Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[subshakerz]

The only fast bowler who i can think of who had a lengthy career and was a longish wolf os Hadlee. And he and Sir Richard were of similar quality with different MOs. So i could see him doing similarly to Hadlee, with a worse econ, similar wpm and average but better SR.

Thanks for admitting he would have a higher average which Kyear isn't willing to. Why would Marshall have a better SR? He would be forced to do a lot more hard slog overs.

I really don't see why people are so hung up on this longevity stuff. Someone already pointed out that 70 odd tests and 300 or so wickets is more than enough to evaluate a pace bowler. Is anyone really picking Walsh over Holding simply because Walsh played almost 3 times as many tests. I mean come on.

I'm picking bowlers Who have shown they can take wickets, anywhere vs anyone at a cheap enough average and relatively fast without leaking too many runs. Only a handful of bowlers come close to those criteria. Marshall is one of them. Don't like it ? Tough luck!!!

Sure I wouldn't place longevity as a overriding factor since I still put Marshall as no.1 except those with longer careers can be better acknowledged.

 

[DrWolverine]

I really don't see why people are so hung up on this longevity stuff.

50 Tests or 250 wickets is enough in my opinion.

I am not going to pick a James Anderson or Stuart Broad over Allan Donald or Michael Holding or Joel Garner.

 

[Johan]

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

Screenshotted

 

[subshakerz]

50 Tests or 250 wickets is enough in my opinion.

I am not going to pick a James Anderson or Stuart Broad over Allan Donald or Michael Holding or Joel Garner.

What about a Tendulkar over a Chappell based on longevity?

 

[DrWolverine]

What about a Tendulkar over a Chappell based on longevity?

If it is just longevity I should be picking Tendulkar over Don also

 

[subshakerz]

If it is just longevity I should be picking Tendulkar over Don also

Except nobody argues it's just longevity.

But between cricketers of relatively similar standing it is a factor.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Thanks for admitting he would have a higher average which Kyear isn't willing to. Why would Marshall have a better SR? He would be forced to do a lot more hard slog overs.


Sure I wouldn't place longevity as a overriding factor since I still put Marshall as no.1 except those with longer careers can be better acknowledged.

Because MM would also have more shots at the tail. Below are Marshalls stats in tests not involving Holding or Garner up til the end of the 1980s:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

As you can see, his average goes up ever so slightly but his sr remains the same, and his wpm increases naturally. I used that time-frame because up to 1989, Ambrose was not yet an established regular great. That came in the early 90s forward. He got dropped after the series vs India. And frankly, it's nigh on impossible to find enough tests where one of Holding, Garner, Walsh or Ambrose didn't play.

 

[subshakerz]

Because MM would also have more shots at the tail. Below are Marshalls stats in tests not involving Holding or Garner up til the end of the 1980s:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

As you can see, his average goes up ever so slightly but his sr remains the same, and his wpm increases naturally. I used that time-frame because up to 1989, Ambrose was not yet an established regular great. That came in the early 90s forward. He got dropped after the series vs India. And frankly, it's nigh on impossible to find enough tests where one of Holding, Garner, Walsh or Ambrose didn't play.

Ok but we are talking a scenario where there isn't even a bowler of Walsh, Croft, Roberts or Ambrose level in the attack. Ambrose started coming good in 88.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Ok but we are talking a scenario where there isn't even a bowler of Walsh, Croft, Roberts or Ambrose level in the attack. Ambrose started coming good in 88.

His average would be around Hadlee’s with a better SR. End of story.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

. Came out to bat with his hand in a cast. Then turned around and took 5 wickets when he was told to sit out for ten days just to help the team. And Subz who thinks he knows more about WI cricket than I do wants to attribute Malcolm's greatness to just being a part of great attacks. Bull. He is who made the attack great, not the other way around.


Ps Malcolm left us way too soon....

 

[subshakerz]

. Came out to bat with his hand in a cast. Then turned around and took 5 wickets when he was told to sit out for ten days just to help the team. And Subz who thinks he knows more about WI cricket than I do wants to attribute Malcolm's greatness to just being a part of great attacks. Bull. He is who made the attack great, not the other way around.


Ps Malcolm left us way too soon....

Dude I said he is the best bowler of all time. My point is just say that his stat gap with others is in part due to these factors and they are all incredibly close.

