Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[centurymaker]

The bounce had ****all to do with it ffs, Smith just misses the straighter ones now, and in his peak he flat out never did. Just used to flick them away all day.

Dudes here just retrofitting fake weaknesses onto peak Smith because of his current issues.

Nobody is retrofitting anything. Nobody is talking about his peak.

I am specifically talking about the recent times- 2023/24, 2024/25 and beyond where he is getting worked over ruthlessly. And I am saying his technique is the reason he is going to continue to struggle, though the bounce could bail him out at home.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah it's almost as if he had a technique which worked well for him in that it made him near impossible to dismiss in all conditions, against virtually all but the most extreme types of bowling, everywhere he played. Your runs don't count extra because you "didn't rely on hand eye coordination as much".

A technically flawed style which relied on exceptional hand/eye coordination to work spectacularly but which will suffer with age.

Almost like Bumrah with his bowling action.

 

[centurymaker]

India barely knew how to bowl to Head or even Cummins. They have a coach who openly said that he doesn't believe in data or analytics. So it's no surprise that India were erratic in their plans. And deservedly lost.

England however are no.1 in analytics thesedays, so they will thoroughly work on Smith's issues. And I don't fancy Smith's chances despite the bounce at home. This is his recent record against England.

Ashes 2021/22 (home)
Smith averaged 30.5

Ashes 2023 (away)
Smith averaged 37.3

 

[centurymaker]

Fastest to 10,000 runs-

195 innings - Tendulkar, Lara and Sanga
196 innings - Ponting
205 innings - Smith
206 innings - Dravid

Unbelievable that there is a 3 way tie.

 

[centurymaker]

A technically flawed style which relied on exceptional hand/eye coordination to work spectacularly but which will suffer with age.

Almost like Bumrah with his bowling action.

Yes Bumrah's action is dangerous but fast bowlers hardly last long anyway. Most get injured every now and then because human body is not made for fast bowling at all. This is partly why we have a lower threshold for ATG pacers like 300/350 wickets.


I think Anderson because of his insane longevity is a borderline ATG and ideally should be rated in the top 15 pacers of all time.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes Bumrah's action is dangerous but fast bowlers hardly last long anyway. Most get injured every now and then because human body is not made for fast bowling at all. This is partly why we have a lower threshold for ATG pacers like 300/350 wickets.

I think a decade should be a minimum length career.

I think Anderson because of his insane longevity is a borderline ATG and ideally should be rated in the top 15 pacers of all time.

I think the rule is that worldclass quality + longevity gives a player the ultimate advantage.

However, you can make a case of a below worldclass player being more valuable to a team than a worldclass one with a unusually shortened career if you are guaranteed many more years from the former.

Hence why I rate Brett Lee > Shoaib

 

[DrWolverine]

Fastest to 10,000 runs-

195 innings - Tendulkar, Lara and Sanga
196 innings - Ponting
205 innings - Smith
206 innings - Dravid

Unbelievable that there is a 3 way tie.

Fastest to 9000 Test runs
Sanga : 172 innings
Smith : 174 innings
Dravid : 176 innings
Lara : 177 innings
Ponting : 177 innings
Mahela : 178 innings
Sachin : 179 innings

 

[DrWolverine]

Hence why I rate Brett Lee > Shoaib

Lee had a better career
Shoaib was a better bowler

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lee had a better career
Shoaib was a better bowler

Shoaib was a better bowler and has a better career.

 

[subshakerz]

Shoaib was a better bowler and has a better career.

No Shoaib didn't have a better career. He barely could finish a handful of series as a bowler without breaking down. He missed probably half the games in his time.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No Shoaib didn't have a better career. He barely could finish a handful of series as a bowler without breaking down. He missed probably half the games in his time.

Brett Lee was just plain mediocre. When fit, Shoaib did enough to be clearly ahead, especially in the flat 2000s pitches

 

[Fanboy375]

Let see his career end and judge.But he is ATG bowlers list candidate

 

[Fanboy375]

Shoaib was a better bowler and has a better career.

Early Shoaib like Waqar was good but later was different

 

[capt_Luffy]

Early Shoaib like Waqar was good but later was different

I will just say if Holding is better than Anderson or Bumrah than Broad; then Akhtar is than Lee.

 

[subshakerz]

Brett Lee was just plain mediocre. When fit, Shoaib did enough to be clearly ahead, especially in the flat 2000s pitches

Lee was also affected by flat pitches but overall he would be in the good bowler category. At least he was durable.

You say when fit but that drastically downplays the liability of Shoaib's fitness problems to Pakistan cricket.

 

[kyear2]

Showmanship is not the end all be all, but it is a big factor anyways you put it really.

That is such a reductive take. Viv was only seen as the best for over a decade because of showmanship, but Tendulkar, oh he was actually good.

Diminish his accomplishments because it doesn't fit into your world view.

The bowlers of the era all said he was better, but it was because Holding, as per the unimpeachable world of Sunny, had bowled beamers to him, he faced Lillee too early, despite it being after his best series.

So now he wasn't seen as the best because Viv was box office. Becuse it can't possibly be that Vivian was actually better, and by some distance.

 

[subshakerz]

Early Shoaib like Waqar was good but later was different

Shoaib 2002 to 2007 averaged 21 with 130 odd in 30 or so games and was worldclass when on the ground. But he played like half the games and barely finished one series.

 

[Fanboy375]

I will just say if Holding is better than Anderson or Bumrah than Broad; then Akhtar is than Lee.

Yeah many things Akhtar like Lee is not good in test for some weird reason.

 

[subshakerz]

I will just say if Holding is better than Anderson or Bumrah than Broad; then Akhtar is than Lee.

Holding and Bumrah at least have 200 plus wickets to compare with those bowlers. Shoaib didn't even get there whereas Lee has over 300 test wickets.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That is such a reductive take. Viv was only seen as the best for over a decade because of showmanship, but Tendulkar, oh he was actually good.

Diminish his accomplishments because it doesn't fit into your world view.

The bowlers of the era all said he was better, but it was because Holding, as per the unimpeachable world of Sunny, had bowled beamers to him, he faced Lillee too early, despite it being after his best series.

So now he wasn't seen as the best because Viv was box office. Becuse it can't possibly be that Vivian was actually better, and by some distance.

Dude, don't jump in the middle of a conversation, bring anything you can grab hands on and blabber. Yes, Viv was showman. Hutton wasn't. A showman is bound to get more pressure than someone who isn't. Viv also was not the best batsman of 80s clearly, at all.
And for the last time, I don't ****ing care what someone said. Use that argument if you come to believe Lillee>Marshall.