Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[kyear2]

Who cares if they don't count on his career record? They should. They are competitive matches played where the standard was even higher than most Tests ever played. The whole point of bringing up the WSC for me was to show that Lillee faced great line-ups and was a success. The World XI Tests he played early in his career don't count either, but **** me if I am going to ignore 8/29 (12 for 93 all up) against a lineup of Gavaskar, Kanhai, Abbas, Lloyd, Greig and Sobers. In the 3rd Test there was also Graeme Pollock in there (he averaged 20 and struck at 29 for the series).

First I thought we merely had a difference in opinion, but it seems you're just deliberately obtuse.

It is you who is being obtuse. You are trying to argue the difference btwn the avg and s/r of Marshall and Lillee can be explained away by the fact that he played againts better competition exampled by WSC and vs the World 11 side. All I am saying is that they dont count towards his record and as such cannot be used as said excuse to explain the difference statistically.
Not in any way tring to say the performances were not special, they just cant be used in the context you propose.

Additionally your arguments for Lillee and Mcgrath are so opposite, using stats to show the superiority of Mcgrath, then saying that stats dont matter for Lillee, that not only shows a serious bias and lack of objectivity, but also a hypocrocy that is astounding.

 

[kyear2]

.

And just because the bowlers who are consequently conceding more are averaging higher, doesn't mean they are inferior to the bowlers of the 80s. And in that, I am referring to attacks (as i a group of bowlers), not ATG bowlers strictly as I'd agree that they 80s had more...although they were concentrated in one team.I won't even refer to statistics because it brings up a chicken and the egg scenario - in that are they scoring more because the bowlers are poor or are the the bowlers poor because the batsmen are good. I'll just list the batsmen that I think played a part during the 00s era for their teams and reflects the strength of batting in the era:

Aus: Langer, Hayden, Gilchrist, Waugh, Ponting, Martyn
Ind: Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman
Pak: Inzamam, Yousuf, Younis
SL: Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Samaraweera
NZ: Fleming, Richardson, Astle
WI: Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul
SA: Amla, Kallis, Devillers, Smith, Kirsten
Eng: Pietersen, Trescothick, Thorpe, Strauss.
Zim: Goodwin, Flower
Ban: Bashar

Now the 80s:

Aus: Border, Chappell, Jones, Boon
Ind: Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhurradin, Amarnath
Pak: Miandad, Abbas, Malik, Imran, Shoaib Mohammad
SL: Ranatunga, Dias, De Silva
NZ: Crowe, Coney, Wright
WI: Lloyd, Richards, Richardson, Greenidge, Haynes
Eng: Gower, Gatting, Gooch

If the difference isn't clear to you now then we should just walk away from this one and agree to disagree.

Wouln't even comment on the highlighted part other than to say, excluding Australia, name one attack of the 00's that is better than any from the 80's - 90's.

Batting wise, the W.I line up was far superior in the 80's, Australia's are quite even, and if the 00's is slightly ahead it is due to Gilchrist, while you omitted most of the all rounders from the 80's line ups. Pakistans and N.Z''s 80's line ups are also equal if not superior to their 2000's counterparts and apart from Pieterson none of the other English batsmen can be called great from the 00's line up.

 

[Sanz]

Pakistan's batting lineup was far superiors in the 80s than it was in the 2000s.
NZ batting line up was far superior in the 80s than it was in 2000s.

 

[Slifer]

It is you who is being obtuse. You are trying to argue the difference btwn the avg and s/r of Marshall and Lillee can be explained away by the fact that he played againts better competition exampled by WSC and vs the World 11 side. All I am saying is that they dont count towards his record and as such cannot be used as said excuse to explain the difference statistically.
Not in any way tring to say the performances were not special, they just cant be used in the context you propose.

Additionally your arguments for Lillee and Mcgrath are so opposite, using stats to show the superiority of Mcgrath, then saying that stats dont matter for Lillee, that not only shows a serious bias and lack of objectivity, but also a hypocrocy that is astounding.

