Better combo round II. Sobers & Marshall vs Sachin and Imran

[kyear2]

Anyways, interested in Smali's and PEWS arguments for their choices.

 

[kyear2]

Alright, let's take Rangana Herath as an equivalent to say people like Lyon or Kumble, he is seen on that level, as very good bowlers but not really stunning bowlers, on the same Lankan pitches, once his career properly started, Herath averaged insane numbers, destroying everyone bar India. and Yeah, Murali was amazing in England, I won't say he was insane in South Africa but had a great test and very good outside it, but regardless, I don't think even at his very peak he was quite on the level of an ATG pacer away from home. all said and done, I don't find the case for Murali in the top 5 convincing, and I'm pretty certain you also have the three pacers and Barnes above so I'm willing to drop the topic.

Yeah that's a tie breaker point mainly, they are all sensational bowlers but Marshall had the pace to make something of dry and dead wickets like in India in 82 I think? that's a supremely valuable skill for a fast bowler and that's what makes me rate Marshall above the other two, McGrath beats Hadlee on the basis of a large portion of his career taking place in a flat era and his home pitches being literal roads as I showed you, and then Hadlee.

as a Cricketer, I think Hadlee is the best, people underestimate the value of a good lower order batter, Australia might not have won the recent BGT had Pat Cummins not had the right tools at the right moment to support Labuschagne for example, Hadlee and Marshall are relatively close to me with Hadlee being a better bat comfortably and Marshall a better bowler with Hadlee edging it overall, McGrath respectfully behind the two as a Cricketer, proper #11.

Not on this forum, it's been elevated to the point where it's now overrated tbh.

No one doubts the value, but here it's pushed to the point where it's the holy grail.

It's no more critical than Travis Head breaking partnerships, or just having a reliable 5th bowling option.

Or than secure catching in the cordon. You mention Cummins (not as good a batsman as Marshall btw), but that series was severely influenced by Australia's catching as well.

Khawaja's drop literally cost Australia that first test. Smith's drop in the 3rd cost them to opportunity to push for the win. When his cat Jing picked up in the last two, Australia won those two, clinching the series. If memory serves correct Smith pulled off two blinders in that final test (including moving himself to first to snare a grab Khawaja wouldn't have).

Not to add his catching in that last SL test.

So yeah, all three are vital, only one is extolled to the rooftops here though.

So no, not underestimated, not here.

 

[DrWolverine]

though I'm just giving my personal view, I think I can confidently say Marshall is #1 for me, if people have McGrath, Hadlee or even Ambrose higher, cool.

Malcolm Marshall is number one for me but for me Richard Hadlee is just as good.

No because a) there isn't a Bradman outlier for bowlers and b) far more competition for top places in bats. A bat getting in the top three is equivalent to a top bowler position.

Sachin is the best batsman after the Don.

Viv Richards & Gary Sobers are behind him.

Hobbs? I do not know even how to rate him.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Sobers and Marshall, this is easy.

 

[subshakerz]

I've never read an article, an interview, an anecdotal comment calling Hadlee the GOAT, I suspect neither have you.

I don't know why, but he has never been seen that way.

Did you see the overwhelming consensus of 90s and 2000s gen for McGrath tho in my recent thread? He can easily eclipse Marshall in a decade.

 

[subshakerz]

Malcolm Marshall is number one for me but for me Richard Hadlee is just as good.






Sachin is the best batsman after the Don.

Viv Richards & Gary Sobers are behind him.

Hobbs? I do not know even how to rate him.

I think Sobers, Tendulkar, Hobbs and Viv are comparable Marshall and McGrath in terms of specialist skill.

 

[DrWolverine]

Tier 1 : Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath
Tier 1 : Sachin, Sobers, Viv, ?Hobbs, ?Hutton

All legends. Very little to separate them.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Tier 1 : Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath
Tier 1 : Sachin, Sobers, Viv, ?Hobbs, ?Hutton

All legends. Very little to separate them.

I assume you mean on primary skill. Because Sobers is very clearly a better cricketer than the other 7.

 

[subshakerz]

I assume you mean on primary skill. Because Sobers is very clearly a better cricketer than the other 7.

Duh.

 

[akilana]

Marshall definitely had more concentrated greatness in returns.

But Marshall had a shorter peak and career even compared to other ATGs.

He also faced IMO slightly worse opposition overall and had tremendous support which gave a slight boost to his stats.

