or so higher. He had around 4-5 years shorter of a career.
Thats why given all his advantages, I don't take his stat supremacy at face value.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Marshall to me was ahead of the rest, but only marginally so.
Once you take into account that he had every conceivable advantage that could be afforded to an ATG pacer (shorter career concentrated on peak, worldclass pace support, poorer batting opposition, great scoreboard pressure) then the gloss around his stats begins to lessen somewhat.
In all likelihood, he would have been a 21-23 averaging pacer with a 50 or so SR. Of course, impossible to tell for sure but we make these mental adjustments with records of batsmen all the time.
Also worth mentioning that for those really trying to make him part of a trinity with Bradman and Sobers, remember that in his career he wasnt really hyped or feted ever to that degree of a Lillee, Viv, Warne, Lara or Tendulkar. Can be partially explained by the fact that there might have been pace exhaustion by the time he peaked in world cricket but it is true. @kyear2 goes on about certain ATG XI, but you will struggle to find lists where he is put in the top ten.
Of course, he was generally rated the best pacer of his time, no doubt, but even when you listen to those comments from his peers, it is never that he was greatly better than all other pacers but his skills on different wickets gave him an edge.
One can make case for rating McGrath best on longevity or others but I agree Marshall has the best case but he is not a tier ahead of anybody.
Lastly, was watching this clip of late career Marshall bowling. He was canny and skilled though he had lost his pace and it was funny to see Benaud start the clip by calling the best bowler of all-time a 'good bowler'
Once you take into account that he had every conceivable advantage that could be afforded to an ATG pacer (shorter career concentrated on peak, worldclass pace support, poorer batting opposition, great scoreboard pressure) then the gloss around his stats begins to lessen somewhat.
In all likelihood, he would have been a 21-23 averaging pacer with a 50 or so SR. Of course, impossible to tell for sure but we make these mental adjustments with records of batsmen all the time.
Also worth mentioning that for those really trying to make him part of a trinity with Bradman and Sobers, remember that in his career he wasnt really hyped or feted ever to that degree of a Lillee, Viv, Warne, Lara or Tendulkar. Can be partially explained by the fact that there might have been pace exhaustion by the time he peaked in world cricket but it is true. @kyear2 goes on about certain ATG XI, but you will struggle to find lists where he is put in the top ten.
Of course, he was generally rated the best pacer of his time, no doubt, but even when you listen to those comments from his peers, it is never that he was greatly better than all other pacers but his skills on different wickets gave him an edge.
One can make case for rating McGrath best on longevity or others but I agree Marshall has the best case but he is not a tier ahead of anybody.
Lastly, was watching this clip of late career Marshall bowling. He was canny and skilled though he had lost his pace and it was funny to see Benaud start the clip by calling the best bowler of all-time a 'good bowler'
Slifer
International Captain
Because Benaud (hypocrite) wasn't a fan of WI pacers and their methods. How many times must we go over this. And saying Marshall would average 21-23 in a longer career is rich. Ambrose played for longer and arguably vs better teams but he finished with a 20.99 average. Walsh's record and average as his years progressed got better and better. You yourself said his record was being protected playing in a strong lineup, so wouldn't playing alongside Walsh and Ambrose (and occasionally Bishop) kept his average down? Or are we changing our tune.Marshall to me was ahead of the rest, but only marginally so.
Once you take into account that he had every conceivable advantage that could be afforded to an ATG pacer (shorter career concentrated on peak, worldclass pace support, poorer batting opposition, great scoreboard pressure) then the gloss around his stats begins to lessen somewhat.
In all likelihood, he would have been a 21-23 averaging pacer with a 50 or so SR. Of course, impossible to tell for sure but we make these mental adjustments with records of batsmen all the time.
Also worth mentioning that for those really trying to make him part of a trinity with Bradman and Sobers, remember that in his career he wasnt really hyped or feted ever to that degree of a Lillee, Viv, Warne, Lara or Tendulkar. Can be partially explained by the fact that there might have been pace exhaustion by the time he peaked in world cricket but it is true. @kyear2 goes on about certain ATG XI, but you will struggle to find lists where he is put in the top ten.
Of course, he was generally rated the best pacer of his time, no doubt, but even when you listen to those comments from his peers, it is never that he was greatly better than all other pacers but his skills on different wickets gave him an edge.
One can make case for rating McGrath best on longevity or others but I agree Marshall has the best case but he is not a tier ahead of anybody.
Lastly, was watching this clip of late career Marshall bowling. He was canny and skilled though he had lost his pace and it was funny to see Benaud start the clip by calling the best bowler of all-time a 'good bowler'
And for the umpteenth time, nobody (the majority of us here) is rating the man in a tier above any other fast bowler. That's all in your agenda filled head. Even amongst West Indians, him and Curtly are in the same tier ie atg fast bowlers with Marshall being marginally and arguably better. Let it go....
Slifer
International Captain
And there is about yours? You know recency bias is a thing as well.
sayon basak
International Debutant
He would average a bit higher obviously. Also he was mediocre at the beginning of his career. Still wouldn't affect his legacy imo.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The longer career doesn't just refer to end but beginning. And I gave a whole host of reason which if standardize would see his average rise.
Some do see Marshall as in his own class as a bowler so we can dispell that notion.
sayon basak
International Debutant
Yeah. Career span depends on when the player is being selected. If the player is selected in his late 20's, he will obviously have a shorter career.
Slifer
International Captain
Who? Seriously who? Even Kyear would admit Glenn and Richard are in the same class. So who? Stop making stuff up.
And in the beginning of his career, Marshall would've right around the same time as Garner, Daniels, Holding, and Croft. Still with formidable support. You may notice I never disagreed with your point that having strong bowling support would've kept his record low. That's the nature of cricket.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Great it seems we have agreement then.
I actually watch and look at the current players and their performances. You seem to dismiss them entirely. What the **** are we on here if you seriously think the 80s had better batting lineups?
shortpitched713
International Captain
I don't have him at all ahead of Hadlee or Steyn. I think they all did about as well as humanly possible, given their different cricketing circumstances regarding team roles, and periods in the side.
Edit: I'd even say the same about Allan Donald, given his late debut, with the slight caveat of his record against Australia.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I am beginning to appreciate this view. I think I the first bunch of bowlers are all quite close. And there was significant advantages for Marshall and McGrath.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I watched so much McGrath, and gained so much joy from his whallopings of England, so I am biased in his favor.
I would cede that, longevity (especially quality longevity) is probably his major point to be truly ranked above this group though, as the quality is about equal. But longevity certainly means a lot for fast bowlers.
Slifer
International Captain
I'm on here to offer my opinions and I've been here a lot longer than you have. You don't like my opinions ignore them like an adult. I don't dismiss current players/teams I don't know where you get that idea from. The fact remains some teams now are better and others worse compared to teams from the 80s. I fail to see the issue.
WI and South Africa now are worse than every 80s team, whereas India now is better than all except for the the WI. Australia is probably better than all those teams as well except WI. England isn't. England is below both WI and Pakistan. And so on.
The issue is that you don't recognize quality in the current sides. That's all.
WI and SA now would beat the worst of the 80s sides more often than not. They have solid bowlers, even if they don't look great in the current context. The floor now is much better.
Current SA would beat 1980s India, NZ and SL
Current WI wouldn’t beat 1980s India but would be equivalent to NZ and beat SL
And even then, there are more teams now on par or just below those two current sides.
Slifer
International Captain
Current WI equivalent to 80s NZ? In what world? Lol lol.