Kyear my friend, I should have warned u earlier that it is really pointless arguing with this fellow which is why, for the most part I have chosen not to. His goal (whether he ever wants to admit it or not) is to big up (as we say in the WI) Australians over ne body else, even it means downgrading the others achievement.

U may notice that when he talks about Lillee vs the world XI, he mentions Sobers as one of the greats that Lillee bowled to but that is quite surprising to me. I recall a thread a while back when said fella went out of his way to portray Sobers as an overrated, minnow basher who averaged under 50 if u only include stats vs ENG,OZ and NZL (his weakest team). The guy went out of his way to stats pick to portray Sobers as less than great.

Like I said, its up to u if u wanna keep on goin in circles with u know who. The poll already speaks for itself AFAIC

 

[Sanz]

Kyear my friend, I should have warned u earlier that it is really pointless arguing with this fellow which is why, for the most part I have chosen not to. His goal (whether he ever wants to admit it or not) is to big up (as we say in the WI) Australians over ne body else, even it means downgrading the others achievement.

U may notice that when he talks about Lillee vs the world XI, he mentions Sobers as one of the greats that Lillee bowled to but that is quite surprising to me. I recall a thread a while back when said fella went out of his way to portray Sobers as an overrated, minnow basher who averaged under 50 if u only include stats vs ENG,OZ and NZL (his weakest team). The guy went out of his way to stats pick to portray Sobers as less than great.

Like I said, its up to u if u wanna keep on goin in circles with u know who. The poll already speaks for itself AFAIC

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Like I said, its up to u if u wanna keep on goin in circles with u know who. The poll already speaks for itself AFAIC

AWTA! It's clear we have debaters on both sides of the fence with strong opinions. This has been going circular for a while.

The results portray what the general CW public feels and that, as they say, is that. It's apt to leave it on that note and concede that both Marshall and McGrath were among the greatest men to ever pick up a cricket ball in the game's history. I am sure no one disagrees with that assessment.

 

[centurymaker]

Kyear my friend, I should have warned u earlier that it is really pointless arguing with this fellow which is why, for the most part I have chosen not to. His goal (whether he ever wants to admit it or not) is to big up (as we say in the WI) Australians over ne body else, even it means downgrading the others achievement.

U may notice that when he talks about Lillee vs the world XI, he mentions Sobers as one of the greats that Lillee bowled to but that is quite surprising to me. I recall a thread a while back when said fella went out of his way to portray Sobers as an overrated, minnow basher who averaged under 50 if u only include stats vs ENG,OZ and NZL (his weakest team). The guy went out of his way to stats pick to portray Sobers as less than great.

Like I said, its up to u if u wanna keep on goin in circles with u know who. The poll already speaks for itself AFAIC

So true.

 

[Slifer]

AWTA! It's clear we have debaters on both sides of the fence with strong opinions. This has been going circular for a while.

The results portray what the general CW public feels and that, as they say, is that. It's apt to leave it on that note and concede that both Marshall and McGrath were among the greatest men to ever pick up a cricket ball in the game's history. I am sure no one disagrees with that assessment.

Yeah and I whole heartedly agree. Mcgrath deserves all the accolades he gets because he was that good. IMO he is up there with MM as a contender for the best of all time. I think me and most of the other debaters would wholeheartedly agree with this notion.

But there is a particular fella who wants to make it seem as if it is far-fetched to consider MM as Mcgrath's superior. No where (that I can recall) does he say "U know what MM can be considered the best bla bla bla". He more or less just shoots the late-great fella down as some amateur who bowled in bowler friendly conditions vs inferior lineups. Im waiting for his response just to show the kinda poster he really is

 

[smash84]

I think that name calling should stop around here as somebody pointed out that opinions are strongly held on both sides of the argument.

I think Ikki likes to debate on points that are generally well accepted and if he believes that there is room for them to be challenged (which is why I was surprised at his sharp reaction to Bradman vs Tendulkar).

