Did Marshall and McGrath have it easier?

[Migara]

And what's the origin or source of Murali's greatness. His greatest claim to be the greatest. 800 wickets.

Nah, he could still be a 22.5 averaging spinner without any support, the level of fitness, and the tactical geniusness where he could hold and attack at the same time are the reasons he is a legend. 800 comes somewhere down point 4 or 5. Shane FFS was only 92 short.

And no, don't think we can definitively say what his average would have been, but for sure we can say that the number would have been less.

We can say with a good probability it would. The number of wickets wouldn't have mattered much because SL only managed to take 60% of opposition wickets during Murali's time. In fact there was a study looking in to the issue and it showed Murali's stats improving significantly when the support cast improved.

And despite the negative of only having Vaas as great support, he did have better home conditions that probably anyone. He sure as hell had better home conditions than Marshall and McGrath.

Once again you have to decide between whether Murali had better conditions or Sanga had better conditions. Sri Lankan pitches become Schrodinger's cat when discussing Murali and Sangakkara. If pitches were dustbowls aiding Murali, then Sanga is easily a better batsman than Lara or Richards, because he played on worst home conditions for a batsman. So pick your side.

 

[kyear2]

Nah, he could still be a 22.5 averaging spinner without any support, the level of fitness, and the tactical geniusness where he could hold and attack at the same time are the reasons he is a legend. 800 comes somewhere down point 4 or 5. Shane FFS was only 92 short.

We can say with a good probability it would. The number of wickets wouldn't have mattered much because SL only managed to take 60% of opposition wickets during Murali's time. In fact there was a study looking in to the issue and it showed Murali's stats improving significantly when the support cast improved.

Once again you have to decide between whether Murali had better conditions or Sanga had better conditions. Sri Lankan pitches become Schrodinger's cat when discussing Murali and Sangakkara. If pitches were dustbowls aiding Murali, then Sanga is easily a better batsman than Lara or Richards, because he played on worst home conditions for a batsman. So pick your side.

Before I start with the highlighted point. With regards to better support, all I'm saying is that there's no guarantee either way. But he's sure as hell not hitting that wpm or overall today with high level support. He also was pretty decently aided by having more minnows than the average ATG. That didn't hurt.

With regards to this point that you keep throwing out. The pitches were spin friendly as hell, I don't think that you would dispute that. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
When touring teams showed up to SL, who besides Australia had a spinner even close to the class of Murali to explain such conditions? When you out pacers on those wickets, it is dead as hell. There's no support for them, and yes, for Sanga, the pitch wouldn't have offered up the demons that existed in SA for example, or the swing that existed in England etc etc.

This is not hard.

Murali had ideal home conditions, how much did that make up for lesser support, no one can ever know, but I'm sure it helped.

Again, it balances out.

 

[thierry henry]

The OP was asserting that teams like NZ have weaker batting units and therefore more regular pressure on bowlers like Hadlee compared with Marshall and McGrath who had the luxury of consistent high first innings totals giving them a cushion and scoreboard pressure.

Do you agree with that?

I have no idea. I was just saying using Hadlee's NZ as a sort of contrast to those other teams wasn't ideal because 80s NZ in particular were a decent team. However by the same token, Hadlee's vastly improved performance in a superior team (80s v 70s) could be seen as supporting your point.

 

[Starfighter]

My point is that Marshall and McGrath had the added advantage of more runs to play with and added pressure of massive totals.

And I'm saying none of the stats presented here prove that.

 

[Coronis]

Hmm lets see

So going by innings where their team batted first the bowlers would on average have this total to bowl at. (percentages are how often their team batted first in their matches)

McGrath - 400 (54.8%)
Steyn - 398 (47.3%)
Imran - 387 (52.3%)
Marshall - 329 (39.5%)
Ambrose - 305 (42.9%)
Hadlee - 305 (34.9%)

Just stats, draw your own conclusions.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Team batting in the 1970s:



As you can see, we're last by some margin.

Team bowling in the 1970s:



As you can see, we're again last by some margin.

Now, if we remove Hadlee's bowling stats from the 1970s:



then as @Coronis has calculated, the NZ bowling average would go up from 38.95 to 41.21 and we would still be last, by an even bigger margin than before.

Team batting in the 1980s:



You can see that we're fifth, clearly behind Australia and slightly above England.

Team bowling in the 1980s:



You can see that we're second, well behind the WI and a little ahead of Pakistan.

Now, if we remove Hadlee's bowling stats from the 1980s:



then as @Coronis has calculated, the NZ bowling average would go up from 30.38 to 36.33. This would drop us from second to fifth, slightly ahead of India (36.39).

The assumption which is being made here is that Hadlee's bowling and the other NZers' bowling are independent of each other. This is probably not the case. The presence of a very penetrative bowler like Hadlee would put more pressure on the batsmen and help the other bowlers to take wickets so without Hadlee, the NZ bowling average would probably go up beyond that calculated mathematically, i.e. it would probably now exceed 36.33 and in all likelihood, would now exceed India's of 36.39. Thus our bowling position might well drop to sixth place. Our bowling average may still remain better than SL's of 39.53. Of course, it would also depend on whom they replace Hadlee with but it is unlikely that it would be someone of Hadlee's calibre.

