Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[Coronis]

Good run of form for a decade?

Not talking about any specific player in that post, just a general observation. If you’re fortunate enough to play a larger number of tests during your peak in a shorter career its more of an advantage than a longer career where tests are played less often.

 

[kyear2]

Not talking about any specific player in that post, just a general observation. If you’re fortunate enough to play a larger number of tests during your peak in a shorter career its more of an advantage than a longer career where tests are played less often.

That can be true, but after a couple years that no longers holds merit.

Also for a fast bowler it's possibly easier, but for a batsman, yeah the longer, more spaced out career makes it harder.

 

[Coronis]

That can be true, but after a couple years that no longers holds merit.

Also for a fast bowler it's possibly easier, but for a batsman, yeah the longer, more spaced out career makes it harder.

As I said, not talking about anyone specifically, just another factor to consider when you play more/less tests in a shorter period of time.

Hypothetically if someone played for Bangladesh and averaged 40/30 for 15-20 years but the same amount of tests as an Australian/English/Indian player who played for less than 10 averaging the same I’d think that would be pretty clear the Bangladeshi’s feat would be more impressive.

 

[subshakerz]

No one and I mean no one including myself thinks there is any gap between Malcolm and about a half dozen or so bowlers: McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Akram.

@kyear2 does

And what stat gap are you even talking about? Steyn, Waqar and Rabada have better sr. Hadlee, Steyn and Lillee have better wpm. Garner and Ambrose have better econs. Hell Bumrah and Alan Davidson have better averages. So what stat gap are you even talking about? Oh you mean being consistent home and away vs all comers, sub 23 vs all comers and sub 25 everywhere (not including 3 tests in NZ). That's not a stat gap, that's all round excellence something you value on the likes of Sachin but oddly seem to hold against sir Malcolm Marshall. Oh, "he only achieved that because he was part of a strong bowling attack." Wasim, McGrath, Donald, Imran etc didn't exactly play with poor bowling partners either.

Overall super impressive average and SR combo. And Marshalls was a historically awesome attack.

What made Marshall great isn't any stat gap. Even in my writeups and comments about him, it's the tool set that sets him apart, it's his consistency vs every opponent in all conditions. How he was equally good home and away, how he elevated a team in tradition to the greatest ever.

They skills lead to the "stat" gap, but it's those attributes that lead to his ratings.

Really! Don't pretend the stat gap doesn't influence your decision.

 

[subshakerz]

You chose who is the better batsman, period.
Tendulkar is just a bit better.

Because primarily out of longevity.

And each of those guys are still highly rated as hell, so I'm not sure what your point is.

They literally make up the top 5, with said Marshall and McGrath.

Because you separate them in these top positions based on their weaknesses. For example, Ive seen you use my point about Hadlee's concentration in Aus, NZ and Eng to justify him as spot or two less. Why not Marshall getting his average and SR inflated artificially?

 

[Sliferxxxx]

@kyear2 does


Overall super impressive average and SR combo. And Marshalls was a historically awesome attack.



Really! Don't pretend the stat gap doesn't influence your decision.

Kyear is one person. If you have issues with his take that's fine. But no need to make up stuff that doesn't exist. Most of us, don't think there's any gap between MM and the other top 6 or so (and especially Richard, Glenn and even Dale).

 

[subshakerz]

Kyear is one person. If you have issues with his take that's fine. But no need to make up stuff that doesn't exist. Most of us, don't think there's any gap between MM and the other top 6 or so (and especially Richard, Glenn and even Dale).

Not sure that is true but anyways we don't need to argue it.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Not sure that is true but anyways we don't need to argue it.

I've never seen any poster say Marshall is the undisputed best (maybe kyear excepted). If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears ...Even I've never said that and I'm as biased as they come.

 

[subshakerz]

I've never seen any poster say Marshall is the undisputed best (maybe kyear excepted). If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears ...Even I've never said that and I'm as biased as they come.

I used to say that lol.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I used to say that lol.

There you go...

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

From 83 he was the best bowler in the line up, with Holding increasingly injured and Garner definely being the clear no. 2.

He would have helped them more than anything else, considering his wpm, percentage of top end wickets, match winning performances and he was the spear head, the leader.

There's advantages for both sides, Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee.

