Did Marshall and McGrath have it easier?

[subshakerz]

While we are familiar with the argument of lone guns vs those part of pace packs, I wanted to ask to the degree to which scoreboard pressure contributed to the records of Marshall and McGrath.

While I still think they may be technically the two best pacers, I suspect the gap with others may not be as wide if you account for the strength of their team and the psychological pressure of having massive totals to defend regularly, compared to those from weaker teams like Hadlee.

 

[Kirkut]

It can work both ways - being the lone great bowler in your team can force you to operate at top gear all the time, simultaneously it opens up opportunities to get more fifers/10fers thereby improving your stats.

 

[subshakerz]

It can work both ways - being the lone great bowler in your team can force you to operate at top gear all the time, simultaneously it opens up opportunities to get more fifers/10fers thereby improving your stats.

Yeah but isn't a lone gun feeling constant pressure to get wickets while defending low scores? Whereas a Marshall or McGrath may have tired bats simply throw away wickets with much less applied pressure.

 

[Molehill]

Yeah but isn't a lone gun feeling constant pressure to get wickets while defending low scores? Whereas a Marshall or McGrath may have tired bats simply throw away wickets with much less applied pressure.

Yeah, the England top order was always knackered when facing McGrath!!

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, the England top order was always knackered when facing McGrath!!

Honestly felt bad for Athers facing McGrath.

 

[Molehill]

Honestly felt bad for Athers facing McGrath.

Would've undoubtedly averaged about 10 runs more if he was born 10 years later. No wonder he filled his boots when NZ or India turned up, because the new ball bowlers everywhere else were a nightmare.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, the England top order was always knackered when facing McGrath!!

Just to check the first innings scores of Aus in the 2001 and 2002/3 Ashes: 576, 401, 190, 447, 641, 492, 552, 456, 551, 363.

Are we going to pretend regularly scoring up front like that didn't significantly help McGrath?

 

[Kirkut]

Yeah but isn't a lone gun feeling constant pressure to get wickets while defending low scores? Whereas a Marshall or McGrath may have tired bats simply throw away wickets with much less applied pressure.

True, but there can be a different perspective to this as well.

If a batsman is well set after surviving 8 over spells from both Holding and Garner, then he need not make big adjustments if he has to face Marshall next.

In second case, if a batsman is comfortable and well set after facing part time spinners who bowled a sum of 40 overs and then suddenly Marshall appears, the adjustments to be made will be massive.

 

[Kirkut]

^^ This is an opinion of an armchair cricket expert, I was batshit scared while facing a tennis ball at 75 mph in the nets, let alone facing a leather ball.

 

[subshakerz]

True, but there can be a different perspective to this as well.

If a batsman is well set after surviving 8 over spells from both Holding and Garner, then he need not make big adjustments if he has to face Marshall next.

In second case, if a batsman is comfortable and well set after facing part time spinners who bowled a sum of 40 overs and then suddenly Marshall appears, the adjustments to be made will be massive.

Yeah but Marshall and McGrath were opening bowlers with first dibs.

 

[Ali TT]

Marshall and McGrath's averages were highest in the first innings of a match. For McGrath it was a mediocre 22.92, but for Marshall a pretty putrid 24.41.

 

[shortpitched713]

While we are familiar with the argument of lone guns vs those part of pace packs, I wanted to ask to the degree to which scoreboard pressure contributed to the records of Marshall and McGrath.

While I still think they may be technically the two best pacers, I suspect the gap with others may not be as wide if you account for the strength of their team and the psychological pressure of having massive totals to defend regularly, compared to those from weaker teams like Hadlee.

Yes

 

[Johan]

The lone great bowler gives you a bunch of 5/150 scores instead of the classic 1/74 or 2/100, it goes both ways

 

[subshakerz]

The lone great bowler gives you a bunch of 5/150 scores instead of the classic 1/74 or 2/100, it goes both ways

That's not the argument though. Yes, the chance for more long gun big hauls balances out the peer support from the pack attack leaders, but I am arguing that scoreboard pressure gives a significant more advantage to the latter.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall and McGrath's averages were highest in the first innings of a match. For McGrath it was a mediocre 22.92, but for Marshall a pretty putrid 24.41.

Over the course of a career, that does make a difference.

 

[kyear2]

I don't believe that the average scores if the WI from '83 was anywhere comparable to that of Australia.

But at the end of the day, you still have to take those wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't believe that the average scores if the WI from '83 was anywhere comparable to that of Australia.

But at the end of the day, you still have to take those wickets.

That was a lower scoring era tho so a 350 in the 80s may be a 400-450 in the 2000s.

Yes you still have to take those wickets but are we going to pretend this didn't have a notable effect to face a tired demoralised opposition regularly?

The same credit you want to give McGrath for succeeding in a batting era likely helped him gain many extra scalps

 

[Bahnz]

McGrath averaged a pathetic 23.35 in games played without Warne.

FRAUD
R
A
U
D

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

McGrath averaged a pathetic 23.35 in games played without Warne.

FRAUD
R
A
U
D

It's true that he was pitiful without Warne but when Gillespie was also absent, Glenn, bereft of support, rose magnificently to the occasion and was finally able to fully express his genius:

 

[subshakerz]

It's true that he was pitiful without Warne but when Gillespie was also absent, Glenn, bereft of support, rose magnificently to the occasion and was finally able to fully express his genius:

View attachment 42789

I mean, around the late 90s he also had a Fleming and Reiffel who weren't far off.