Is there any bowler who's better than Malcolm Marshall or could challenge him?

[Burgey]

There seems to be some misconception that after Ambrose, Akram and Donald retired around 2001-2002 that all the pitches were dug up and replaced by roads. The batting averages were inflated because for some reason there was a dearth of fast bowlers, and especially in the s/c where the combintion of the lack of quality fast bowlers and the fact that most pitches (especially Sri Lanka and India) were always roads, it was especially evident.
To expand, Mcgraths average in the 2000's was actually marginally better that his average in the 90's, probably because batsmen were less acostomed to facing quality bowlers. All of the great bolwers from the 90's who played the majority of the following decade, Warne and Murali had no discernable drop off in the 00's.

Pakistan is the only subcontinental country which has ever habitually produced good to great fast bowlers. That's not a sledge at the other countries, it's a fact. Just as we had no great spinner between Benaud and Warne, India has had few very good to great seamers. Likewise SL, though over a far shorter time frame.

I agree with you as regards the misconception about pitches, though certainly in this part of the world a near ten year long drought went a long way to flattening pitches out.

I think McGrath gets sold short with regards to his place as an ATG pace bowler because his method wasn't as ***y as someone who had Marshall's express speed or the ***y reverse swing of some of the Pakistani greats.

 

[smash84]

That's a big call.

If what seems to be standard line of reasoning on here is accepted, namely that the 2000s was a great era for batting and averages are inflated, doesn't McGrath's record need to be seen in that light?

awta. McGrath right up there with Marshall

No.


His career stats are unrivalled in the modern era and his resume is clean and complete. His home and away numbers are nearly identicle and he played and was successful everywhere. He was fast, could swing it both ways, accurate had the meanest bouncer and go could bowl all day.
Simply the best.

And yes, know I will hear it for this.

I would say Imran trumps Marshall in the 80s.

 

[smash84]

I think McGrath gets sold short with regards to his place as an ATG pace bowler because his method wasn't as ***y as someone who had Marshall's express speed or the ***y reverse swing of some of the Pslistani greats.

awta.

 

[The Sean]

you are right. Imran averages a shade above 19 and Macko a shade under 20 for averages. Though SR wise Macko is 44.5 and Imran and Hadlee 47.0 and 47.9 respectively for the whole of 1980s.

Excluding Imran's rapid decline 1989 onwards i.e. taking the period from 1980-1988 Imran is such a gun trumps Marshall significantly in average with a lower SR too

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

I would say Imran trumps Marshall in the 80s.

If you're doing that, why not also exclude the period 80-82 before Marshall had reached his peak and was still establishing himself? It works both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I think Imran belongs well and truly in the discussion for the greatest fast bowler of all time and sits comfortably in the class of Marshall and Hadlee during the '80s, but you can't ignore the stats for Imran that don't suit you but keep all of Marshall's.

 

[NasserFan207]

Ambrose was better.

 

[smash84]

If you're doing that, why not also exclude the period 80-82 before Marshall had reached his peak and was still establishing himself? It works both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I think Imran belongs well and truly in the discussion for the greatest fast bowler of all time and sits comfortably in the class of Marshall and Hadlee during the '80s, but you can't ignore the stats for Imran that don't suit you but keep all of Marshall's.

Fair point. You can include those too and Imran still comes out with a better average although much less significant.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Add to that his injury at his peak 83-85 where he couldn't bowl and this looks even more phenomenal.

Additionally here is Marshall's 7 year peak that you mention.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

and Imran's 9 year (2 years of injury in there)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

tbh an average of 17.76 looks bloody outstanding even when compared to a miserly average of 19.22 of Marshall's

 

[Sprinter]

There seems to be some misconception that after Ambrose, Akram and Donald retired around 2001-2002 that all the pitches were dug up and replaced by roads. The batting averages were inflated because for some reason there was a dearth of fast bowlers, and especially in the s/c where the combintion of the lack of quality fast bowlers and the fact that most pitches (especially Sri Lanka and India) were always roads, it was especially evident.
To expand, Mcgraths average in the 2000's was actually marginally better that his average in the 90's, probably because batsmen were less acostomed to facing quality bowlers. All of the great bolwers from the 90's who played the majority of the following decade, Warne and Murali had no discernable drop off in the 00's.

To say that batsmen of 2000's were only so good because of lack of quality bowling is just trolling. If McGrath and Murali being better in the 2000's is all you have for that argument then its pretty weak.

Maybe bowlers of the of the 80's were only so good because of lack of quality batting then. How did the likes of Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan all of a sudden become so great in the 80's after being fairly ordinary in the 70's? Yes this kind of argument can be used both way.

Its called getting better. McGrath and Murali bowled better in the 2000's because they got better. Your trying to suggest that 2000's batsmen can only be better because of poor bowling and yet ignoring the fact that the same reverse argument can be used for bowlers and batsmen of the 80's as well. That's just being bias. Don't deny the batsmen their greatness. If you wanna say it was flatter pitches and such ok but if not at least have the decency to accept that batting quality increased in the era.

 

[The Sean]

Additionally here is Marshall's 7 year peak that you mention.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

and Imran's 9 year (2 years of injury in there)

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

tbh an average of 17.76 looks bloody outstanding even when compared to a miserly average of 19.22 of Marshall's

Yeah for sure, Imran's record there is sensational - I've mentioned before on here that I think he had something like 7 consecutive series averaging sub-20, which is phenomenal.

FTR - without wanting to get too bogged down in a statsguru-athon - I generally consider this to be Marshall's peak period, beginning in India in '83 (though he'd come of age in the previous home series against India):

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Not much in it really, IMO. Both astonishingly good records, and I personally pick both men in my all time World XI.