It's give and take.

No, I corrected you about this here in a post which you admitted you didn't read properly so I'll summarise the findings:

Hadlee's WPM was better away than home: 5.35 vs. 4.67.

Hadlee's best years were his last seven, off the short run (252 wickets at 19.86). For these years:

His WPM was better away than home: 6.19 vs. 4.47.

His average was better away than home: 18.44 vs. 22.65.

He had six 10WM away, 0 at home.

He had six (of his eight) Player of the Series awards away, 0 at home.

The aggregate batting stats for NZ pitches during Hadlee's final seven years had a batting average of 32.65, more than one run higher than the global batting average of 31.49 during McGrath's batting era post-2000.

If Hadlee's home pitches had been tailor-made for him then Hadlee, being deadly on greentops, would probably have had better stats home than away as was the case at Notts:

home average: 12.96

away: 16.54 (still remarkable)

(thanks again to @Coronis for this home and away split!)

 

[kyear2]

No, I corrected you about this here in a post which you admitted you didn't read properly so I'll summarise the findings:

Hadlee's WPM was better away than home: 5.35 vs. 4.67.

Hadlee's best years were his last seven, off the short run (252 wickets at 19.86). For these years:

His WPM was better away than home: 6.19 vs. 4.47.

His average was better away than home: 18.44 vs. 22.65.

He had six 10WM away, 0 at home.

He had six (of his eight) Player of the Series awards away, 0 at home.

The aggregate batting stats for NZ pitches during Hadlee's final seven years had a batting average of 32.65, more than one run higher than the global batting average of 31.49 during McGrath's batting era post-2000.

If Hadlee's home pitches had been tailor-made for him then Hadlee, being deadly on greentops, would probably have had better stats home than away as was the case at Notts:

home average: 12.96

away: 16.54 (still remarkable)

(thanks again to @Coronis for this home and away split!)

Hadlee was a masterful bowler, one of the 3 best of all time.

But context is important. Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I. But those numbers in a few series would have greatly skewed his numbers.

Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either.

None of those factors reduces the fact that for the majority of his career, and the modern history of NZ cricket that the home pitches were helpful to seam.

Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well.

But again, does anyone doubt Hadlee's quality? The great ones does average well away from home as well and I rate the great man the same as most, in the top 3, in the top tier.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee was a masterful bowler, one of the 3 best of all time.

But context is important. Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I. But those numbers in a few series would have greatly skewed his numbers.

Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either.

None of those factors reduces the fact that for the majority of his career, and the modern history of NZ cricket that the home pitches were helpful to seam.

Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well.

But again, does anyone doubt Hadlee's quality? The great ones does average well away from home as well and I rate the great man the same as most, in the top 3, in the top tier.

Would you say this is a point for Marshall over Hadlee?

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Hadlee was a masterful bowler, one of the 3 best of all time.

But context is important. Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I. But those numbers in a few series would have greatly skewed his numbers.

Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either.

None of those factors reduces the fact that for the majority of his career, and the modern history of NZ cricket that the home pitches were helpful to seam.

Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well.

But again, does anyone doubt Hadlee's quality? The great ones does average well away from home as well and I rate the great man the same as most, in the top 3, in the top tier.

One thing I also never appreciated until this comparison above, is like Bumrah, Marshall played the majority of his tests on the road. So he played mostly outside his home conditions, didn't play any minnows and still ended up with top of the tree stats, and reputation: amazing !!

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee was a masterful bowler, one of the 3 best of all time.

But context is important. Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I. But those numbers in a few series would have greatly skewed his numbers.

Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either.

None of those factors reduces the fact that for the majority of his career, and the modern history of NZ cricket that the home pitches were helpful to seam.

Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well.

But again, does anyone doubt Hadlee's quality? The great ones does average well away from home as well and I rate the great man the same as most, in the top 3, in the top tier.

Again, as I’ve posted multiple times, New Zealand wasn’t that friendly in Hadlee’s career. He just made it look that way.

 

[kyear2]

Would you say this is a point for Marshall over Hadlee?

No.

 

[kyear2]

Again, as I’ve posted multiple times, New Zealand wasn’t that friendly in Hadlee’s career. He just made it look that way.

Again, that's not true.

And it's certainly not the narrative used when trying to paint Lillee as a flat track bully.

