Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

[Richard]

A question I've wondered a few times but never got around to posting a poll on. So vote away, CWers.

(If there's still no poll when you click on the thread then be bloody patient)

 

[Days of Grace]

I've got Marshall rated 5th on my alltime bowlers list.

Behind Murali, Hadlee, Barnes and McGrath.

 

[WhatisRight]

i havent watched marshall live but the videos i have seen of his just makes me wonder what it would have been like watching him live. I would definetly have him in the top 2 of my all-time fast bowlers list, which also includes Mcgrath.

 

[Athlai]

Barnes, Hadlee, Marshall

soz Malcolm.

 

[silentstriker]

McGrath uber alles. Well, not Barnes but I don't really consider him competition really.

 

[Anil]

in my opinion, he was the greatest fast bowler ever...as to the best bowler ever, well i would put him in a group of 5 that includes hadlee, lillee, murali and barnes....mcgrath just outside of the group...

 

[krkode]

I'm, unfortunately, not really well-versed in cricket players and how good they were pre-1996 (except Bradman, of course!). So I can't really say where he'd stand over all, but I do consider McGrath as best ever on my list of fast bowlers seen.

I think it's a little difficult to compare cricketers across eras, for obvious reasons. It seems safe to say, though, that both Marshall and Barnes were among the best, if not the best, during their respective careers.

Probably a consideration I would make in answering this question is: was Marshall as integral to WI dominance as McGrath was to Australia's? Certainly seems that way. It is also obvious that the Windies really crumbled following his retirement and many people would claim the same sort of "low" period is hitting/about to hit Aus in the near future even if it probably won't be as dramatic as the slump WI cricket has been experiencing lately.

 

[subshakerz]

Statistically or otherwise, Marshall was the most complete fast bowler ever. Don't know how to rate Barnes as he only played 27 tests. At least Bradman played over 50..

 

[Zinzan]

Marshall 1 & Hadlee 2 for mine, although could be a touch of kiwi bias coming into play

 

[subshakerz]

Probably a consideration I would make in answering this question is: was Marshall as integral to WI dominance as McGrath was to Australia's? Certainly seems that way. It is also obvious that the Windies really crumbled following his retirement and many people would claim the same sort of "low" period is hitting/about to hit Aus in the near future even if it probably won't be as dramatic as the slump WI cricket has been experiencing lately.

Marshall was a better bowler than McGrath but McGrath was more essential to Australia. At least Marshall had worldclass backup and supprting acts in Walsh, Ambrose, Patterson, Holding, etc. With McGrath, his pace backup was Brett Lee and Gillespie, fine bowlers but hardly matchwinners. Just check how the attack suffered overall when he was injured, such as the India tour of 97-98 and the Ashes 2005.

 

[Rant0r]

i've heard stories of marshall being near unplayable in the nets in his near 40's when he was coach and his team was struggling, he was unreal, what's even more unreal was how long he spent out of the team waiting for an opportunity.

could bat a bit too

 

[Uppercut]

Don't agree with comparing players across eras, so i'll only say this: Marshall was ****ing good.

 

[archie mac]

I thought Lillee better than MM, but not by much

 

[fredfertang]

History treats Barnes surprisingly kindly in my view. That he was a very good bowler can’t be doubted but he did get nearly half of his test wickets at less than 10 apiece (and had it not been for Herby Taylor that average would have been considerably less) against a South African side that great grandpa Dickinson would have treated with the same disdain as the current generation treats Bangladesh.

His wickets against Australia (and arguably he missed the series involving the strongest Australian sides of his era) and Yorkshire (who he only bowled against 4 times in championship cricket) cost about 22 and 26 each so rather different

As for Maco he was undoubtedly a great – a shorter man with a magnificent action, terrific pace and a lethal breakback – a latter day Harold Larwood – but not quite as good

 

[archie mac]

History treats Barnes surprisingly kindly in my view. That he was a very good bowler can’t be doubted but he did get nearly half of his test wickets at less than 10 apiece (and had it not been for Herby Taylor that average would have been considerably less) against a South African side that great grandpa Dickinson would have treated with the same disdain as the current generation treats Bangladesh.

