Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[zaremba]

If Lillee could do all that McGrath could do but was 10 kph quicker, why did he take fewer wickets at a worse average in more bowler-friendly times?

I realise that Lillee was an ATG fast bowler and all, but surely this is as good an object lesson as we could have in the distorting effects of rose tinted spectacles / "in my day" bias.

 

[stephen]

I have Marshall and McGrath opening the bowling in my all time attack. #1 and #2 and there isn't much in it.

 

[Joao]

If Lillee could do all that McGrath could do but was 10 kph quicker, why did he take fewer wickets at a worse average in more bowler-friendly times?

I realise that Lillee was an ATG fast bowler and all, but surely this is as good an object lesson as we could have in the distorting effects of rose tinted spectacles / "in my day" bias.

Exactly my thoughts.

IMO --> Marhsall = McGrath = Hadlee etc.

 

[Top_Cat]

Both are definitely in the top 2.

 

[sumantra]

if one is to choose between malcom and glenn, i would always go with malcom...but this isn't a proper comparison, the right one should be glenn or pollok? or malcom or hadlee/ lilee?

 

[marc71178]

I have Marshall and McGrath opening the bowling in my all time attack. #1 and #2 and there isn't much in it.

Who gets choice of ends though?

 

[sumantra]

I'd go with Marshall and Hadlee. In an all time test XI my fast bowlers would be Marshall, Hadlee and Wasim.

its always a dubious thing to say 'all time'...anyway what about micheal holding?

 

[smash84]

On what I have seen I totally agree. McGrath is being made out to be like Andrew Caddick by some on here which is totally wrong. Both were superb but Marshall was just a bit better, no slight on McGrath though.

lol @ being made out like Andrew Caddick. I couldn't help but lol at the comparison. Actually I remember a comment by Xuhaib that he felt that Akram was treated on CW as he was some trundler who didn't even know how to bowl.

 

[smash84]

its always a dubious thing to say 'all time'...anyway what about micheal holding?

That attack of Marshall, Hadlee, and Wasim looks good tbh

 

[GotSpin]

How Wasim gets considered for an AT XI attack bewilders me everytime

 

[smash84]

Mainly because of variety I suppose. Also he brings with him a bit of batting and very importantly the ability to swing the ball in the air and off the pitch. Both with the new and the old ball. Few bowlers, if any, can match him in that. Also his average and SR are decent and enough to keep him in competition with the top guys i.e. usually within a distance of 2 runs. Has a similar average and SR as Lillee.

 

[kyear2]

Well mine is Marshall and Mcgrath opening with the new ball, the Imran and Warne taking over with reverse swing and spin. Its really a little bit of everything and none of the bowlers are similar in the least, then of course Sobers left arm variations are yet another dimension.

 

[subshakerz]

Complete nonsense to say Marshall could do everything Mcgrath could do, seeing as Mcgrath was about 6 inches taller and could extract that steep bounce from a good length. They were different types of bowlers but both all time greats in my book. Also I dont take everything Ian Chappell says seriously, he often tries to make obvious observations sound especially clever, or just says something inane.

Assuming we are referring to test matches, I think they are pretty much equal. Instinctively I would go for Marshall, but I think taking into account the fact that Mcgrath played quite a few more tests and hence took more wickets, this is equal. I cant choose one over the other. Both contenders for the greatest bowler ever...

Marshall actually turned his lack of height into a strength, it allowed him to skid off the pitch and be even more awkward for the batsman. I would back his bouncer over McGrath's. And if the situation calls for adjusting, Marshall was capable of sticking to off cutters and bowling off the seam like Mcgrath.

I do feel that pace makes a difference. There are some situations, very few, that sheer pace can produce results on a dead unresponsive wicket that mere line and length cannot. Marshall had that ability to still intimidate the batsman. The vast majority of the time though, they both will be succesful.

