Malcolm Marshal vs Glenn McGrathbbb

[kyear2]

Smith without WI averages 68.8 at his peak over 51 matches. I think Viv is very dependent on a single year and Smith just played and was tested more.

Tested more?

The first half of his peak was in the dead pirch era?

 

[kyear2]

Viv went missing for half of his prime. That pretty much decided it for me. And I don't decide to ignore WSC, I rate it as I would rate Gavaskar's 188 for MCC or any similar tour/domestic match against a strong opposition. But it's not Test.

What's makes tests better?

 

[kyear2]

No WSC Smith easily. WSC Smith just (I never ignored WSC totally really, just don't rate it exactly like Tests, since I personally think showmanship was the selling point there).

Is this because Sunny wasn't invited?

Serous question.

 

[kyear2]

WSC imo was not a serious competition but a spectacle, with show over substance.

Have you watched any of it? Like any at all?

It was serious cricket, where the ball had the advantage over the bat. Only 2 batsmen really batted well in Australia and 3 over all.

Why are we ignoring it?

Again, was what Sunny did in "tests" at the time worth more?

 

[h_hurricane]

Both of them were the primary reasons for their teams being the two best ever.

But McGrath definely had more help.

1983 - 1988
2002 - 2007

Just take a look at the squads over that period. Marshall definely put that team on his back more. 3 members of that squad walks into an AT XI.

Lol. Marshall had Roberts in the early part of his peak, and Garner, Holding and Walsh for most of his peak. Mcgrath on the other hand was the sole ATG pace bowler for his team. Even when Warne was neutralized at times, Mcgrath carried that bowling lineup and was the difference between winning or losing on several occasions.

Marshall had a more destructive peak though.

 

[Coronis]

Both of them were the primary reasons for their teams being the two best ever.

But McGrath definely had more help.

1983 - 1988
2002 - 2007

Just take a look at the squads over that period. Marshall definely put that team on his back more. 3 members of that squad walks into an AT XI.

I agree, Viv sucks.

 

[kyear2]

Look, I will again say, if the comparison was vs Lillee, I would give total weight to WSC runs Viv scored vs him. I just don't think they are literally equivalent to Tests. Many FC games also have Great attacks, we seldom dig up and rate every single one for each player. I don't think WSC is like an average FC game, but it's a FC game. It really irks me when people argues that (and I kid you not) WSC was superior to Tests.....

Superior to "the tests being played at the time"

And yes. Easily so.

 

[kyear2]

Lol. Marshall had Roberts in the early part of his peak, and Garner, Holding and Walsh for most of his peak. Mcgrath on the other hand was the sole ATG pace bowler for his team. Even when Warne was neutralized at times, Mcgrath carried that bowling lineup and was the difference between winning or losing on several occasions.

Marshall had a more destructive peak though.

Roberts retired in '83, Holding started having injury concerns from around '84, Walsh didn't become Walsh till the 90's.

Both Garner and Holding missed the odd series, including one when both were missing and Marshall won said man of the series.

After '84 Lloyd left and Greenidge started his decline, while Viv was past his peak. It was Marshall and Garner and there was never a question as to who was the no. 1.

McGrath had Warne who (incorrectly, but still) gets most of the credit for dominance, not to mention the greatest batting lineup ever.

As an overall team, yes McGrath had more support.

 

[kyear2]

In any event and Coronis's snide comments aside. For me easily the two greatest and best bowlers ever, with all of the intangibles to boot.

Marshall could just do things Pigeon couldn't. He had more tools while also being just if not more effective and having an even more well rounded record.

Respect to both.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Garner, Holding, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, Patterson > Warne, Gillespie, Lee, Macgill, Reiffel, Fleming, McDermott

 

[kyear2]

Garner, Holding, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, Patterson > Warne, Gillespie, Lee, Macgill, Reiffel, Fleming, McDermott

There are two sides to a team. The statement was than one was more responsible for making their team one of the two best.

Overall McGrath had more around him. In their absolute peak of greatness, Marshall basically put the team on his back. For all the surrounding talent. When Viv or Marshall missed a game, they lost.

