Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[smash84]

*RARE* SACHIN TENDULKAR vs MALCOLM MARSHALL - YouTube

17-18 year old kid facing veteran marshall on a good bowling pitch?

rob wag

Oh God. Some of those Tendy shots are awesome.

This video is the stuff of wet dream. Orgasmic stuff

Rob

 

[asty80]

......dude when did you start watching cricket? 2009? Helmets have been around since WSC in the 70s. They were available all throughout the 80s.

Ya man..started a bit late..unlike you - when did you start? 1890?

 

[smash84]

Ya man..started a bit late..unlike you - when did you start? 1890?

haha....not that early but 1980s is the time when i started watching cricket

 

[ankitj]

*RARE* SACHIN TENDULKAR vs MALCOLM MARSHALL - YouTube

17-18 year old kid facing veteran marshall on a good bowling pitch?

rob wag

Oh wow. Never knew Tendulkar faced Marshall in internationals. Pretty decent showing in 4 ODIs against Marshall. I would always like Tendulkar of old more. WAG.

 

[centurymaker]

Oh wow. Never knew Tendulkar faced Marshall in an internationals. Pretty decent showing in 4 ODIs against Marshall. I would always like Tendulkar of old more. WAG.

old tendulkar was gold (when he was in his 20's). the backlift, the stroke making, the style, run-making, the ability to destroy a bowler, everything about him was gun.
(now he's 80% max of what he was back then)

well you can't really ask for more from a player who's more like a 40-41 years old now given how much and how long he's played the game.

hoping that dravid, tendulkar & laxman finish with a series win in aus. (somehow)

 

[bagapath]

old tendulkar was gold (when he was in his 20's). the backlift, the stroke making, the style, run-making, the ability to destroy a bowler, everything about him was gun.
(now he's 80% max of what he was back then)

for the record, tendy was not yet out of his teens when he played marshall.

this thread topic is a tough one for me. stylistically i would choose marshall without a doubt. he also had a better all-round bowling record than glen. he cant really be said to have failed against any opponent anywhere.

but mcgrath played in more tests, against more diverse opponents in a tougher era for bowlers.

tough call.

 

[centurymaker]

for the record, tendy was not yet out of his teens when he played marshall.

.

yea i know. at that time he was a just a decent promising batsman with tons of potential

 

[G.I.Joe]

yea i know. at that time he was a just a decent promising batsman with tons of potential

Pun intended?

 

[Slifer]

Interesting discussion u fellas have going here. Voted for sir malcolm ever

so slightly over mr mcgrath. An even more interesting comparison would be

between mcgrath and lillee (imo). I have had the chance to read thru most of

these posts and i find it interesting this concept of adjusting for era.

Interesting point u bring up, cause if a certain u know who is going to be consistent, then we also have to adjust Lillees stats in the negative, which should place him firmly behind many recent fast bowlers (at least statistically).

 

[Ikki]

You would have to do it for everybody bar the bowlers in this period, so yes, you would. But if you think that undoes my admiration of Lillee then you haven't paid attention as to why I rate him so high. It just shows that you're more concerned about point-scoring for Marshall. It wouldn't place him firmly behind anyone; some bowlers maybe but then again all bowlers have certain caveats to their bowling records - take Hadlee and his wickets against SL for example (puts him in the same bracket as Lillee) and you would have to adjust his average too, huh? But of course...you probably don't have an issue with Hadlee.

Anyway, my point was not about being petty over 1-2 average or SR points. If you've ever listened to my opinion on great players once they're in a certain range for me they're more or less the same. What I was bringing up is that with the higher quality line-ups (some much higher) and more depth in the opposition I doubt Marshall would have such a pristine record as he currently does. It would bring him back to the pack somewhat as this is the reason a lot of people separate him from the other greats.

 

[centurymaker]

for the record, tendy was not yet out of his teens when he played marshall.

this thread topic is a tough one for me. stylistically i would choose marshall without a doubt. he also had a better all-round bowling record than glen. he cant really be said to have failed against any opponent anywhere.

but mcgrath played in more tests, against more diverse opponents in a tougher era for bowlers.

tough call.

mcgrath was maybe slightly more effective than marshall, but 95% of the cricket fans/ former players will still pick Marshall over Mcgrath.

 

[kyear2]

You would have to do it for everybody bar the bowlers in this period, so yes, you would. But if you think that undoes my admiration of Lillee then you haven't paid attention as to why I rate him so high. It just shows that you're more concerned about point-scoring for Marshall. It wouldn't place him firmly behind anyone; some bowlers maybe but then again all bowlers have certain caveats to their bowling records - take Hadlee and his wickets against SL for example (puts him in the same bracket as Lillee) and you would have to adjust his average too, huh? But of course...you probably don't have an issue with Hadlee.

