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

[kyear2]

Sobers beats Imran on primary
Draw on secodary

Marshall beats Tendulkar on Primary
Marshall beats Tendulkar on secondary

easy

Sobers beats everyone on 2nd secondary. Why is this ignored?

 

[kyear2]

a Batsmen vs an express fast bowler at longetivity is not fair, at all.

Plus, Marshall is the Greatest bowler to ever walk the Earth, Sachin is in a heated debate with 4 other dudes for that spot.

This for me.

 

[kyear2]

True. Even among great fast bowlers Maco had a relatively short career.

Among great post war batsmen, the only lme who had a 20+ year career apart from Sachin was Sobers.

You're basically finding different ways to say longevity.

 

[kyear2]

I give SRT the Longetivity point but think Marshall is simply the greatest bowler ever, I don't think SRT is the 2nd Greatest bat ever, and Marshall is a handy lower order bat too and that can play a role as we saw with Cummins in BGT. imo it's Marshall but SRT>Macko is fine I guess.

Longetivity just won't beat Marshall's quality imo

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.

 

[Johan]

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.

I just feel like the greatest bowler of all time should go over a guy who is in heated debates for second or third Greatest Batsmen of all time.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I just feel like the greatest bowler of all time should go over a guy who is in heated debates for second or third Greatest Batsmen of all time.

Tbf Marshall is in heated debate for the Greatest Bowlers title with McGrath and Hadlee (and arguably Barnes and Murali) as well.

 

[Johan]

Tbf Marshall is in heated debate for the Greatest Bowlers title with McGrath and Hadlee (and arguably Barnes and Murali) as well.

might as well say Warne and then Steyn at that point

 

[Johan]

Tbf Marshall is in heated debate for the Greatest Bowlers title with McGrath and Hadlee (and arguably Barnes and Murali) as well.

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.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

Can't see a case for Ambrose really (though Great in Australia), but McGrath and Hadlee are basically a toss up. I rate Marshall higher because of his 3 SC tours, but McGrath being so good in such a flat Era and Hadlee making NZ one of the 2nd best dogs of the 80s single-handedly (and being arguably as good during Marshall's whole prime career) are kinda hard to ignore. Especially since they both get a massive buff for having 15+ years careers as regulars, while Marshall's was under 10 (kind of a pretty big deal for me). I think at the end of the day, I will just go Marshall for the 3 tours and being more well rounded skill wise (aka faster). But honestly, I think these 3 are pretty inseparable and I fail to see any gaps.

 

[Johan]

Can't see a case for Ambrose really (though Great in Australia), but McGrath and Hadlee are basically a toss up. I rate Marshall higher because of his 3 SC tours, but McGrath being so good in such a flat Era and Hadlee making NZ one of the 2nd best dogs of the 80s single-handedly (and being arguably as good during Marshall's whole prime career) are kinda hard to ignore. Especially since they both get a massive buff for having 15+ years careers as regulars, while Marshall's was under 10 (kind of a pretty big deal for me). I think at the end of the day, I will just go Marshall for the 3 tours and being more well rounded skill wise (aka faster). But honestly, I think these 3 are pretty inseparable and I fail to see any gaps.

the difference to me is that Marshall was 10 mph quicker and thus just more threatening and penetrative on slow, dry wickets, combine Steyn and Hadlee and you basically got Marshall. Regardless, I'm fine with Sachin>Marshall, Murali>Marshall I don't see the case for though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

the difference to me is that Marshall was 10 mph quicker and thus just more threatening and penetrative on slow, dry wickets, combine Steyn and Hadlee and you basically got Marshall. Regardless, I'm fine with Sachin>Marshall, Murali>Marshall I don't see the case for though.

Murali just has such a huge number of wickets for a pretty weak team with a frankly ridiculous WPM. His main caveat for me is in India (would had preferred a proper Australia tour); but even then he has one good series here. Just on sheer volume with a boggers WPM alone he has a case personally. Also Murali's peak was longer and arguably better than Marshall's. Despite that, I rate Marshall clearly higher (again, not hugely). I don't think I do so for the first 2 I mentioned.
Again I agree. But the other 2 just had significantly longer careers. On a day Marshall was better than either mostly in most conditions bar Australia, but they just did so for much longer. 9 years is kind of meh for the GOAT. For me it's just not quality but also how beneficial you are to a team and no bowler exists who is beneficial without playing a game.

 

[Johan]

Murali just has such a huge number of wickets for a pretty weak team with a frankly ridiculous WPM. His main caveat for me is in India (would had preferred a proper Australia tour); but even then he has one good series here. Just on sheer volume with a boggers WPM alone he has a case personally.
Again I agree. But the other 2 just had significantly longer careers. On a day Marshall was better than either mostly in most conditions bar Australia, but they just did so for much longer. 9 years is kind of meh for the GOAT. For me it's just not quality but also how beneficial you are to a team and no bowler exists who is beneficial without playing a game.

