Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[kyear2]

End of the day Waqar had a full length career, Bumrah does not even remotely at this point. Plus it's not like Waqar at his peak was that far from Bumrah.

Including spinners, I rate Bumrah 18th. So yeah, ahead of Walsh, Pollock, Waqar and Davidson.

 

[Coronis]

At which point is enough enough?

This is the same argument used by some to have Anderson as the GOAT.

18 years of the era, of any era is more than enough. Sobers played 20 years while blowing 40 overs a match.

Sachin's vanity years epitomized his career where it was about stats and numbers. Viv played for team and to dominate.

But apparently, minnows apart and not including WSC during Viv's peak years they are basically the same.

Said this a coupe days ago, at his peak I rate no one above Viv.

But as I said I have the 4 of them rated equally. I choose to rate them by the attacks they faced.

Everyone is free to see it differently.

Do you think a player’s longevity should stop counting for him as a positive after a certain amount of time, even if they are still putting in decent performances?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

He never said he is a tier above. You’re acting very childish right now. Finding an excuse to throw a tantrum.

In posts I have read by @capt_Luffy he basically says Hobbs and Sachin are marginally ahead of anyone else due to their longevity primarily. Not different tier but marginally separate themselves which I think is fair enough opinion. Especially considering both don’t have any flaws at all apart from maybe Sachin not absolutely dominating a series.

 

[kyear2]

Think I'd have Bumrah one step below guys like Michael Holding if he retired today. He's better than Waqar/Pollock/Walsh tier imo though I wouldn't disagree if he was ranked below on career issues. Think his peak quality has been more than good enough to override that personally.

Wow, same exact names I referenced.

So 15th as a pacer, 18th over all.

 

[kyear2]

Did he say he is a tier above?

Yup, @capt_Luffy has consistently said that he rates Hobbs and Sachin a tier over Sobers, Richards, Smith, Lara , Hutton etc.

Those two are the only ones in the best after Bradman category.

Again though, he also rates Sunny in the same tier as the others, so.....

 

[kyear2]

He never said he is a tier above. You’re acting very childish right now. Finding an excuse to throw a tantrum.

Who's throwing anything, I'm quite calm.

You seem a little hissy though.

 

[DrWolverine]

This motion that you've tried to create that Sachin and Hobbs are somehow above Viv, Sobers or even Smith is hilarious.

Sachin is ahead of Viv

 

[subshakerz]

Think I'd have Bumrah one step below guys like Michael Holding if he retired today. He's better than Waqar/Pollock/Walsh tier imo though I wouldn't disagree if he was ranked below on career issues. Think his peak quality has been more than good enough to override that personally.

If Bumrah retired today I think I would have a lot of questionmarks because it just seems a bit too easy for a modern bowler to race to the 200 landmark.

Also frankly the fact that he can't seem to sustain the physical load of a 5 test series (hopefully he can disprove this in England) is a bit of a downer for me. Even peak Waqar bowling rockets was able to do that.

 

[DrWolverine]

Again though, he also rates Sunny in the same tier as the others, so.....

I do not see why rating Sunny in same tier as Viv is wrong.

Both played roughly in the same era. Viv having a higher peak is an argument.

Sunny faced better bowlers, played in a weaker team, never had a downfall like Viv and ended up with more accomplishments. And he was an opener.

 

[kyear2]

Do you think a player’s longevity should stop counting for him as a positive after a certain amount of time, even if they are still putting in decent performances?

I think that quality trump's quantity.

I don't rate Anderson as an ATG, don't rate Walsh above Holding, it's about quality. Sachin was all about records, yes he maintained some level of decency, but was it like Punter where it was for the betterment of the team? Was about his numbers, so no longevity for the sake of it doesn't impress me.

So while he's a lock for my and most AT teams and all the like, so is Viv.

So yes, one had the longevity and consistency, one had an unparalleled peak and the ability to destroy an ATG attack and bowlers like no one before or since, well with the exception of possibly one other. There's nothing that one's done that usurps the other.

 

[kyear2]

Sachin is ahead of Viv

And that's your opinion. To which you're fully entitled.

 

[subshakerz]

At which point is enough enough?

This is the same argument used by some to have Anderson as the GOAT.

18 years of the era, of any era is more than enough. Sobers played 20 years while blowing 40 overs a match.

Sachin's vanity years epitomized his career where it was about stats and numbers. Viv played for team and to dominate.

But apparently, minnows apart and not including WSC during Viv's peak years they are basically the same.

Said this a coupe days ago, at his peak I rate no one above Viv.

But as I said I have the 4 of them rated equally. I choose to rate them by the attacks they faced.

