Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Wasim Akram played with an inferior team?

He played 104 Tests.
84 with Waqar.
52 with Mushtaq.
48 with Saqlain.
44 with Qadir.
38 with Imran.
28 with Shoaib.

4 of those are great or very good.
2 of them were good.

With no unity and pathetic fielders.
Lion's share of Akram's wickets are Bowled / LBW.

 

[Johan]

With no unity and pathetic fielders.
Lion's share of Akram's wickets are Bowled / LBW.

unity? the **** is this? some shitty indian soap opera?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I do think it's one of the reasons he has prettier numbers for checklist freaks though - a bigger percentage of his career was "peak" without a "picked too early on potential" phase or the "played on beyond his best because he was still better than a mediocre second change bowler from domestic cricket" phase that can often make someone's record in X country look worse than it deserves.

Yes this is one of the many reasons the checklist blows.

Marshall's best claim to GOAT pacer is his destructive ability (was a period where he was picking up close to 6 WPM while playing alongside ATG pacers), super low SR and consistently great series for most of his career .

 

[nightprowler10]

Bumrah is unproven against Pakistan.

 

[kyear2]

81 matches was good especially for someone who retired in 1991.

Hadlee : 86 Tests.
Imran : 88 Tests
Donald : 72 Tests
Steyn : 93 Tests
Ambrose : 98 Tests

The other greats played similar amount of Tests

What's kinda missed is that one, he was express. Harder to maintain longer careers.

And two, and somewhat connected, is that he squeezed a lot of cricket into those years. Because there was such demand for the team to tour, it was a lot of wear on his body. So yeah, by '90 he was done.

And even guys like Wasim who had longer careers, when examined it's still condensed to a prime. The issue though than some have with Wasim isn't the overall numbers, it's the performances vs the better teams and the percentage of lower order bats and stuff like that.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall's career was much shorter than Imran and Hadlee in terms of years. Number of games is highly dependent on how many your team plays. Marshall played from 78-91, but really was a regular only from 83 onwards. So prime stuff of his international career was over a span of 8 years, which is kinda short when compared to other ATGs like McGrath and Hadlee.

He was playing since '80, even if not in every match.

While the number of games is dependant, it's still the barometer for performance and hence success.

If he played less games, could have played more years. So still basically balances out.

Imran played more years, but arguments are made to have quite a few excluded, and that doesn't take into account the games he didn't bowl or the short 1st "retirement"

It's not quite as clearcut as saying more or less years.

McGrath was a beast, but he was medium and also (rightly or wrongly, I would argue the latter) wasn't seen as the primary match winner for his own team.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He was playing since '80, even if not in every match.

While the number of games is dependant, it's still the barometer for performance and hence success.

If he played less games, could have played more years. So still basically balances out.

Imran played more years, but arguments are made to have quite a few excluded, and that doesn't take into account the games he didn't bowl or the short 1st "retirement"

It's not quite as clearcut as saying more or less years.

McGrath was a beast, but he was medium and also (rightly or wrongly, I would argue the latter) wasn't seen as the primary match winner for his own team.

As I said, McGrath had the results as did Hadlee; almost as good as Marshall but just short. For me, they playing longer makes the gap miniscule. I rate Marshall top of the bunch for his skill set (i.e., was the fastest here, bouncer, etc) but can see arguments for the other 2 (and Murali (and Barnes)). Just that.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath was a beast, but he was medium and also (rightly or wrongly, I would argue the latter) wasn't seen as the primary match winner for his own team.

Huh? He was the most feared bowler in the side.

Imran played more years, but arguments are made to have quite a few excluded, and that doesn't take into account the games he didn't bowl or the short 1st "retirement"

You always include those in your Imran bowling analysis. Now you want to exclude them because it makes Imran's longevity seem better? How hypocritical.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

unity? the **** is this? some shitty indian soap opera?

Kind of

 

[kyear2]

Huh? He was the most feared bowler in the side.



You always include those in your Imran bowling analysis. Now you want to exclude them because it makes Imran's longevity seem better? How hypocritical.

Did u even read what I said or did your hackles just automatically go up?

 

[subshakerz]

Did u even read what I said or did your hackles just automatically go up?

You were speaking both sides of your mouth.

 

[kyear2]

As I said, McGrath had the results as did Hadlee; almost as good as Marshall but just short. For me, they playing longer makes the gap miniscule. I rate Marshall top of the bunch for his skill set (i.e., was the fastest here, bouncer, etc) but can see arguments for the other 2 (and Murali (and Barnes)). Just that.

I would never argue that McGrath doesn't have an argument. Think he was immense.

Hadlee as well, but for various reasons he just slots into 3rd.

Murali, guy was destroyed by Lara, Sachin and Australia. I personally can't make the argument to be the GOAT

Barnes is just a hard no. You can choose era, or only having two opponents and just cleaning up vs the minnow one.