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

[kyear2]

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

Don't you think that there is a reason why he was so brilliant at home and merely very good/great else where. Marshall's home avg is 20.06, away is 21.57, Mcgrath home is 22.43 away is 21.35, those are great numbers. Shane Warne is 26.39 at home and 25.50 away, thats consistentcy.

 

[kyear2]

Very good yes, but not ATG.

That is all I was trying to say. What is so different btwn playing at home and away as a fast bolwer. Difference should not be so great.

 

[Ikki]

Did Marshall ever face a truly great batting line-up a la what Imran faced against WI or McGrath against Ind?

 

[kyear2]

Well Imran averaged more in Austalia and India than he did in the Caribbean, and Marshall averaged less in those countries than Imran. The point is that Marshall did almost equally well againts every team he faced, no reason to believe that he would have done any worse than he did againts anyone else.

One can only jusge players agints who they played againts and Marshall dominated all comes.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Garner was a better bowler than Donald. I kind of thought that was accepted wisdom tbh.

 

[Sprinter]

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.

All those guys except for Miandad averages less than 50 and even he has a very Sehwag like record. An average of 50 in batting is like a average of 25 in bowling. If those guys are suppose to be all time greats then so are the likes of Gillispie, Kumble, Saqlain, Swann, Ntini, Vass, Lee, Anderson, Zaheer. I even left out people with longevity issues like Bond, Clark, Shoaib.

Pollock was actually a genuine all time greats of the 2000's along with the likes of McGrath, Murali, Warne, and Steyn. And what do you mean name another great besides of the 2000's besides Steyn? People that debuted in the 2000's? Name 1 great batsman other than Inzamam then that debuted in the 80's. You can't use the likes of Lara and Tendulkar because they debuted very late.

Hayden and Yousuf are rated highly as well. Not as highly as their average but neither is Garner is he? Their cases are pretty similar to Garner. They aren't treated like batsmen who of average 50 and 53 and Garner isn't treated like a bowler that averages 20. If he was he would be treated as the second best of his era after Marshall. Even his own team mate Holding is rated higher than him.

 

[Sprinter]

Garner was a better bowler than Donald. I kind of thought that was accepted wisdom tbh.

Without going into a debate of stats no he isn't. Donald is treated as a top 5-7 bowler by most. You barely hear about Garner. I would be willing to bet that even Holding gets more praises.

 

[Burgey]

Without going into a debate of stats no he isn't. Donald is treated as a top 5-7 bowler by most. You barely hear about Garner. I would be willing to bet that even Holding gets more praises.

Then for those people, ignorance is bliss

 

[Sprinter]

I'm not trying to diss on Garner here I think he is a great bowler but this way of using certain players to diss on a whole decade is really simplistic. Sure you have people like Hayden, Jayawadane, Sehwag who has some flaws in their career. So what? 80's have their flaws too.

You have people like Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan that all of a sudden starts to average less than 20 after averaging over 30 in the 70's. You also have batsmen like Clive Lloyd and Greg Chappell that actually does better in the 80's in the alleged better quality era of bowling then they did in the 70's. You have batsmen like Richie Richardson and Allan Border that does great with the bat in the 80's and does worse in the 90's. If we use this type of thick logic wouldn't that mean that bowling in the 80's were only so great because of lack of quality batsmen?

 

[Burgey]

I don't know, because I'm not making that argument.

 

[benchmark00]

Ben Hilfenhaus.

 

[smash84]

Very good yes, but not ATG.

 

[kyear2]

The numbers, not the player. Imran was a great bolwer, All Rounder and most importantly Captain.

As a bowler the numbers are great, but not good enough to get into the conversation of the greatest ever. There is also simply too great a disperity between his home and away numbers that begs the question why.

 

[smash84]

in terms of numbers averaging sub 30 in all countries that you play in is not ATG?

 

[kyear2]

All those guys except for Miandad averages less than 50 and even he has a very Sehwag like record. An average of 50 in batting is like a average of 25 in bowling. If those guys are suppose to be all time greats then so are the likes of Gillispie, Kumble, Saqlain, Swann, Ntini, Vass, Lee, Anderson, Zaheer. I even left out people with longevity issues like Bond, Clark, Shoaib.

Pollock was actually a genuine all time greats of the 2000's along with the likes of McGrath, Murali, Warne, and Steyn. And what do you mean name another great besides of the 2000's besides Steyn? People that debuted in the 2000's? Name 1 great batsman other than Inzamam then that debuted in the 80's. You can't use the likes of Lara and Tendulkar because they debuted very late.

Hayden and Yousuf are rated highly as well. Not as highly as their average but neither is Garner is he? Their cases are pretty similar to Garner. They aren't treated like batsmen who of average 50 and 53 and Garner isn't treated like a bowler that averages 20. If he was he would be treated as the second best of his era after Marshall. Even his own team mate Holding is rated higher than him.

Yes forgot Polly, my bad there, so 5 great bolwers for an entire decade and 4 of them played for 2 teams and the other was generally more effective in home conditions.

To me yes, from the mid to late 70's to the end of the 90's were a golden age for fast bowlers, and it made life rather difficult for batsmen and a average of mid 40's in the 80's was seen as pretty darn good of not great, you can choose to disagree, but the facts are there for all to see. So with regard to that argument I will have nothing more to add.

Additionally I an not in any way trying to diminish McGraths career, as I rate him only behind Marshall and that is due to the added wepons that Marshall possesed that he didn't, and who most batsmen would have feared facing the most in their respective primes.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

He's not even the best Marshall brother.

 

[weldone]

As long as Scorecard Draft III is on, the answer to the thread question should be NO

 

[Debris]

All those guys except for Miandad averages less than 50 and even he has a very Sehwag like record. An average of 50 in batting is like a average of 25 in bowling. If those guys are suppose to be all time greats then so are the likes of Gillispie, Kumble, Saqlain, Swann, Ntini, Vass, Lee, Anderson, Zaheer. I even left out people with longevity issues like Bond, Clark, Shoaib.

Pollock was actually a genuine all time greats of the 2000's along with the likes of McGrath, Murali, Warne, and Steyn. And what do you mean name another great besides of the 2000's besides Steyn? People that debuted in the 2000's? Name 1 great batsman other than Inzamam then that debuted in the 80's. You can't use the likes of Lara and Tendulkar because they debuted very late.

Hayden and Yousuf are rated highly as well. Not as highly as their average but neither is Garner is he? Their cases are pretty similar to Garner. They aren't treated like batsmen who of average 50 and 53 and Garner isn't treated like a bowler that averages 20. If he was he would be treated as the second best of his era after Marshall. Even his own team mate Holding is rated higher than him.

Steve Waugh.

 

[benchmark00]

And if you can't count Tendulkar and Lara because they debuted late, then you can include Border etc because they debuted in the late 70's.

 

[Spark]

I'm always fascinated by the there have been no ATGs debuting in the last few years argument. With the possible exception of Steyn, the thing all ATGs have in common is that they're A. retired or B. have been playing for a long, long time.

My point being that you generally can't actually make an "great or not" judgement until very late in a player's career, which naturally rules out the majority of people who debuted in the 00s at this stage.