Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[kyear2]

This really suggests that Marshalls exceptional averages are more due to the attack he played in.

From 83 he was the best bowler in the line up, with Holding increasingly injured and Garner definely being the clear no. 2.

He would have helped them more than anything else, considering his wpm, percentage of top end wickets, match winning performances and he was the spear head, the leader.

There's advantages for both sides, Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee.

It's give and take.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

From 83 he was the best bowler in the line up, with Holding increasingly injured and Garner definely being the clear no. 2.

He would have helped them more than anything else, considering his wpm, percentage of top end wickets, match winning performances and he was the spear head, the leader.

There's advantages for both sides, Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee.

It's give and take.

Add to that, as a spearhead and being part of a strong attack Marshall as I recall, tended to take most of the top order wickets. Without looking i believe only the likes of Amby and McGrath took a higher percentage (maybe Hadlee as well). The tail went to the 'other' bowlers.

The fact is, Marshall is who made the attack stronger not the other way around. He came into an already strong attack and took it to even greater heights. No way he'd remain in the team and trusted with the new ball if he wasn't up to the task (see Baptiste, Small, etc). Strong attacks benefit lesser bowlers like the Lees, the Macgills, etc of this world.

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

I still want to see Bumrah completely decimate a decent batting order, like just leave them reeling as in Perth at 60/7 but not have some other chump partake of the spoils. Instead we get these ***y 2-3 wicket bursts by which time he's nearing the end of his spell. He usually comes back to make a crucial breakthrough too but again rarely cuts through the rest. All greedy fan bullshit obv, but it's hard to ignore that the people he's being compared with have all done that and on multiple occasions.

 

[Coronis]

Add to that, as a spearhead and being part of a strong attack Marshall as I recall, tended to take most of the top order wickets. Without looking i believe only the likes of Amby and McGrath took a higher percentage (maybe Hadlee as well). The tail went to the 'other' bowlers.

The fact is, Marshall is who made the attack stronger not the other way around. He came into an already strong attack and took it to even greater heights. No way he'd remain in the team and trusted with the new ball if he wasn't up to the task (see Baptiste, Small, etc). Strong attacks benefit lesser bowlers like the Lees, the Macgills, etc of this world.

Depends if you mean top order or top and middle order.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Depends if you mean top order or top and middle order.

Top 6.

 

[kyear2]

Top 6.

There's a table somewhere on the forum.

Marshall, McGrath were near the top, wouldn't even know where to start to look for it.

 

[subshakerz]

It suggests Marshall was at the end of his fast bowling career and like anyone at that age was somewhat in decline. I already said in an earlier post, that yes being part of a great attack helps but only really if that bowler is unfit/declining.

Great so what do you think his career average would be if he was in a poor attack and played a full 15 year career like others?

 

[subshakerz]

There's advantages for both sides, Murali had custom made home pitches and his wpm benefitted. Same with Hadlee.

It's give and take.

So you are willing to acknowledge that Marshall had an advantage that boosted his average?

 

[kyear2]

Express bowlers through recent history.

Frank Tyson, Brett Lee, Ian Bishop, Waqar, Holding Shaoib. How many besides Lee and Marshall made it through a career? And none for close to 15 years.

For all the talk of longevity, the other great bowlers of the 80's didn't play any amount of tests more than one Malcolm Marshall. Not to add that one of them even broke down.

So for an express bowler with the same amount of matches condensed into a shorter period of time, and that level of work load, I think he did quite well.

 

[kyear2]

So you are willing to acknowledge that Marshall had an advantage that boosted his average?

Not any greater than any other bowler.

Every single bowler had some built in advantage that was helpful.

McGrath had Warne and Gillespie, Murali had his home pitches and a greater share if the wickets. Hadlee had similar advantages while mainly playing in NZ, Australia and England, similar to Lillee, but better. Steyn had the perfect home pitches and good support during various stages as well.

Quality comes through, if he wasn't Malcolm Marshall, possessing the skills he had, he wouldn't have the record he has, no matter who he was bowling with.

 

[subshakerz]

Frank Tyson, Brett Lee, Ian Bishop, Waqar, Holding Shaoib. How many besides Lee and Marshall made it through a career? And none for close to 15 years.