Everyone is free to see it differently.

Tendulkar had a terrific peak from 96/97 to 2002.

After that he faced injuries 2003 to 2006 and there were even calls for him to retire.

But he had the wherewithal to reset himself and then delivered a second peak from 2007 to 2011 which ended with him as the no.1 batsman in the world, again, more than a decade later after doing it in the 90s. What an achievement.

I love Viv but his game was largely about his exceptional physical gifts and the moment those started waning his runs declined. I highly doubt he had the temperament, discipline and acumen that Tendulkar showed throughout his career to adapt and still be a run machine.

That's why I will always rate Sachin better despite Viv having IMO the best batting peak.

Little Master > Master Blaster

 

[kyear2]

If Bumrah retired today I think I would have a lot of questionmarks because it just seems a bit too easy for a modern bowler to race to the 200 landmark.

Also frankly the fact that he can't seem to sustain the physical load of a 5 test series (hopefully he can disprove this in England) is a bit of a downer for me. Even peak Waqar bowling rockets was able to do that.

Despite his numbers, there's a reason Davidson isn't as highly rated as even Lindwall.

Same with Holding over Garner.

But in any event, let his career finish out.

And hope he recovers fully and quickly.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

At which point is enough enough?

This is the same argument used by some to have Anderson as the GOAT.

18 years of the era, of any era is more than enough. Sobers played 20 years while blowing 40 overs a match.

Sachin's vanity years epitomized his career where it was about stats and numbers. Viv played for team and to dominate.

But apparently, minnows apart and not including WSC during Viv's peak years they are basically the same.

Said this a coupe days ago, at his peak I rate no one above Viv.

But as I said I have the 4 of them rated equally. I choose to rate them by the attacks they faced.

Everyone is free to see it differently.

The major difference between the longevity of Anderson with Hobbs/ Sachin were that those 2 were the best batsman in the world for a really long time. If Anderson was averaging 21 ish for his career length that would probably have been a better comparison with Hobbs/ Sachin.

 

[kyear2]

I do not see why rating Sunny in same tier as Viv is wrong.

Both played roughly in the same era. Viv having a higher peak is an argument.

Sunny faced better bowlers, played in a weaker team, never had a downfall like Viv and ended up with more accomplishments. And he was an opener.

In their own era there was never a question of the hierarchy. He was no where near.

Somehow Sunny manged to face the weakest attacks of his era and took full advantage.

Do you think there's an argument for Sunny to be in the argument as the best batsman after Bradman?

He never even came close to being the best bat of his era.

 

[subshakerz]

I do not see why rating Sunny in same tier as Viv is wrong.

Both played roughly in the same era. Viv having a higher peak is an argument.

Sunny faced better bowlers, played in a weaker team, never had a downfall like Viv and ended up with more accomplishments. And he was an opener.

Peer rating is one. Viv was seen as a tier above Sunny. I don't think guys like Holding and Lillee really rated Sunny that highly.

Also Viv has a more balanced and unblemished record.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Couldn't let that stand could you.

Viv played almost 20 years himself, how about we also take away his last 2 or 3 years as well.

That's not even bringing up the flatties of the 2000's either. And doesn't include Viv's WSC days during his peak.

This motion that you've tried to create that Sachin and Hobbs are somehow above Viv, Sobers or even Smith is hilarious.

Predictable, but hilarious.

Viv played for 17 years, Sachin almost 24...... I think that settles my point really.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Did he say he is a tier above?

Not necessarily, more like a sub tier, somewhat. The difference is simply that, I consider Sachin and Hobbs the competition for best after Bradman. Don't think they are necessarily much better than Sobers, Viv, Hutton, Smith, Lara (and yes, Gavaskar); just that their overall record and standings makes them the clear options for that position

 

[capt_Luffy]

Peer rating is one. Viv was seen as a tier above Sunny. I don't think guys like Holding and Lillee really rated Sunny that highly.

Also Viv has a more balanced and unblemished record.

Sobers and Hutton did ...... Peer rating is thrash largely and people use it here mostly for agenda (I do too, but only for Trumper).

 

[subshakerz]

Not necessarily, more like a sub tier, somewhat. The difference is simply that, I consider Sachin and Hobbs the competition for best after Bradman. Don't think they are necessarily much better than Sobers, Viv, Hutton, Smith, Lara (and yes, Gavaskar); just that their overall record and standings makes them the clear options for that position

Yeah I think Tendulkar, Hobbs, Sobers, Viv and even Smith perhaps all have competing claims to be best after Bradman but I rank them in that order based on the merit of those claims.