However it's not a slight on Marshall to say it already was an ATG attack before he joined. It's a fact.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Dude I said he is the best bowler of all time. My point is just say that his stat gap with others is in part due to these factors and they are all incredibly close.

However it's not a slight on Marshall to say it already was an ATG attack before he joined. It's a fact.

No one and I mean no one including myself thinks there is any gap between Malcolm and about a half dozen or so bowlers: McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran, Akram.

And what stat gap are you even talking about? Steyn, Waqar and Rabada have better sr. Hadlee, Steyn and Lillee have better wpm. Garner and Ambrose have better econs. Hell Bumrah and Alan Davidson have better averages. So what stat gap are you even talking about? Oh you mean being consistent home and away vs all comers, sub 23 vs all comers and sub 25 everywhere (not including 3 tests in NZ). That's not a stat gap, that's all round excellence something you value on the likes of Sachin but oddly seem to hold against sir Malcolm Marshall. Oh, "he only achieved that because he was part of a strong bowling attack." Wasim, McGrath, Donald, Imran etc didn't exactly play with poor bowling partners either.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

No one and I mean no one including myself thinks there is any gap between Malcolm and Imran, Akram.

@kyear2

 

[Sliferxxxx]

@kyear2

I've seen his posts. His take on Marshall isn't unreasonable. He considers MM the best but I believe he concedes that Sir Richard and especially McGrath are right up there with him. I also take it that even he doesn't feel like there's any discernible gap. And even then, that's just one person's opinion.

 

[kyear2]

tbf, you also get to play the same amount during a time when your body is at its peak physically or when you’re simply having a good run of form.

Good run of form for a decade?

 

[kyear2]

Again, you don't say this when you point out Murali/Steyn/Hadlee had helpful home conditions. You just.... say those things without encasing it in a "every bowler has a built in advantage" qualifier, which you only bring out when talkin g about Marshall (or sometimes McGrath).

And each of those guys are still highly rated as hell, so I'm not sure what your point is.

They literally make up the top 5, with said Marshall and McGrath.

 

[kyear2]

I really don't see why people are so hung up on this longevity stuff. Someone already pointed out that 70 odd tests and 300 or so wickets is more than enough to evaluate a pace bowler. Is anyone really picking Walsh over Holding simply because Walsh played almost 3 times as many tests. I mean come on.

I'm picking bowlers Who have shown they can take wickets, anywhere vs anyone at a cheap enough average and relatively fast without leaking too many runs. Only a handful of bowlers come close to those criteria. Marshall is one of them. Don't like it ? Tough luck!!!

Agreed, and I'm somewhat different because I look at quality over quantity.

I hate the Jimmy Anderson arguments for that exact reason. Just because you played a long doesn't make you an all time great.

At no point in a match does playing for a longer time make up for absolute quality

 

[kyear2]

What about a Tendulkar over a Chappell based on longevity?

You chose who is the better batsman, period.
Tendulkar is just a bit better.

 

[kyear2]

Dude I said he is the best bowler of all time. My point is just say that his stat gap with others is in part due to these factors and they are all incredibly close.

However it's not a slight on Marshall to say it already was an ATG attack before he joined. It's a fact.

What made Marshall great isn't any stat gap. Even in my writeups and comments about him, it's the tool set that sets him apart, it's his consistency vs every opponent in all conditions. How he was equally good home and away, how he elevated a team in tradition to the greatest ever.

They skills lead to the "stat" gap, but it's those attributes that lead to his ratings.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2

Of course we disagree, always have...

Imran just wasn't as good away from the friendly confines of Pakistan as he was at home.

Wasim was skill af, but he didn't consistently perform at his best vs the best, instead they were compensated a bit by his weaker opposition. His India and England numbers don't quite scream elite top tier, and even his Australia numbers when compared to Ambrose's fall a little flat.
I've watched all of Ambrose's career and while he was ridiculously good, Marshall was better and McGrath just that but more consistent aggressive. Though, a lot of that was post surgery. He didn't didn't have Marshall's tools though.

As I've said

Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, the smallest of separations then Steyn, Warne, Murali, Warne, Ambrose.

That's my top list, similar to the one for the batsmen

Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs, smallest of gaps, Smith, Lara, Hutton

And everyone is entitled to their own lists and opinions.