Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[Lillian Thomson]

McGrath doesn't actually have any genuine votes. You take out kyear22, princessEWS, avidblazeback, jodphuronstilts and one chronically biased Australian and there ain't a lot left.

 

[kyear2]

Mcgrath was great no doubt and the 2nd best ever IMO.

kyear22 was already banned, who was he/she a multi of?

 

[smash84]

kyear22 was already banned, who was he/she a multi of?

I am surprised you are asking this question

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I am surprised you are asking this question

Of course everyone knows it's you - he was just seeing if you would own up.

McGrath continues to rack up the votes. There's now a false TEC and Precam amongst the voters. Makes you wonder what the mods are here for.

 

[kyear2]

I am surprised you are asking this question

Lol, not that bored and would have been a tad obvious.

McGrath doesn't actually have any genuine votes. You take out kyear22, princessEWS, avidblazeback, jodphuronstilts and one chronically biased Australian and there ain't a lot left.

Apart from the chronically biased Aussie they are only 4 legitimate votes for Mcgrath. Feel like there is a change afoot here from Mcgrath to Lillee especially among the Aussie supporters. Thoughts?

 

[smash84]

Of course everyone knows it's you - he was just seeing if you would own up.

.

you're so cool

 

[Coronis]

Lol, not that bored and would have been a tad obvious.



Apart from the chronically biased Aussie they are only 4 legitimate votes for Mcgrath. Feel like there is a change afoot here from Mcgrath to Lillee especially among the Aussie supporters. Thoughts?

Marshall =/= Lillee.

You wouldn't expect many people to vote for McGrath over the man who is regarded as the greatest fast bowler ever. McGrath > Lillee, I'd say, and I'm sure many others would too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Feel like there is a change afoot here from Mcgrath to Lillee especially among the Aussie supporters. Thoughts?

My only thought is what the hell are you on about.

 

[Red]

Marshall =/= Lillee.

.

Lillee is the equal of Marshall, and if I had a choice of the two, I'd choose Lillee every time.

Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever.

Cue- but only in England and Australia, and never in the subcontinent etc.

My response- doesn't matter. Lillee was brilliant, brutal, subtle, intimidating etc. I'm not saying Marshall wasn't those things, but Lillee was better at them. I'd want Lillee in my team every time. I really feel stats are a more misleading for bowlers than batsmen. Marshall's average and SR are only marginally better than so many others, yet he's so often hailed as the greatest on the basis of those stats

 

[Slifer]

Lillee is the equal of Marshall, and if I had a choice of the two, I'd choose Lillee every time.

Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever.

Cue- but only in England and Australia, and never in the subcontinent etc.

My response- doesn't matter. Lillee was brilliant, brutal, subtle, intimidating etc. I'm not saying Marshall wasn't those things, but Lillee was better at them. I'd want Lillee in my team every time. I really feel stats are a more misleading for bowlers than batsmen. Marshall's average and SR are only marginally better than so many others, yet he's so often hailed as the greatest on the basis of those stats

Yeah Lillee was better at them on wickets tailor made for his sort of bowling but MM was universally brutal and effective. An edge he has over Lillee and almost every other fast bowler for that matter. MM stats r not marginally better than Lillee his average is a full 3 runs less and his SR about 4 balls. Thats what Ambrose is to Walsh and no one in their right mind would chose Walsh over Amby.

 

[Red]

Yeah Lillee was better at them on wickets tailor made for his sort of bowling but MM was universally brutal and effective. An edge he has over Lillee and almost every other fast bowler for that matter. MM stats r not marginally better than Lillee his average is a full 3 runs less and his SR about 4 balls. Thats what Ambrose is to Walsh and no one in their right mind would chose Walsh over Amby.

3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.

 

[Ilovecric]

3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.

Yeah Lille wasn't competing against Michael Holding, Joel Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson, Roberts - excluding patterson who was good, the others were all great bowlers.