Eh, I disagree. I rate Murali but his unplayability at home is a little exaggerated, we've seen an entire generation of Indian bowlers borderline do what Murali did at home from 2015-2019, what's special about him is his ability to handle workload in my opinion and that does deserve credit but I find it hard to take a case over McGrath or Marshall seriously when it's entirely dependent on volume instead of quality, and when I can see an Jadeja and Patel putting close enough numbers on those wickets with far less WPM. Great bowler, above Wasim for me, might move above Imran soon, hell I'll take him over Steyn too one day perhaps, but I don't see the case for him above the top 5 pacers at all.

like imagine a scenario, where you've this guy, playing 250 tests, making 18,000 runs, but averages 5 in Australia and 15 in India (batting equivalents for Murali's numbers there), also has batting paradises as home pitches, even in his prime isn't the best away bowler in the world etc, would he be rated as the Greatest batsmen of them all? No.

tbf, McGrath was really quality for 12 years, Hadlee for 12 as well, Marshall for 9 but the longetivity gap is reduced, the input gap in favour of Marshall imo makes up for that longevity gap, obviously they're very close to each other but just think you get more with Marshall.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Eh, I disagree. I rate Murali but his unplayability at home is a little exaggerated, we've seen an entire generation of Indian bowlers borderline do what Murali did at home from 2015-2019, what's special about him is his ability to handle workload in my opinion and that does deserve credit but I find it hard to take a case over McGrath or Marshall seriously when it's entirely dependent on volume instead of quality, and when I can see an Jadeja and Patel putting close enough numbers on those wickets with far less WPM. Great bowler, above Wasim for me, might move above Imran soon, hell I'll take him over Steyn too one day perhaps, but I don't see the case for him above the top 5 pacers at all.

tbf, McGrath was really quality for 12 years, Hadlee for 12 as well, Marshall for 9 but the longetivity gap is reduced, the input gap in favour of Marshall imo makes up for that longevity gap, obviously they're very close to each other but just think you get more with Marshall.

I don't think it's right to compare Jadeja and Axar at home with Murali. Ashwin probs, but not those 2. And Murali away, especially in England and SA was wild. But let's put Murali in the side for now, as his case is very much based on quantity, but not one with massive dip in quality.

You can say they were quality for 12 years, but I don't see any big quality gap as well. Marshall having his total bulk between the ages of 23-31 in the strongest attack ever assembled does works too ideally. Afterall McGrath and Hadlee were regulars for 14 and 15 years respectively. Even 13 is a noticeably upgrade on 9. I honestly don't find anything to separate them, after considering everything. At the end I go with them in the basis of their SC record, but that's close to a tier breaker. A big reason Hadlee always makes my ATG XI over McGrath, as even a 5 run leg up on batting would be enough of a tie breaker.

 

[Johan]

I don't think it's right to compare Jadeja and Axar at home with Murali. Ashwin probs, but not those 2. And Murali away, especially in England and SA was wild. But let's put Murali in the side for now, as his case is very much based on quantity, but not one with massive dip in quality.

You can say they were quality for 12 years, but I don't see any big quality gap as well. Marshall having his total bulk between the ages of 23-31 in the strongest attack ever assembled does works too ideally. Afterall McGrath and Hadlee were regulars for 14 and 15 years respectively. Even 13 is a noticeably upgrade on 9. I honestly don't find anything to separate them, after considering everything. At the end I go with them in the basis of their SC record, but that's close to a tier breaker. A big reason Hadlee always makes my ATG XI over McGrath, as even a 5 run leg up on batting would be enough of a tie breaker.

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.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

I think Hadlee and McGrath did pretty Great overall on dead pitches as well, but I agree that Marshall was better on them (aka my 3 SC series point). Still, I find it hard to separate them overall, given the other two played longer and had particular strengths (flatter and better batting era for McGrath, **** support for Hadlee). I think I have them like you have Tendulkar, Viv and Sobers; or might even be a bit closer; with Marshall ultimately edging it with that extra yard of pace.

 

[Johan]

I think Hadlee and McGrath did pretty Great overall on dead pitches as well, but I agree that Marshall was better on them (aka my 3 SC series point). Still, I find it hard to separate them overall, given the other two played longer and had particular strengths (flatter and better batting era for McGrath, **** support for Hadlee). I think I have them like you have Tendulkar, Viv and Sobers; or might even be a bit closer; with Marshall ultimately edging it with that extra yard of pace.

Yeah this sounds completely fair, I agree that they're all very close.

 

[subshakerz]

I just feel like the greatest bowler of all time should go over a guy who is in heated debates for second or third Greatest Batsmen of all time.

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.

 

[kyear2]

Tbf Marshall is in heated debate for the Greatest Bowlers title with McGrath and Hadlee (and arguably Barnes and Murali) as well.

Is he though?