I find it strange that people are giving points to Mcgrath for bowling in a supposedly tougher bowling era, when Marshall's most memorable performances have been on flattish wickets. The primary reason this was a run-friendly era is not because of flatter wickets or better batsmen but there werent many great bowlers like Mcgrath around. In fact, if you look at some of the batting lineups McGrath bowled to seven years in the 2000s (such as NZ, WI, Pakistan), they were quite inferior to their 90s/80s counterparts, so I dont buy this simplistic argument. In general, McGrath faced some very strong batting lineups and some truly awful ones. Marshall mostly faced good but not great batting lineups. Like McGrath, who had the edge over Lara and Tendulkar, Marshall had the edge over the two best batsmen he faced, Gavaskar and Border.

 

[Anil]

ajit agarkar is the greatest ever but of these two, i would go with marshall...but there is not much in it either way...

 

[Joao]

How Wasim gets considered for an AT XI attack bewilders me everytime

I don't think he'd embarass himself in such a lineup but it is odd that for some reason a lot of people think he is better than numerous players with 'superior' records.

He was gun to watch though, especially on his day.

 

[ankitj]

Wasim Akram is rated very, very highly in the subcontinent. He is considered as much a God of fast bowling in India as Tendulkar, a God of batting. Pretty much every 'casual' follower of cricket (those who don't quite know a great deal about history of the game) I speak to considers him the greatest fast bowler. I get routinely mocked at for saying Marshall or Imran were better cricketers than Akram

 

[Ikki]

I know many people bring up longevity for Tendulkar for example, but it isn't mentioned here at all for McGrath. Probably where it is more apt (amongst fast bowlers). Not only did McGrath play longer than Marshall time-wise; but he played almost twice as many matches in Tests and ODIs. McGrath's approach may have made him somewhat less dynamic; but it was effective and for a very, very long time. Any one else think the same?

 

[smash84]

Wasim Akram is rated very, very highly in the subcontinent. He is considered as much a God of fast bowling in India as Tendulkar, a God of batting. Pretty much every 'casual' follower of cricket (those who don't quite know a great deal about history of the game) I speak to considers him the greatest fast bowler. I get routinely mocked at for saying Marshall or Imran were better cricketers than Akram

Agree with you regarding Wasim considered the greatest fast bowler by SCers. Rated by most Pakistanis to be the best Pakistan fast bowler and even the few Bangladesh friends that I have also consider him the best fast bowler to have played the game. I don't know about SL but I wouldn't be surprised if he holds the same reputation over there.

Also agree with you regarding Imran. His bowling is all but forgotten since he wasn't such a great ODI bowler. Mostly people in Pakistan prefer the shorter format of the game and hence Imran seems to be forgotten. The only thing that people remember is Imran's captaincy .

I for one am of the opinion that for sub 25 bowlers the difference in quality is usually not that much and the difference between the McGraths and the Marshalls and the Imrans and Hadlees is very small. The other day it was good to see JBMAC's list of the best fast bowlers that he rated since the time of Bradman (i.e. those that he had seen play) and Imran was there in his top 5.

 

[smash84]

I know many people bring up longevity for Tendulkar for example, but it isn't mentioned here at all for McGrath. Probably where it is more apt (amongst fast bowlers). Not only did McGrath play longer than Marshall time-wise; but he played almost twice as many matches in Tests and ODIs. McGrath's approach may have made him somewhat less dynamic; but it was effective and for a very, very long time. Any one else think the same?

I don't know about longevity factor between the two. McGrath played for about 13 years and Marshall for 12 (???)? Also cricket calendars (intl) in those days were not quite as packed so Marshall played lesser matches. However from what I have read about Marshall he probably would have been able to play more had WI played more matches. He was very fit physically from what I know. I may be wrong but someone else might be able to shed more light on it.

 

[Ikki]

I for one am of the opinion that for sub 25 bowlers the difference in quality is usually not that much and the difference between the McGraths and the Marshalls and the Imrans and Hadlees is very small. The other day it was good to see JBMAC's list of the best fast bowlers that he rated since the time of Bradman (i.e. those that he had seen play) and Imran was there in his top 5.

I generally agree with this. It's why I rate Wasim so highly and am surprised people call him overrated. I think the category you say is accurate, then it is a measure of some other things. For me, how Wasim did against both Australia and WIndies (two ATG sides) says enough about him as a bowler. If you didn't watch him regularly, you really missed out why he was so special. He was also in International cricket for some 19 years, which is incredible.