Anyway, my point was not about being petty over 1-2 average or SR points. If you've ever listened to my opinion on great players once they're in a certain range for me they're more or less the same. What I was bringing up is that with the higher quality line-ups (some much higher) and more depth in the opposition I doubt Marshall would have such a pristine record as he currently does. It would bring him back to the pack somewhat as this is the reason a lot of people separate him from the other greats.

To be honest, watching Marshall bowl sepatares him from everyone else. His speed, swing, the fear he instilled in most who faced him. The stats only backs him up, and the fact that he was statistically better than everyone else (Lillee, Hadlee, Imran ect) in his era, including his team mates should add to his legacy, not be a detraction.
It is consistently mentioned the GREAT lineups Mcgrath faced, but name the truly great batsmen he faced, Kallis, Tendulkar and Dravid, maybe Sangakkara, using your own arguments, the others were good, not great. Batting averages bloated by terrible bowling attacks of the mid to late 00's.

But I digress, could you kindly restate why you do rate Lillee so higly, having difficulty located the exact post. It will not be used for ridicule, just want to know why you do rate Lillee as the best ever.

 

[Slifer]

You would have to do it for everybody bar the bowlers in this period, so yes, you would. But if you think that undoes my admiration of Lillee then you haven't paid attention as to why I rate him so high. It just shows that you're more concerned about point-scoring for Marshall. It wouldn't place him firmly behind anyone; some bowlers maybe but then again all bowlers have certain caveats to their bowling records - take Hadlee and his wickets against SL for example (puts him in the same bracket as Lillee) and you would have to adjust his average too, huh? But of course...you probably don't have an issue with Hadlee.

Anyway, my point was not about being petty over 1-2 average or SR points. If you've ever listened to my opinion on great players once they're in a certain range for me they're more or less the same. What I was bringing up is that with the higher quality line-ups (some much higher) and more depth in the opposition I doubt Marshall would have such a pristine record as he currently does. It would bring him back to the pack somewhat as this is the reason a lot of people separate him from the other greats.

Still disagree that MM would be brought back to the pack but the embolded does show me that u can atleast be a bit reasonable and acept that, even though u think Mcgrath is the better bowler, thinkin MM is better is not that far fetched.

 

[robelinda]

Pretty sure if I was a test batsman and McGrath was bowling at one end and Marshall the other, I would not expect a single run to be had, and a very short swift examination of my batting to occur. I guess thats what the 80's was like facing WI......metronome of Ambrose and the guile of Marshall.....

 

[Sanz]

mcgrath was maybe slightly more effective than marshall,

Is that an opinion ?

 

[Sanz]

Amarnath played 32 tests at home and 37 away...are you serious man? Come on, better than Sehwag now? Maybe my arguing it is giving the impression this is very debatable. It really isnt; the India team of the 90s and 00s is much better than the 80s. The batting line-up, especially, was awesome.

While you have the right to have your opinion, but please do not be so condescending to other members' opinion when your own opinion is based mostly, if not solely, on stats.

Having watched both, I will easily take Amarnath over Sehwag against bowlers like Marshall/Mcgrath and I am sure many, who had the benefit of watching both the players will do the same.

 

[Burgey]

While you have the right to have your opinion, but please do not be so condescending to other members' opinion when your own opinion is based mostly, if not solely, on stats.

Having watched both, I will easily take Amarnath over Sehwag against bowlers like Marshall/Mcgrath and I am sure many, who had the benefit of watching both the players will do the same.

This.

On SL, won't a team like them have improved over 20 years at least in part because of consistent exposure to top class cricket?

 

[smash84]

You would have to do it for everybody bar the bowlers in this period, so yes, you would. But if you think that undoes my admiration of Lillee then you haven't paid attention as to why I rate him so high. It just shows that you're more concerned about point-scoring for Marshall. It wouldn't place him firmly behind anyone; some bowlers maybe but then again all bowlers have certain caveats to their bowling records - take Hadlee and his wickets against SL for example (puts him in the same bracket as Lillee) and you would have to adjust his average too, huh? But of course...you probably don't have an issue with Hadlee.

Anyway, my point was not about being petty over 1-2 average or SR points. If you've ever listened to my opinion on great players once they're in a certain range for me they're more or less the same. What I was bringing up is that with the higher quality line-ups (some much higher) and more depth in the opposition I doubt Marshall would have such a pristine record as he currently does. It would bring him back to the pack somewhat as this is the reason a lot of people separate him from the other greats.

Tbf almost all these arguments i.e. facing less opponents, playing on few grounds, playing very few great bowlers etc etc can be used for Bradman too.

Pretty sure if I was a test batsman and McGrath was bowling at one end and Marshall the other, I would not expect a single run to be had, and a very short swift examination of my batting to occur. I guess thats what the 80's was like facing WI......metronome of Ambrose and the guile of Marshall.....