But no disrespect to McGrath, he too was the biggest reason for Australia's dominance and ascendancy to immortality.

 

[subshakerz]

Both of them were the primary reasons for their teams being the two best ever.

But McGrath definely had more help.

1983 - 1988
2002 - 2007

Just take a look at the squads over that period. Marshall definely put that team on his back more. 3 members of that squad walks into an AT XI.

Huh? This is probably the worst argument.

Marshall had Holding, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose, and Bishop in his career. Even guys like Patterson were better than a lot of what McGrath had.

McGrath had Warne but the rest were a step below what Marshall had.

 

[subshakerz]

There are two sides to a team. The statement was than one was more responsible for making their team one of the two best.

Overall McGrath had more around him. In their absolute peak of greatness, Marshall basically put the team on his back. For all the surrounding talent. When Viv or Marshall missed a game, they lost.

But no disrespect to McGrath, he too was the biggest reason for Australia's dominance and ascendancy to immortality.

I'm sorry, but Australia became no.1 at precisely the time in 95 when McGrath became a worldclass pacer. That is no coincidence. The entire attack revolves around largely him. Look how Australia suffered in 98 in India and 2005 in the Ashes when he was injured.

Marshall came into a no.1.side. Most of his top series had other bowlers getting great hauls too. This is simply not an argument in his favor.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Think Marshall was better but how on earth is there any argument he has worse support than McGrath? Warne was great obviously and Gillespie , Reifell, Fleming, Kasper etc were very good but that is in no way comparable to the assembly line of pacers WI had. Australia looked a significantly worse team every time McGrath was out (will say they went on a brilliant run after he and Warne retired but it was short lived). Marshall had a tremendous pace battery around him for almost his whole career.

 

[subshakerz]

Think Marshall was better but how on earth is there any argument he has worse support than McGrath? Warne was great obviously and Gillespie , Reifell, Fleming, Kasper etc were very good but that is in no way comparable to the assembly line of pacers WI had. Australia looked a significantly worse team every time McGrath was out (will say they went on a brilliant run after he and Warne retired but it was short lived). Marshall had a tremendous pace battery around him for almost his whole career.

Kyear is saying Marshall was more responsible for making his team the best. He walked into a no.1 side and frankly by the end of his career the side had declined. Yes he led the attack but I would say WI were at the strongest in the early 80s before he came into the side.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Barnes
Akram
Hadlee
Marshall
Murali
Lillee
Steyn
Mcgrath

 

[Johan]

Lillee over McGrath is why serial killers exist

 

[kyear2]

Kyear is saying Marshall was more responsible for making his team the best. He walked into a no.1 side and frankly by the end of his career the side had declined. Yes he led the attack but I would say WI were at the strongest in the early 80s before he came into the side.

Yes, thank you for telling me when the WI team was at their strongest.

The teams we normally compare are the 1948 invincibles, the '02 Australian team, the 1984 West Indies team and then their '63 squad and the '08? SA unit.

It was in the late 70's when they beat Australia to be "world champs" , it wasn't till '83 that and the subsequent black washes that they began to be conversation of greatest team ever.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, thank you for telling me when the WI team was at their strongest.

The teams we normally compare are the 1948 invincibles, the '02 Australian team, the 1984 West Indies team and then their '63 squad and the '08? SA unit.

It was in the late 70's when they beat Australia to be "world champs" , it wasn't till '83 that and the subsequent black washes that they began to be conversation of greatest team ever.

WI had already beaten stronger sides than the ones they did under Marshall. Their side was stronger in the early 80s than when Marshall had his peak in the mid 80s.

Roberts/Croft/Garner/Holding was as formidable as Marshall/Walsh/Holding/Garner of the time.

Marshall himself didn't complete the side or change any formula.

Marshall is not nearly as great as you make him out to be. Just cool your jets.

 

[DrWolverine]

How many pace quartets were there?
Any other pace quartets in WI?
Croft, Holding, Roberts, Garner.
Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner.
Marshall, Patterson, Walsh, Ambrose.