• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

Bumrah vs Marshall at their peak

  • Bumrah

    Votes: 9 20.5%
  • Marshall

    Votes: 35 79.5%

  • Total voters
    44

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
This

Akram has more peer acclaim than McGrath & Ambrose as well
Nah it's simplistic to just reduce it to box office.

Lillee definitely had showmanship on his side but the fact is he debuted and cemented his reputation as the best fast bowler in the world more than five years before the other bowlers who were all inspired by him. If they were direct contemporaries, there would be less consensus for Lillee.

Viv had an actual fear factor that numerous bowlers have given testimonial towards which is why they rated him so high. Imran said he was scared bowling to Viv. It's not just about being entertaining.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Nah it's simplistic to just reduce it to box office.

Lillee definitely had showmanship on his side but the fact is he debuted and cemented his reputation as the best fast bowler in the world more than five years before the other bowlers who were all inspired by him. If they were direct contemporaries, there would be less consensus for Lillee.

Viv had an actual fear factor that numerous bowlers have given testimonial towards which is why they rated him so high. Imran said he was scared bowling to Viv. It's not just about being entertaining.
Showmanship is not the end all be all, but it is a big factor anyways you put it really.
 

DrWolverine

International 12th Man
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.
Sachin’s ability to reinvent and comeback after the injury/decline to become the best batsman on the planet 2 decades after his debut is just amazing.

I love Viv but his game was largely about his exceptional physical gifts and the moment those started waning his runs declined.
Viv was blessed was exceptional talent and an unparalleled hand-eye coordination. Once that decreased due to age(or any other reason),he should have
 

Bolo.

International Captain
Yes upon recollection Steyn in his new ball spells was consistently in the 135 Goldilock zone.

Him cranking it to 140s was very situation specific. Normally when the pitch was flat and later in the day.

This is an example of one of his faster spells in his peak and it has everything to do with the pitch having flattened at that point.

I don't think 135 was a Goldilocks zone for anything but his body long term, and neither did he. It didn't hurt his average, and he stopped getting occasionally smacked around because of the extra control, but I preferred the pure destruction from early career.
 

DrWolverine

International 12th Man
Viv had an actual fear factor that numerous bowlers have given testimonial towards which is why they rated him so high. Imran said he was scared bowling to Viv. It's not just about being entertaining.
That is largely due to his destructive batting.

I have never seen anyone use the words for Sachin or Smith even though they are just as good if not better.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Sure but if you are telling me that if Lillee and Marshall both debuted in 1970 and by the end of the decade there would be clear consensus for Lillee, I would disagree.
I would agree to that, but as I said, the consensus is largely due to their playing styles. Roberts was rated by many over Marshall, as was Holding and Garner by quite a few, especially before the 90s.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
I would agree to that, but as I said, the consensus is largely due to their playing styles. Roberts was rated by many over Marshall, as was Holding and Garner by quite a few, especially before the 90s.
Yeah I was going to bring up Roberts. Both Lillee and Gavaskar rated him the best fast bowler of the era and let's be honest he was the sort of godfather figure to the rest of the WI pacers. So timing matters in these things.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
For the 2000's where Sachin was the best batsman in the world.
No? Tendulkar was the best in the world in the late 90s/ early 2000s before the flat track era and then again from 2008-2011 or so. His worst slump actually came right in the very middle of the road era in 03-06.
When people talk about Tendulkar as the best no one is thinking of the 2000s road era version.
 

DrWolverine

International 12th Man
I would agree to that, but as I said, the consensus is largely due to their playing styles. Roberts was rated by many over Marshall, as was Holding and Garner by quite a few, especially before the 90s.
Gavaskar : In terms of the ability to get your out any time, it was Andy Roberts, with Malcolm Marshall, Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan just a bit below. But Andy had the great ability to get you out even if you’re past a 100 and he was the bowler you had to be most watchful against
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
No? Tendulkar was the best in the world in the late 90s/ early 2000s before the flat track era and then again from 2008-2011 or so. His worst slump actually came right in the very middle of the road era in 03-06.
When people talk about Tendulkar as the best no one is thinking of the 2000s road era version.
The fact that Tendulkar could still average 44 in his slump is something I give him credit for too.
 

kyear2

International Coach
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
And hence what I was saying.
And there's nothing that separates those two from the other 2 / 3.

Sobers played 20 years as well, what's the excuse there.

And definely no way Sunny is in that group.of players than dominated their eras.

Again, when they played it wasn't remotely close.

But apparently you only have one criteria.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Sobers and Hutton did ...... Peer rating is thrash largely and people use it here mostly for agenda (I do too, but only for Trumper).
Peer ratings from contemporaries is only trash because it goes against everyone you try to promote.

It was also very much split when Lara and Sachin played.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Good to know that's all it comes down to.

God no. 17 years is more than enough for a career not to have longevity concerns for a batsman.
Twist my words all you want, but one began as a 16 year old while the other at 22. That's the difference here (alongside One scoring almost double the runs and more than double the centuries of the other).
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
And hence what I was saying.
And there's nothing that separates those two from the other 2 / 3.

Sobers played 20 years as well, what's the excuse there.

And definely no way Sunny is in that group.of players than dominated their eras.

Again, when they played it wasn't remotely close.

But apparently you only have one criteria.
Not getting into Sunny debate rn, that's a piece of work, but for Sobers it's him batting down the order largely for me.
Peer ratings from contemporaries is only trash because it goes against everyone you try to promote.

It was also very much split when Lara and Sachin played.
Like Lillee>Marshall?? Never replied on that really.
 

Top