None of those are ATGs.

Hadlee-17 years.
McGrath-15 years.
Steyn-16 years.
Imran-21 years
Lillee-15 years.
Wasim-18 years

Marshall has a definite longevity advantage.

 

[kyear2]

Great so what do you think his career average would be if he was in a poor attack and played a full 15 year career like others?

So you are willing to acknowledge that Marshall had an advantage that boosted his average?

What's the next one, this is the second time you've used this angle of attack, you've recently tried scoreboard pressure, slips as well.

What's the next one?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Express bowlers through recent history.

Frank Tyson, Brett Lee, Ian Bishop, Waqar, Holding Shaoib. How many besides Lee and Marshall made it through a career? And none for close to 15 years.

Marshall really can't be lumped in a category with Lee, Shoaib , Holding etc. as though they operated at the same kind of pace.

 

[subshakerz]

Not any greater than any other bowler.

Every single bowler had some built in advantage that was helpful.

McGrath had Warne and Gillespie, Murali had his home pitches and a greater share if the wickets. Hadlee had similar advantages while mainly playing in NZ, Australia and England, similar to Lillee, but better. Steyn had the perfect home pitches and good support during various stages as well.

Quality comes through, if he wasn't Malcolm Marshall, possessing the skills he had, he wouldn't have the record he has, no matter who he was bowling with.

Huh?

Except some of those you demerit bowlers for. You factor in Muralis pitches to not take his record at face value and don't pretend it equals out with others.

Why not with Marshall for having the greatest pace support buffer in history?

 

[kyear2]

None of those are ATGs.

Hadlee-17 years.
McGrath-15 years.
Steyn-16 years.
Imran-21 years
Lillee-15 years.
Wasim-18 years

Are you slow?

I was referencing express bowlers and how hard it is to maintain that kind of speed consistently.

Though that was obvious.

Hadlee bowled all those years and had the same amount of tests.

McGrath was a totally different type of bowler.

Imran had all of those years, ended up with again, same amount of tests and less wickets. In between there he broke down, stopped bowling and retired.

Lillee also broke down and to his credit retool.

Wasim played, but we constantly have to excuse the beginning and the end and just use the middle, about the same as Marshall.

Steyn too played less than 10 more tests.

When you force than many matches in the same amount of time, it has an impact on a fast bowlers body.

So again, what's your point. He ended up with the same test workload.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

It’s the number of years that matter, not the number of tests

 

[kyear2]

Huh?

Except some of those you demerit bowlers for. You factor in Muralis pitches to not take his record at face value and don't pretend it equals out with others.

Why not with Marshall for having the greatest pace support buffer in history?

Murali is pretty much joint 5th.

I use it to explain why his numbers on face value are better than Warne's.

And the difference with Marshall is that he was the guy, he had the insane wpm, he helped them. The major impact was that on helpful wickets he didn't get the 2nd dip that some bowlers get.

Greatness makes it way through regardless. Do you demerit Steyn for being the only bowler of the era for having spicy home pitches? The same way you do the Indian duo?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Murali had his home pitches and a greater share if the wickets. Hadlee had similar advantages while mainly playing in NZ, Australia and England, similar to Lillee, but better. Steyn had the perfect home pitches and good support during various stages as well.

You've actually mentioned these points before when discussing these bowlers and use them as justification to rank them lower and they're not invalid. But when it's mentioned Marshall had better pace support or McGrath had a much superior cordon to help him, you always push back and say "oh every bowler has advantages" instead of looking at them in isolation. Comes off weirdly defensive.

 

[kyear2]

It’s the number of years that matter, not the number of tests

Why?

Is the workload different?

Which is harder on your body, 86 tests over 18 years, or 86 tests 11 years? And the latter was express.

Which do you think would break down a fast bowlers faster?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Why?

Is the workload different?

Which is harder on your body, 86 tests over 18 years, or 86 tests 11 years? And the latter was express.

Which do you think would break down a fast bowlers faster?

What do you think is harder to achieve? A bowling average of 21 over 18 years or a bowling average of 21 over 11 years?