I must say that it can be quite frustrating at times to argue with him but it helps a lot to refine one's arguments and thinking on issues with in a different light.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Kyear my friend, I should have warned u earlier that it is really pointless arguing with this fellow which is why, for the most part I have chosen not to. His goal (whether he ever wants to admit it or not) is to big up (as we say in the WI) Australians over ne body else, even it means downgrading the others achievement.

U may notice that when he talks about Lillee vs the world XI, he mentions Sobers as one of the greats that Lillee bowled to but that is quite surprising to me. I recall a thread a while back when said fella went out of his way to portray Sobers as an overrated, minnow basher who averaged under 50 if u only include stats vs ENG,OZ and NZL (his weakest team). The guy went out of his way to stats pick to portray Sobers as less than great.

Oh man your so cool taking personal attacks against posters when you can't debate properly.

The poll already speaks for itself AFAIC

And what is your point? 1 billion plus people will say Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time but that doesn't make it so.

Such an awesome poster you are. Since your don't seem have much material for debating you have sunk to "Marshall is better because I got more people to say so."

 

[kyear2]

And how is your post any different. Yours actually a sarcastic personal attack.

And what is your substantive contribution ?
It was a poll of serious cricket supporters and had it turned out the way you would have prefered, then you would have likely done the same.

 

[ankitj]

And what is your point? 1 billion plus people will say Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time but that doesn't make it so.

Exactly how did you get "1 billion plus" estimate. You are being intellectually lazy here.

 

[BlazeDragon]

And how is your post any different. Yours actually a sarcastic personal attack.

And what is your substantive contribution ?
It was a poll of serious cricket supporters and had it turned out the way you would have prefered, then you would have likely done the same.

I was never debating with him and I don't see me avoiding one by taking a personal attack.

I didn't know that you knew how to read minds. You have to be a great physic to say what I would have done. I don't avoid debates by using excuses like more people says so.

Yes your right everybody that knows how to create an account on a forum page is a "serious" cricket supporter. In fact if your not a member forum page you can't be taken as a serious cricket spectator.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Exactly how did you get "1 billion plus" estimate. You are being intellectually lazy here.

Indians alone should make hundreds of millions. Add that with all the other sub continent fans who respect Tendulkar about as much as Indians and young fans who rate only people of their generation as the best. It should make one billion plus. So how exactly am I being "intellectually lazy" if you care to explain.

Even in a forum page with "serious" users there were 9 votes for Tendulkar.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/51020-poll-bradman-v-tendulkar.html

 

[BlazeDragon]

I don't often agree with Ikki, but to say the 80s bowling side of England was much better then the 00s is plain silly.

According to some particular people here 80's bowlers were some kind of gods that can't ever be matched. Funny thing is that they are the same people that accuse of "bias" when somebody says a similar thing about the 90's and 00's bowler. Its quite funny really.

I find it quite amusing how some people here don't wanna adjust to the era and yet they are the same ones calling Marshall "the greatest bowler of all time" and things of that nature. Marshall is not even a top 15 bowler if you don't adjust to the era.

Either adjust to the era which makes McGrath better than Marshall or don't adjust to the era which makes Marshall better than McGrath but doesn't even put him in the top 15 bowler's list. Choose one or the other you can't have it both ways.

I'm quite disappointed I expected better from forum page users. Its like you guys care more about Marshall winning this poll against McGrath than you do about the other one. I would have thought adjusting to the era would have come naturally to all when comparing bowlers of 2 different generations but I guess not.

Gun post.

I would really love for anybody here to prove that Marshall is even a top 15 bowler without era adjustment. There are bowlers with a continent mile better stats than Marshall out there.

But some people here won't adjust to the era and say Marshall is better than Mcgrath at every department and yet at the same time say Marshall is the Bradman of bowlers. Double standards at its best really.

 

[L Trumper]

According to some particular people here 80's bowlers were some kind of gods that can't ever be matched. Funny thing is that they are the same people that accuse of "bias" when somebody says a similar thing about the 90's and 00's bowler. Its quite funny really.



Gun post.

I would really love for anybody here to prove that Marshall is even a top 15 bowler without era adjustment. There are bowlers with a continent mile better stats than Marshall out there.