His wickets against Australia (and arguably he missed the series involving the strongest Australian sides of his era) and Yorkshire (who he only bowled against 4 times in championship cricket) cost about 22 and 26 each so rather different

As for Maco he was undoubtedly a great – a shorter man with a magnificent action, terrific pace and a lethal breakback – a latter day Harold Larwood – but not quite as good

They were a little funny about picking SF, but all the Aust that faced him had no doubt he was the best. I am just not sure he was a pace bowler

 

[Ikki]

History treats Barnes surprisingly kindly in my view. That he was a very good bowler can’t be doubted but he did get nearly half of his test wickets at less than 10 apiece (and had it not been for Herby Taylor that average would have been considerably less) against a South African side that great grandpa Dickinson would have treated with the same disdain as the current generation treats Bangladesh.

His wickets against Australia (and arguably he missed the series involving the strongest Australian sides of his era) and Yorkshire (who he only bowled against 4 times in championship cricket) cost about 22 and 26 each so rather different

As for Maco he was undoubtedly a great – a shorter man with a magnificent action, terrific pace and a lethal breakback – a latter day Harold Larwood – but not quite as good

I think we had a big debate about this before and I was one of those asking these questions of his record, with respect to South Africa. But even when you try to normalise those stats, he is still well within the best bowlers of all time - in the class of McGrath, Hadlee, etc.

As for Marshall, I consider him one of the very best of all time and have a hard time people rating him outside the top 5 of all-time. Not the greatest bowler or fast bowler of all-time IMO, but certainly in that category and with more than enough accolades to BE the best of all time.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He comes in the top three fast bowlers with Lillee and Trueman. You need to have seen him side on from inside the ground to realise how frighteningly quick he was. He could also swing it both ways and had the best bouncer ever which almost lacked bounce but flew past the batsmans nose at high speed. Interestingly when he was selected for the 1979 West Indies World Cup Squad Fred Trueman was openly sceptical about his inclusion as he considered his action wasn't side on. Fred was always going on about cricket being a side on game and on one occasion someone wrote him a letter saying they'd tried wicketkeeping side on but had failed miserably. It was obviously a joke but didn't raise so much as a titter from Fred.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He comes in the top three fast bowlers with Lillee and Trueman. You need to have seen him side on from inside the ground to realise how frighteningly quick he was. He could also swing it both ways and had the best bouncer ever which almost lacked bounce but flew past the batsmans nose at high speed. Interestingly when he was selected for the 1979 West Indies World Cup Squad Fred Trueman was openly sceptical about his inclusion as he considered his action wasn't side on. Fred was always going on about cricket being a side on game and on one occasion someone wrote him a letter saying they'd tried wicketkeeping side on but had failed miserably. It was obviously a joke but didn't raise so much as a titter from Fred.

Am stealing that anecdote for use in a pub at a later date.

WRT Marshall, he was obviously an all-time great and an absolutely tragic loss at such an early age () but I personally rate Curtly slightly higher. I probably saw more of Ambrose at his peak so am possibly biased towards him because of that, but when in the zone he was an absolute machine. Metronomic, quick & not adverse to putting the fear of God into batsmen either.

 

[nightprowler10]

I do consider him the best of all time based solely on what I've read about him.

 

[Rant0r]

at one stage in the 90's i think ambrose was the bowler batsmen least wanted to face, mark taylor described him as putting more balls in the sport you didn't want to be playing them than any other.

he had hardly any mongrel in him, until dean jones asked him to take off his sweatbands, he didn't calm down for 6 months, during which time i seen some of the best fast bowling of that era.

wasim akram is probably also in that category of not wanting to face as well, but i still rate marshall about the same if not higher.