His overall Record is better than Lillee's.. Credit to him for being a warrior but his competition for wickets wasn't as great as Marshall .. So wickets per innings is pointless in this debate - especially when the difference is so marginal.

 

[Slifer]

3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.

Reasonable argument there. However, I will state that Lillee was in no way a 'lone wolf' ala Hadlee or Murali. For a great part of his career he did get reasonable support from Thompson and co. U can also argue similarly that MM WPM was only lower because of the competition he faced for wickets.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Reasonable argument there. However, I will state that Lillee was in no way a 'lone wolf' ala Hadlee or Murali. For a great part of his career he did get reasonable support from Thompson and co. U can also argue similarly that MM WPM was only lower because of the competition he faced for wickets.

Thompson and Co

 

[watson]

There is also the fact that Dennis Lillee overcame a debilitating back-injury in 1973. Not only did he make an unexpected come back to International cricket but he reinvented his action in the process.

This is both inspiring and clever, and has to count in Lillee's favour because fast-bowling is both a test of skill and character.

 

[kyear2]

Lillee is the equal of Marshall, and if I had a choice of the two, I'd choose Lillee every time.

Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever.

Cue- but only in England and Australia, and never in the subcontinent etc.

My response- doesn't matter. Lillee was brilliant, brutal, subtle, intimidating etc. I'm not saying Marshall wasn't those things, but Lillee was better at them. I'd want Lillee in my team every time. I really feel stats are a more misleading for bowlers than batsmen. Marshall's average and SR are only marginally better than so many others, yet he's so often hailed as the greatest on the basis of those stats

It's not that Lillee is punished for not playing in what would have been the toughest place to bowl during his or any era, the subcontinent (In particular India), but that Marshall and Mcgrath should get extra credit for being succesful there and everywhere.

3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.

You cannot make the argument that an average of 3 runs more and a strike rate of 5 ball extra is insignificant and then use the fact that Lillee got 1 wicket extra per test and .2 more wickets per innings. Considering the extra competition that Marshall faced for wickets, that is still yest another positive for MM.

Marshall isn't only rated where he is due to he stats, but because he could do anything with the ball, was frigheningly fast and even in the first era of helmets, feared because of his deadly skiddy bouncer. In and out banana swing at pace, deadly accuratecy and one of , if not the best cricketing brain to grace the game. He averaged 25 or below againts all teams and pratically averaged the same both home and away and yes, he performed everywhere, except againts the minnows of the day, Sri Lanka. His record in the modern era is almost peerless, but it only supports what we have seen of him in the flesh on the field. His list of most dismissed batsmen reads like a who's who of the era and that fact the he undoubtably stood out among our greats of the era, speaks volumes.

Additionally


D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850

M.Marshall - highest rating: 910 V Eng 1988. spent 48 of his 81 Tests (59.3%) rated above 850

Consistentcy.

 

[Slifer]

Thats all good and well but it doesnt negate the fact that as a fast bowler MM was universally more effective. Better average in all countries (barring NZ) and a better SR everywhere (except OZ and NZ). Think about this fact for one minute, Lillee played most of his cricket in 3 countries, all three of which many would consider fast bowler friendly (NZ, ENG, OZ). He never had to bowl for ne considerable length of time in the heat and humidity of India on those dust bowls nor did he have to contend with the more home friendly umpiring and flat wickets of Pakistan. MM did and he excelled !! By way of comparison, MM's record in Asia is better than Lillee's at home.

 

[Himannv]

Hadlee.

 

[subshakerz]

Lillee's own bowling partner, Jeff Thomson, thought Marshall was the finest.

"Malcolm Marshall was the best bowler. He was not huge, released the ball late, bowled sharp, was up there, bowled pretty quick. He just got wickets everywhere, on pitches where we never did."

'I didn't bowl your little outswingers' | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Top_Cat]

Same guy said the following;

If they had timed me out of the hand, it would have been close to 180Ks.

Sure thing, Jeff.