It tapered out at the end, that wasn't the case throughout his career, or in general really.

Again, not a major issue either way, but NZ was pretty pace friendly. Not SA, but where is.

 

[Coronis]

Again, that's not true.

And it's certainly not the narrative used when trying to paint Lillee as a flat track bully.

It tapered out at the end, that wasn't the case throughout his career, or in general really.

Again, not a major issue either way, but NZ was pretty pace friendly. Not SA, but where is.

Again, it is.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Especially considering they had the weakest batting behind Sri Lanka during this period. (basically identical to England and behind Sri Lanka at home)

I guess everywhere except India and Pakistan must have been pace friendly so it really doesn’t matter when talking about Hadlee vs Marshall at all?

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Hadlee was a masterful bowler, one of the 3 best of all time.

But context is important. Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I. But those numbers in a few series would have greatly skewed his numbers.

Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either.

None of those factors reduces the fact that for the majority of his career, and the modern history of NZ cricket that the home pitches were helpful to seam.

Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well.

But again, does anyone doubt Hadlee's quality? The great ones does average well away from home as well and I rate the great man the same as most, in the top 3, in the top tier.

"Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either."

True but let's examine this in a bit more detail. If you remove the SL data, this is what Hadlee's away record becomes for his last seven years:



So with SL, we have:

His WPM was better away than home: 6.19 vs. 4.47.

His average was better away than home: 18.44 vs. 22.65.

Without SL:

His WPM was better away than home: 6.09 vs. 4.47.

His average was better away than home: 19.62 vs. 22.65.

His WPM doesn't really move, his average DOES go up but still remains well below his home average (by 3.03 runs cf. 4.21 runs if SL data is included)

Now his 10 WM and POTS awards:

With SL:

10 WM away vs. home: 6 vs. 0
POTS awards away vs. home: 6 vs. 0

Without SL:

10 WM away vs. home: 5 vs. 0
POTS awards away vs. home: 5 vs. 0

So certainly no drastic change.

Hadlee's fantastic away record for his last seven years did not significantly depend on his outstanding bowling against SL for this time period.

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Hadlee was a masterful bowler, one of the 3 best of all time.

But context is important. Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I. But those numbers in a few series would have greatly skewed his numbers.

Similarly 27 wickets from 4 matches at 12 in SL wouldn't have hurt his away numbers either.

None of those factors reduces the fact that for the majority of his career, and the modern history of NZ cricket that the home pitches were helpful to seam.

Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well.

But again, does anyone doubt Hadlee's quality? The great ones does average well away from home as well and I rate the great man the same as most, in the top 3, in the top tier.

"Very late in the 80's the pitches started to flatten out, can't for the life of me figure out why they did that, but I assume you would have a better idea than I."

I don't really (sorry). The only truly lifeless pitches for an entire series I can remember were for the two tests against Pakistan in 1989. But Hadlee bowled on them and therefore that data should be included. My vague memories are that for most test series, the pitches were a mixture of lively and dead but certainly not just lively. There is no doubt that the NZ pitches were pace-friendly for the first 10 years of Hadlee's career:



That batting average confirms it. But Hadlee was not at his best then. For the first five years of those 10 years, Hadlee had not even yet joined Notts. And for the second five years, while he was unquestionably in his prime or near-prime years, he was still nearly always off the long run and not at his absolute best.

If Hadlee had retired just before his last seven years, he would have been remembered as an excellent fast bowler but certainly not as an undisputed (by anyone with a brain) ATG. It was his last seven years that established Hadlee as a truly great bowler. And that was mainly because of his amazing stats away, not his performances at home. He played 46 tests during this period, mostly away (27 tests vs. 19 so 59% away).

I repeat, the NZ pitches during Hadlee's last seven years were NOT always bowler-friendly. Obviously, there were exceptions but overall, they were not great for bowling on. The batting average figures back this up:



as does Hadlee's relatively high home average of 22.65. He would not have been averaging this in his pomp had he been bowling nearly exclusively on greentops!

"Nor to add, that when the wickets are more helpful to seam, the wpm does drop a tad, as all of the bowlers do chime in a bit more as it's easier for them as well."

I agree with this except not only would the WPM drop but the average would too and Hadlee's didn't (talking about his last seven years at home).