Malcolm Marshall vs Jack Hobbs

[subshakerz]

Who is the best player?

 

[Coronis]

Marshall was a better batsman than Hobbs was a bowler.

But Hobbs was a better fielder.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Both nearly equally good in primary discipline. But that Hobbs dominated the pre war era to an extent that no one did in any era except Bradman. So marginally him

 

[capt_Luffy]

Both nearly equally good in primary discipline. But that Hobbs dominated the pre war era to an extent that no one did in any era except Bradman. So marginally him

Pretty much that. The extent by which Marshall was ahead of Holding or Garner is lesser than by what Hobbs ahead of the second best.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Hobbs maybe. Though, not really because of him being head and shoulders above the contemporaries as he had to be above ATVG batsman rather than ATG. I would say their peak is actually very close but Hobbs has the longevity. So, would go for Hobbs.

 

[Sunil1z]

This forum can be extremely confusing sometimes. We are being told that Hobbs is better player than Marshall.

I would gladly trade both Tendulkar and Dravid to WI . And have Pujara + Kohli + Laxman to be our middle order Batsmen . Marshall and Bumrah to be our opening fast bowlers .

 

[capt_Luffy]

This forum can be extremely confusing sometimes. We are being told that Hobbs is better player than Marshall.

I would gladly trade both Tendulkar and Dravid to WI . And have Pujara + Kohli + Laxman to be our middle order Batsmen . Marshall and Bumrah to be our opening fast bowlers .

That's kinda because India have historically struggled in the pace department and have comparatively better MOBs. West Indies could also trade Holding, Garner + Roberts for Ashwin or Australia Lillee, O'Reilly and Davidson for Sutcliffe.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

West Indies could also trade Holding, Garner + Roberts for Ashwin

I don’t think they would lol

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don’t think they would lol

While making an ATG team, they're basically trading Garner for Walsh and having Ashwin for Gibbs.

 

[kyear2]

That's kinda because India have historically struggled in the pace department and have comparatively better MOBs. West Indies could also trade Holding, Garner + Roberts for Ashwin or Australia Lillee, O'Reilly and Davidson for Sutcliffe.

No Sir, that would be a no.

On both fronts.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall for me being the GOAT fast bowler vs Hobbs my 4th best batsman. Even with the openers tax, still Marshall for me.

I have Marshall 3rd And Hobbs I believe 4th or 5th as cricketers. Being one of 4 ATG openers does factors in, but should it? Ummmmm.

 

[kyear2]

Pretty much that. The extent by which Marshall was ahead of Holding or Garner is lesser than by what Hobbs ahead of the second best.

You're comparing one of the two best eras for fast bowlers to an era which was at the beginning of his career the infancy of test cricket. Not a valid comparison I would argue.

 

[Prince EWS]

While making an ATG team, they're basically trading Garner for Walsh and having Ashwin for Gibbs.

Gibbs is better than Ashwin anyway so it's a very dumb trade.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gibbs is better than Ashwin anyway so it's a very dumb trade.

Lol I forgot about Gibbs....

 

[capt_Luffy]

No Sir, that would be a no.

On both fronts.

Curious why Australia won't trade for a significantly better opener though.

 

[subshakerz]

I reflexively went for Marshall but upon thinking about it, Hobbs has a good case here based on longevity and being ahead of his peers.

 

[subshakerz]

You're comparing one of the two best eras for fast bowlers to an era which was at the beginning of his career the infancy of test cricket. Not a valid comparison I would argue.

If you had to rate Marshall out of 100 as the perfect pacer and Hobbs as the perfect bat, what scores would you give?

 

[kyear2]

Curious why Australia won't trade for a significantly better opener though.

Not for tour 2nd best pacer, your 4th best pacer and the 3rd greatest spinner of all time.

Straight up Davidson for Sutcliffe or Grimmett for Sutcliffe. England needs either just as badly.

 

[kyear2]

I reflexively went for Marshall but upon thinking about it, Hobbs has a good case here based on longevity and being ahead of his peers.

Longevity sure, peers nah.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not for tour 2nd best pacer, your 4th best pacer and the 3rd greatest spinner of all time.

Straight up Davidson for Sutcliffe or Grimmett for Sutcliffe. England needs either just as badly.

That's a different trade. And well, Grum or Davidson for Sutcliffe; when Australia is the one needing an opener; is kinda......