This

 

[Ikki]

To be honest, watching Marshall bowl sepatares him from everyone else. His speed, swing, the fear he instilled in most who faced him. The stats only backs him up, and the fact that he was statistically better than everyone else (Lillee, Hadlee, Imran ect) in his era, including his team mates should add to his legacy, not be a detraction.
It is consistently mentioned the GREAT lineups Mcgrath faced, but name the truly great batsmen he faced, Kallis, Tendulkar and Dravid, maybe Sangakkara, using your own arguments, the others were good, not great. Batting averages bloated by terrible bowling attacks of the mid to late 00's.

But I digress, could you kindly restate why you do rate Lillee so higly, having difficulty located the exact post. It will not be used for ridicule, just want to know why you do rate Lillee as the best ever.

When I think of Lillee I consider his WSC stats and his bowling against the World XI. Statistically, he is up there with the best. But more than that I think it was his capability to influence a match like few, if any, other pacemen. He could pretty much bowl anything and was a model for guys like Hadlee and even Marshall. He was pretty much idolised by the former. He not only had a period as a tearaway, but also one who was forced to be methodical due to his injuries - injuries that at the time no one thought possible of returning from. And that is Lillee in a nutshell - a fiery will that wouldn't give up. Marshall bowled wonderfully in a pack, Hadlee as a lone wolf; but only Lillee truly did both IMO and he was awesome to boot. He has more 10fers than Hadlee, despite having a significant period with some good bowling partners. He could not only bowl out the batsmen quickly, he could bowl marathon overs if needed.

But I go back to his performances against the WSC and the World XI. If I have a doubt about the batsmen Marshall faced, I don't about Lillee. He was the best bowler in arguably the hardest competition Test cricket has seen - the WSC. He decimated the World XI line-up. Combine that with the universal praise he gets by the great batsmen and bowlers of his era and that nudges him ahead for me.

Still disagree that MM would be brought back to the pack but the embolded does show me that u can atleast be a bit reasonable and acept that, even though u think Mcgrath is the better bowler, thinkin MM is better is not that far fetched.

Yeh but I never said that is the case. As I've stated a 100 times on this forum, the difference between these greats is very, very little.

While you have the right to have your opinion, but please do not be so condescending to other members' opinion when your own opinion is based mostly, if not solely, on stats.

Having watched both, I will easily take Amarnath over Sehwag against bowlers like Marshall/Mcgrath and I am sure many, who had the benefit of watching both the players will do the same.

That's the thing; your assessment is subjective. Do you really think it is right to say that one batsman that averages 10 (yes, 10!) more than another batsman are close? If their era averages demonstrated it, sure. But I have shown, it doesn't. The difference between averages of the 80s and the 00s is 1.5 runs.

Amarnath is praised for his away record and Sehwag lambasted for his. Yet Sehwag's away record is 16 runs more per average than Amarnath's home record and Sehwag's home record is 7 runs more than Amarnath's away record. This shows just how much more consistent Sehwag has been. And he has been an opener. Whose SR is in the 80s.

Again, it's picking and choosing. Amarnath did well away in the WIndies; but he was terrible...abysmal...at home against the WIndies. Amarnath's few great innings against them is not enough of a trend to consider it a character of his. He averages in the 30s against Hadlee, for example. Sehwag averages 42 against McGrath. 49 in matches against Steyn.

People, especially Indians, have a rose-tinted view of that time because their batsmen were for the first time world class and lifted them out from minnow-hood. You're welcome to your opinion but Sehwag is in another class to Amarnath for me (higher one, of course) and I suspect most others. Unfortunately, for Sehwag, every time he makes a run the bowling is crap or the pitches are flat.

 

[smash84]

When I think of Lillee I consider his WSC stats and his bowling against the World XI. Statistically, he is up there with the best. But more than that I think it was his capability to influence a match like few, if any, other pacemen. He could pretty much bowl anything and was a model for guys like Hadlee and even Marshall. He was pretty much idolised by the former. He not only had a period as a tearaway, but also one who was forced to be methodical due to his injuries - injuries that at the time no one thought possible of returning from. And that is Lillee in a nutshell - a fiery will that wouldn't give up. Marshall bowled wonderfully in a pack, Hadlee as a lone wolf; but only Lillee truly did both IMO and he was awesome to boot. He has more 10fers than Hadlee, despite having a significant period with some good bowling partners. He could not only bowl out the batsmen quickly, he could bowl marathon overs if needed.

But I go back to his performances against the WSC and the World XI. If I have a doubt about the batsmen Marshall faced, I don't about Lillee. He was the best bowler in arguably the hardest competition Test cricket has seen - the WSC. He decimated the World XI line-up. Combine that with the universal praise he gets by the great batsmen and bowlers of his era and that nudges him ahead for me.

The same can be said about other bowlers too I suppose especially Imran. Imran was also a master of reverse swing which allowed him to get wickets on pitches not suited to fast bowling at all.

I think that being the darling of arguably the best and most influential cricketing nation (until recently) helps Lillee quite a bit.