 

[smash84]

Don't deny the batsmen their greatness. If you wanna say it was flatter pitches and such ok but if not at least have the decency to accept that batting quality increased in the era.

why do you make the statement in bold?

Having seen Inzy, Miandad, and Mohammad Yousuf play I would vouch that Inzy and Miandad are better players than MoYo yet MoYo comes out with a much better average

 

[kyear2]

So outside of Murali, Warne, Mcgrath and Steynvname the great bowlers of the decade, and of the pitches are so flat every where why does Steyn perform so well.

And yes there are great batsmen, Tendulkar, Kallis, Lara, Ponting, Dravid ect, but some have feasted on the poor over all bowling of the decade. Ask your self why few rate Jayawardene, Hayden, Yousuf et all truely among the all time greats despite their records.

 

[Sprinter]

why do you make the statement in bold?

Having seen Inzy, Miandad, and Mohammad Yousuf play I would vouch that Inzy and Miandad are better players than MoYo yet MoYo comes out with a much better average

I would say Inzamam is better as well but I don't see how that proves anything. Yousuf has flaws in his career like his record against the top teams. Minadad also has flaws in his career.

 

[kyear2]

Fair point. You can include those too and Imran still comes out with a better average although much less significant.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Add to that his injury at his peak 83-85 where he couldn't bowl and this looks even more phenomenal.

Additionally here is Marshall's 7 year peak that you mention.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

and Imran's 9 year (2 years of injury in there)

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

tbh an average of 17.76 looks bloody outstanding even when compared to a miserly average of 19.22 of Marshall's

As I have always stated the only issue I have with Imran and the reason he is not top five for me is the difference between his home and away record. Imran averages just above 19 at home compared with an away avergage of just under 27, also his strike rate at home is 47 compared with a SR of 59 on the road. Thats a big difference, and when one breaks it down to individual countries he averaged 28 in Australia, 24 in England, 28 in India, 26 in New Zealand, 25 in the W.I and 18 in Sri Lanka (minnows of the time). His record has way too many questions, so when stating his over record it helps to take a closer look.

 

[smash84]

how is 25 in WI bad against one of the greatest batting sides in history?

How is 26 bad in NZ? What does Marshall average in NZ? Above 30 IIRC.

Besides the last of Imran's Aussie tours was in 89-90 IIRC when he had pretty much left bowling to Wasim and Co. You need to take a closer look at the record too if you point that out.

 

[Satguru]

As I have always stated the only issue I have with Imran and the reason he is not top five for me is the difference between his home and away record. Imran averages just above 19 at home compared with an away avergage of just under 27, also his strike rate at home is 47 compared with a SR of 59 on the road. Thats a big difference, and when one breaks it down to individual countries he averaged 28 in Australia, 24 in England, 28 in India, 26 in New Zealand, 25 in the W.I and 18 in Sri Lanka (minnows of the time). His record has way too many questions, so when stating his over record it helps to take a closer look.

Those are all very good figures

 

[Sprinter]

So outside of Murali, Warne, Mcgrath and Steynvname the great bowlers of the decade, and of the pitches are so flat every where why does Steyn perform so well.

And yes there are great batsmen, Tendulkar, Kallis, Lara, Ponting, Dravid ect, but some have feasted on the poor over all bowling of the decade. Ask your self why few rate Jayawardene, Hayden, Yousuf et all truely among the all time greats despite their records.

Ok then name the great batsmen of the 80's other then Chappell, Gavaskar, Border, Richards why don't you?

If you watch any cricket in Asia you would know how hard playing spin bowling is there. Just watch what's happening to England in UAE. I think Hayden in particular is a little underrated but if you really wanna move the argument to that direction why don't people rate the likes of Joel Garner as highly as an Allan Donald despite them both playing for 10 years and Garner actually having better statistics?

Another thing is I don't get how Steyn not struggling flat pitches proves anything. Most people would say Steyn is a future great. Why would they be saying that if he was one of those bowlers that only did well on green tracks? Also he did struggle in UAE which arguably the flattest of all the pitches for fast bowlers.

 

[ankitj]

Both astonishingly good records, and I personally pick both men in my all time World XI.

Curious who'd be other bowlers in your lineup.

 

[kyear2]

Those are all very good figures

Still to big a gap btwn home and away numbers

 

[marc71178]

Those are all very good figures

Very good yes, but not ATG.

 

[Satguru]

Still to big a gap btwn home and away numbers

So if Imran had averaged 26 everywhere, he would be a better bowler? This "difference between home and away averages" thing is totally ridiculous and meaningless when both figures are good... if imran averaged something like 35 away from home id agree with you, but you're actually penalising someone for being godly-brilliant at home in addition to being great abroad

 

[kyear2]

Ok then name the great batsmen of the 80's other then Chappell, Gavaskar, Border, Richards why don't you?

If you watch any cricket in Asia you would know how hard playing spin bowling is there. Just watch what's happening to England in UAE. I think Hayden in particular is a little underrated but if you really wanna move the argument to that direction why don't people rate the likes of Joel Garner as highly as an Allan Donald despite them both playing for 10 years and Garner actually having better statistics?

Another thing is I don't get how Steyn not struggling flat pitches proves anything. Most people would say Steyn is a future great. Why would they be saying that if he was one of those bowlers that only did well on green tracks? Also he did struggle in UAE which arguably the flattest of all the pitches for fast bowlers.

LLoyd, Greenidge, Miandad, Abbas, Gower, Gooch, Aramath.
Now name a great fast bowler other than Steyn from the 2000's
Garner is very highly rated, but yes Donald was the spear head and Garner was always 3rd of 4th option. Proves nothing.

Additionally Hayden is't rated that high because when he had the chance to face the greats early in his career, he failed, when he came back the only remaining great bolwers were on his own team and then and only then he cleaned up.