There is another effect of the removal of Hadlee's bowling: the other teams' batsmen would not have to face him and so the batting averages of the other teams would go up slightly. We're currently fifth at 27.82, just ahead of England at 27.71 but with Hadlee gone, England's average would go up a bit and might end up exceeding ours so we might drop to sixth place. Our batting average would probably still remain above SL's of 24.22 (or rather, above what SL's batting average would be elevated to).

The removal of Hadlee's batting would also have an effect but would be less impactful.

So conceivably, without Hadlee in the 1980s, then excluding SL (who did not exist in the 1970s), we might still end up last in both the batting and bowling averages albeit, not as badly as before.

 

[kyear2]

Hmm lets see

So going by innings where their team batted first the bowlers would on average have this total to bowl at. (percentages are how often their team batted first in their matches)

McGrath - 400 (54.8%)
Steyn - 398 (47.3%)
Imran - 387 (52.3%)
Marshall - 329 (39.5%)
Ambrose - 305 (42.9%)
Hadlee - 305 (34.9%)

Just stats, draw your own conclusions.

So basically Imran would have had greater "score board pressure" than the West Indies.

And by a larger margin than the WI had over Hadlee and NZ.

 

[subshakerz]

And I'm saying none of the stats presented here prove that.

Really you need stats to prove that Aus and WI had higher totals in general?

 

[subshakerz]

So basically Imran would have had greater "score board pressure" than the West Indies.

And by a larger margin than the WI had over Hadlee and NZ.

Probably because of pitches in Pakistan.

 

[Starfighter]

Really you need stats to prove that Aus and WI had higher totals in general?

No, you can't use the stats presented here to prove your premise (that McGrath and Marshall have better figure than they otherwise would have) without assuming it to be true in the first place.

 

[subshakerz]

No, you can't use the stats presented here to prove your premise (that McGrath and Marshall have better figure than they otherwise would have) without assuming it to be true in the first place.

I don't know if it's true it's an assumption. I was asking the question which was the point of this thread.

 

[Xix2565]

I don't know if it's true it's an assumption. I was asking the question which was the point of this thread.

I think it's a flawed assumption. I don't think the strength of their batting lineups matters as much to their records compared to the rest of the bowling attack alongside them and the general disparity in overall quality and depth between the overall WI/Aus attacks and everyone else.

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's a flawed assumption. I don't think the strength of their batting lineups matters as much to their records compared to the rest of the bowling attack alongside them and the general disparity in overall quality and depth between the overall WI/Aus attacks and everyone else.

Sure I agree I would rather have a better backup attack than an all star lineup if I had to choose as a lead bowler.

 

[Bolo.]

I think there should be a psychological advatage gained from having a stronger batting lineup. As to whether it is meaningfully large, I'm not sure, but likely not very.

Having a stronger batting lineup means you are more likely to bowl out the opposition twice. This is a higher WPM potential, and more opportunities to bowl at weaker bats- a bowler from a weak batting team will often not get two cracks at the tail. The latter point may be partially offset by the negative impact on bowling averages that come from bowling more overs.

 

[Xix2565]

Having a stronger batting lineup means you are more likely to bowl out the opposition twice.

Unless you mean bowling here, I really don't think this logic works at all. India's Fab4 side in the 00s shows what happens.

 

[subshakerz]

Unless you mean bowling here, I really don't think this logic works at all. India's Fab4 side in the 00s shows what happens.

Actually you might be wrong. India were one of those rare teams that rose to no.1 from 2007 to 2011 without a great bowling attack but with a near ATG batting lineup.

 

[Bolo.]

Unless you mean bowling here, I really don't think this logic works at all. India's Fab4 side in the 00s shows what happens.

You obviously need bowlers to bowl out the opposition.

If your bats aren't setting decent targets you are losing to declarations or having targets chased down for X wickets lost.

It's two parts of the same equation. I'm just addressing the one that is the thread topic.

 

[Xix2565]

Actually you might be wrong. India were one of those rare teams that rose to no.1 from 2007 to 2011 without a great bowling attack but with a near ATG batting lineup.

They didn't rise up by themselves though, and even then I don't think you'd say they were superior to SA.

You obviously need bowlers to bowl out the opposition.

If your bats aren't setting decent targets you are losing to declarations or having targets chased down for X wickets lost.

It's two parts of the same equation. I'm just addressing the one that is the thread topic.

Your bats can only make runs based on what the opposition bowlers offer them. If they have to face a good bowling attack they're not going to give 'decent' targets consistently. This is the less impactful part of the equation compared to having good bowlers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

They didn't rise up by themselves though, and even then I don't think you'd say they were superior to SA.

They matched SA pretty evenly in that 2007-2011 period imo. SA were a better team overall because they had a core that sustained it's excellence for longer, while India's core of players declined heavily post 2011.

 

[subshakerz]

They matched SA pretty evenly in that 2007-2011 period imo. SA were a better team overall because they had a core that sustained it's excellence for longer, while India's core of players declined heavily post 2011.

If SA were better at home they would have overtaken India. They drew to Eng, Ind and Aus at home in series they should have won (2011 vs India is debatable but SA didn't even try to push for victory in the last day).