For Tendulkar over 20 years to average 40 plus in and against a wider variety of teams IMO is more impressive.

if he would have won more test matches for india, it would have been more impressive. dravid and laxman featured more in most famouse indian wins than sachin tells you all you need to know. he was a great accumulator of runs when it's easy to do so but when the going gets tough, he's in pavilion watching.

 

[subshakerz]

if he would have won more test matches for india, it would have been more impressive. dravid and laxman featured more in most famouse indian wins than sachin tells you all you need to know. he was a great accumulator of runs when it's easy to do so but when the going gets tough, he's in pavilion watching.

Tendulkar has plenty of runs when the going is tough.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Tendulkar has plenty of runs when the going is tough.

Lol. You are arguing with him......

 

[Johan]

just a fact....Hutton is the GOAT batter when the going gets tough, my que to leave.

 

[h_hurricane]

I give Sachin longevity, but also believe that it's got to the point where it's seriously being overvalued. Marshall has almost 400 wickets, once you pass 300 you're golden as far as I'm concerned.

Does Bumrah even have half the wickets that Anderson has?

Don't think Sachin, or anyone not named Bradman beats Marshall on quality (re primary of course), he literally has the skill set, the rounded record, the adaptability.

Where I go next, and where I differ from everyone else here, and possibly because football is my other team sport (and honestly the one I follow closest), is impact and winning. Marshall and McGrath are just unchallenged here as the primary players responsible for the sustained excellence of two dynasties.

Most will not agree, and that's fine.

Again, most value longevity, I value quality and impact.

9 year peak of Sachin between 1993-2002 is basically equivalent to 6 year peak of Marshall between 1983-89. Marshall has way more match winning performances (undoubtedly helped by his team mates Roberts, Garner, Holding, Walsh etc.) though he was certainly the top dog. However, he did not stand out among his peers (Hadlee and Imran who did not even have the type of support that he had) like the way you project. Sachin had to face an avalanche of ATG bowlers during his peak (so did Waugh and Lara btw).

Sachin has more going outside this peak than Marshall outside his. It is definitely close between these two no matter whom you pick.

Marshall's destructiveness is a good point in his favor but his quality in his peak is in the same ballpark as Sachin, Smith, Viv, Hadlee, Imran etc.

Among the ATG players who are rated just below Bradman, Marshall had the least longevity. The end career Marshall that I saw in 1991-92 was down on pace and was a pale shadow of his former self. He took 2 wickets in 92 WC iirc. Early retirement protected his average.

 

[DrWolverine]

Maco is my pick for best pacer but he did not stand out among his peers between 1983-1991 whereas Sachin was the undisputed best between 1993-2002.

 

[Johan]

well I guess y'all have Viv>Marshall

 

[capt_Luffy]

well I guess y'all have Viv>Marshall

If only Viv's peak was of similar length and had a 2nd peak, then sure.

 

[Johan]

If only Viv's peak was of similar length and had a 2nd peak, then sure.

His peak was arguably higher than any bowler peak other than Imran (bottlecap amplified) and he had a 17 year career as a regular rather than Marshall's 9.

 

[capt_Luffy]

His peak was arguably higher than any bowler peak other than Imran (bottlecap amplified) and he had a 17 year career as a regular rather than Marshall's 9.

Viv's peak was 5 years, even less than Marshall. And even then he only had proper output in Tests in 3 years, heavily leaning towards a particular one and had a genuinely mid year. To have really have comparable peak with a pacer, Viv needed to do so for longer. Viv (and Smith) has the better 5 years peak, but SRT and Sobers have the 10 years ones.

 

[Johan]

Viv's peak was 5 years, even less than Marshall. And even then he only had proper output in Tests in 3 years, heavily leaning towards a particular one and had a genuinely mid year. To have really have comparable peak with a pacer, Viv needed to do so for longer. Viv (and Smith) has the better 5 years peak, but SRT and Sobers have the 10 years ones.

I include WSC when I make comments about Viv's peak, regardless Viv has a 5 year peak when he was averaging 10 points over genuine great ATG bats like Chappel and Gavaskar, immensely higher strike rate, Javed is a little padded due to not outs but regardless, with WSC Viv would've 4781 @ 65

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

stats.espncricinfo.com

Marshall comparatively had a 8 year peak, if you think Marshall being elite for 3 more years outweighs Viv's far greater longevity, greater peak and his 84-88 run, be my guest.