But some people here won't adjust to the era and say Marshall is better than Mcgrath at every department and yet at the same time say Marshall is the Bradman of bowlers. Double standards at its best really.

No there are no such bowlers. Let alone 15 of them. I voted for marshall, but I understand if someone votes for mcgrath.
But I don't understand whether you are being naive or just trying to rile other posters with your posts.

 

[kyear2]

I wasn't going to answer him, he is just looking to start something. Not taking the bait.
Just let him rant to himself.

 

[Ikki]

3 to 5 depending on how much they played in 90s and 00s.

The difference between the eras (90s and 00s) is 3 points. How on Earth are you getting 5 anyway? For someone to remove 5 points from their career average you are in fact punishing them more than 5 points for their runs scored in the 00s. This is statistically ridiculous.

It is you who is being obtuse. You are trying to argue the difference btwn the avg and s/r of Marshall and Lillee can be explained away by the fact that he played againts better competition exampled by WSC and vs the World 11 side. All I am saying is that they dont count towards his record and as such cannot be used as said excuse to explain the difference statistically.
Not in any way tring to say the performances were not special, they just cant be used in the context you propose.

Additionally your arguments for Lillee and Mcgrath are so opposite, using stats to show the superiority of Mcgrath, then saying that stats dont matter for Lillee, that not only shows a serious bias and lack of objectivity, but also a hypocrocy that is astounding.

I've not said the above. I am not sure how many times I have to say "I am not saying x is better than y based on a few points". It is clear you are ignoring what I am writing and arguing against strawmen. How are my arguments between Lillee and McGrath opposite? If you're going to attribute an argument to me, at least have the decency to quote me.

Wouln't even comment on the highlighted part other than to say, excluding Australia, name one attack of the 00's that is better than any from the 80's - 90's.

Batting wise, the W.I line up was far superior in the 80's, Australia's are quite even, and if the 00's is slightly ahead it is due to Gilchrist, while you omitted most of the all rounders from the 80's line ups. Pakistans and N.Z''s 80's line ups are also equal if not superior to their 2000's counterparts and apart from Pieterson none of the other English batsmen can be called great from the 00's line up.

Er lol, are you kidding me? They are all better than their 80s counterparts bar NZ, Pak and WI. And NZ and Pak aren't far off.

I love this bit "Australia are quite even". So the Australia of the 80s lineup is even to the 00s line-up. Give up, mate. It seems people are willing to stoop to an incredible level just to save face.

 

[BlazeDragon]

No there are no such bowlers. Let alone 15 of them. I voted for marshall, but I understand if someone votes for mcgrath.
But I don't understand whether you are being naive or just trying to rile other posters with your posts.

Have you ever really even looked at the stats? There are 17 bowlers in total that has better records.
Records | Test matches | Bowling records | Best career bowling average | ESPN Cricinfo

I don't have problem with people picking Marshall. But I do have a problem when people make one-sided debates and take personal jabs at other users when they can't make one.

I wasn't going to answer him, he is just looking to start something. Not taking the bait.
Just let him rant to himself.

Ranting | Define Ranting at Dictionary.com

I don't think you quite understand what ranting is. If I was ranting I could say much worse things.

Nice try on trying to get me to rant though.

 

[Darth018]

Kyear my friend, I should have warned u earlier that it is really pointless arguing with this fellow which is why, for the most part I have chosen not to. His goal (whether he ever wants to admit it or not) is to big up (as we say in the WI) Australians over ne body else, even it means downgrading the others achievement.

U may notice that when he talks about Lillee vs the world XI, he mentions Sobers as one of the greats that Lillee bowled to but that is quite surprising to me. I recall a thread a while back when said fella went out of his way to portray Sobers as an overrated, minnow basher who averaged under 50 if u only include stats vs ENG,OZ and NZL (his weakest team). The guy went out of his way to stats pick to portray Sobers as less than great.

And how exactly does undermining Sobers help the Australian cause in anyways? It benefits Imran Khan and Tendulkar the most more than anybody else the way I see it.

Gave me the idea for a poll anyways.