subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Imran had massive peer rating, but it got diffused between his bowling, all-round skills and captaincy.
Kallis' peer rating was nill until the end of the career when people saw his raw numbers and had to act impressed.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Malcolm Marshall vs. Sachin Tendulkar
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
Kallis' peer rating was nill until the end of the career when people saw his raw numbers and had to act impressed.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Marshall though was pretty much recognized as the best bowler of the 80s despite that. It may be that being the best pacer of an era of ATG pacers doesnt make you seem as special.
BazBall21
International Captain
Yes. Kallis went from slightly underrated to overrated. Consensus on here is slowly wandering back to a fair balance. But in the big wide world, there's some work to do.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yup. Nobody cared about the guy during the 2000s and suddenly as his career ends 'Kallis must be the greatest cricketer who ever lived'.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Some more minor points for Tendulkar:
- More pressure in a weaker team
- Marshall wasn't quite as tested in terms of quality opposition as Tendulkar whose career coincided with a peak bowling era
- Tendulkar's prodigy performances as a teen
- More pressure in a weaker team
- Marshall wasn't quite as tested in terms of quality opposition as Tendulkar whose career coincided with a peak bowling era
- Tendulkar's prodigy performances as a teen
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Coronis
International Coach
What about Lara?
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Best after Bradman
Coronis
International Coach
Talking about his peer rating in comparison to Marshall.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
I don't really care much about his peer rating.
But Lara was visually extremely appealing, had mammoth series more than any other player not named Bradman, made Daddy hundreds including the only 400, had more marquee knocks than anyone else.
Plus unlike Marshall he wasn't bouncing English and Australian batsmen.
Slifer
International Captain
Marshall. Sachin maybe have been consistent across conditions but Marshall was exceptional. He has the lowest average of anyone with 200 + wickets. He's top ten in sr and I believe wpm for fast bowlers with more than 200 wkts. Longevity is good and all but in a real match situation, you want the player who can be exceptional. Marshall was that, everywhere and vs everyone: sub 23 vs all comers and sub 25 everywhere. For me, sub 25 is equivalent to a batting average of 50+
and sub 23 probably around 55 or so.
and sub 23 probably around 55 or so.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah but if you had to choose between getting a slightly better worldclass cricketer for your team and another slightly less awesome but can serve your team twice as long?
Slifer
International Captain
I'll take the player who was better overall over a reasonable length of career. As set by you, 200 wkts is a reasonably long enough career for a fast bowler, therefore I'd go with. Marshall. The only players I'd rank above Marshall are : Don, Hadlee, Imran, Sobers and maybe McGrath.
BazBall21
International Captain
Very hard. I think Marshall's figures are bulletproof to an extent that no batter since Bradman can over-match. Bowlers being slightly more important also works in Marshall's favour. But Tendulkar has twice as much longevity and still an amazing record. Marshall did get to play a high proportion of his career in his physical prime.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Comparing longevity of batsmen to bowlers is kinda misleading. Sachin's longevity is amazing but there are a good amount of bats who have 18+ year career.
BazBall21
International Captain
Not sure. 24 years longevity is unprecedented in the modern era and I give bowlers leeway when there's a 5-year gap. Not when it's 10+. Longevity is a big point in Tendulkar's favour here. Less so against Pigeon.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Again, Tendulkar's 18 years of 157 tests at 60, averaging 45 in every country and opponent, is the greatest achievement of longevity in cricket history. Enough for me to put him ahead of Marshall.
Coronis
International Coach
Most players with such long careers tend to be allrounders, unsurprisingly.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Probably because
1) To be an elite allrounder you need to have elite physical fitness which is one of the most important aspect of longevity.
2) Being multiskilled means even if you are not elite at one skill anymore you can get picked based on your other skill. Or the combination of those two skills is more valuable than the one competing with your place.
Coronis
International Coach
Oh thanks I was confused.