Marshall vs Imran (as bowlers)

[kyear2]

I agree, Richards sucks. Nice to see it admitted.

Yeah, sure. What ever makes you happy.

Yes, slower is better, I get it. Even if they average the same, or played in weaker eras, slower is better.

 

[kyear2]

If we don’t care about Imran (or any other ATG player) then this whole forum becomes very sad.

Just because every single post he makes is about Imran, he thinks everyone's the same.

I find it hilarious how they totally ignore the obvious but gaslight it to say anyone who sees it is biased against him

 

[kyear2]

Just because Marshall and McGrath played in better teams is irrelevant to how good they were. All ATG pacers make their side better.


Huh? So WI of the early 80s before Marshall wasnt an ATG side?

This is so very ignorant. I've consistently said it's not what make them the best, they have way better arguments, the entire forum voted them 1 and 2 by considerable margins. I've said it about 5 times now, but you're fixated on it because you have no other argument.
We have other posters saying next man up would have done the same. These arguments are disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and actually sad.

Yes, it's a plus for me, it doesn't out them there, but it's a validation that the best two bowlers were also able to assist those team reach immortality.

What about that is offensive to you. Like WTF.

The entire argument has been fast bowlers are more important, the win and lose game, if you can bat that brings so much more value. But now, nah, it doesn't matter.

With out McGrath, Australia does not achieve their position in history, period. That's undisputable, so to diminish that by saying anyone else could have done, but none of them actually did, is intellectually dishonest.

 

[smash84]

Just because every single post he makes is about Imran, he thinks everyone's the same.

I find it hilarious how they totally ignore the obvious but gaslight it to say anyone who sees it is biased against him

Dude you've been singing the same tune for the past 13 years, it's very predictable. Pretty sure you will ignore all the arguments presented to you in this and other threads and start a new one about how it doesn't make sense why bowling all rounders can be rated high and how slip fielding and 5th bowler is more valuable than bowling all rounders. Then you will proceed to give arguments in favour of McGrath and Marshall because they were "winners". Then Sobers is the 2nd greatest cricketer because he was standing in the slips to Lance Gibbs or someone and so bowling all rounders don't matter. Conveniently ignoring any good argument presented and refusing to consider it while bringing random criteria and proceeding as if your points weren't addressed.

 

[kyear2]

FWIW, I do think Marshall is a tier above Imran as a bowler. Not that Imran is not great, but Marshall is just so much better from everything I have read.

He was, And @subshakerz knows it as well, he's said it in the last, but can't possibly acknowledge it now, so creates stawman argument to justify his position.

It's like no one can say, damn I was wrong.

 

[subshakerz]

He was, And @subshakerz knows it as well, he's said it in the last, but can't possibly acknowledge it now, so creates stawman argument to justify his position.

It's like no one can say, damn I was wrong.

No, I repeat, Marshall is the only one with a clear case ahead of all the other ATG pacers by a small but notable margin. Does that mean a tier ahead? I guess it depends on definitions.

 

[subshakerz]

This is so very ignorant. I've consistently said it's not what make them the best, they have way better arguments, the entire forum voted them 1 and 2 by considerable margins. I've said it about 5 times now, but you're fixated on it because you have no other argument.
We have other posters saying next man up would have done the same. These arguments are disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and actually sad.

Yes, it's a plus for me, it doesn't out them there, but it's a validation that the best two bowlers were also able to assist those team reach immortality.

WI were already immortal before Marshall. By the time Marshall left, WI were much weaker. Your argument falls apart there.

What about that is offensive to you. Like WTF.

The entire argument has been fast bowlers are more important, the win and lose game, if you can bat that brings so much more value. But now, nah, it doesn't matter.

With out McGrath, Australia does not achieve their position in history, period. That's undisputable, so to diminish that by saying anyone else could have done, but none of them actually did, is intellectually dishonest.

It's just a silly and bad argument, that's why it's offensive.

I wouldn't mind it as much if you said that because Marshall and McGrath were spearheads of the greatest teams in history, it feels suitable that they are the top two. That's fine.

But then you make an emotional response into an actual argument to waste our time with, that's the issue. You are forcing us to speculate whether McGrath was irreplaceable for Aus or if Hadlee could have done the same, and there is no way we can know.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, sure. What ever makes you happy.

Yes, slower is better, I get it. Even if they average the same, or played in weaker eras, slower is better.

Weird way to take it since I was quoting you talking about him falling off a cliff lol.

subs has got you all riled up again, take a nice relaxing break for a few hours mate (though I do love the drama)

 

[kyear2]

Dude you've been singing the same tune for the past 13 years, it's very predictable. Pretty sure you will ignore all the arguments presented to you in this and other threads and start a new one about how it doesn't make sense why bowling all rounders can be rated high and how slip fielding and 5th bowler is more valuable than bowling all rounders. Then you will proceed to give arguments in favour of McGrath and Marshall because they were "winners". Then Sobers is the 2nd greatest cricketer because he was standing in the slips to Lance Gibbs or someone and so bowling all rounders don't matter. Conveniently ignoring any good argument presented and refusing to consider it while bringing random criteria and proceeding as if your points weren't addressed.

None of this was about Sobers. That's the difference.

Want to address each point carefully, because I've done it last night multiple times but it's easy to ignore posts you disagree with.

For 13 years I've said Imran"s home record is seriously inflated. No other great pacer in that era had a home and away skew that was that drastic. First the argument was that it was because of his early career, but in his peak it was exactly the same 6 runs home and away difference,. In an era, where all the best conditions were supposedly outside of Pakistan, it's an issue.
His way average of over 25, doesn't put him in the same category of the top couple of names here and if that was his actual average there would be no discussion of him in this tier or the next one.

My point on the other thread again isn't about pulling down Imran, as it was immediately interpreted. It's always bowling all rounders are better, with absolutely no imperial or anecdotal evidence to support it btw, and I'm asking why is their secondary skill deemed so much more important, In comparison to the rest.

Every great team in the last 35 plus years I've watched relied heavily on a great cordon to win, but it's given zero acknowledgment here, especially by the SC posters. Your argument is always, have you never seen the impact of....., have you? I just watched Pakistan lose a test series because of bad slip fielding. Australia, the West Indies, South Africa, New Zealand nor the great bowlers they've produced aren't nearly as successful without the contributions of the names I've mentioned so many times already, but its conveniently ignored here. They have simply had more impact on the success of great teams of, well quite frankly every modern era, than bowling all rounders have.

The other argument is that in an ATG team every run is important, so every run you can get with the lower order is critical. With a bowling line up of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee and Steyn, all bowlers who got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket, and all being accustomed to stellar support back there, what's more important than ensuring that they do.
I'm not saying lower order runs isn't important, I'm saying both are. But with both it's a balance, Kallis is a bit too far down the order, so is Hammond, but I can bring in Sunny over Hutton, it's not the perfect solution, but it's a balanced compromise. Similar to Hadlee over McGrath, as they are rated literally next to each other.

If every run matters, surely every wicket as well, even more so. But it doesn't seem like an issue till someone is dropped and goes on to score a ton. In an elevated level neither Imran's batting nor Sobers bowling is going to turn a match, there's going to be diminished returns. That's like expecting Carl Hooper to help turn the tide in such a game, he would literally be a non factor, the catching of your specialists in the slips however, wouldn't be.

The batting all-rounders one is less of an issue because Sobers and Kallis gets their due (except from the guy who thinks pulling down JK helps to make Imran look better) in teams etc, Kallis though, when you factor in his bowling and considerable skills in the cordon, could be rated higher tbh.

The final point of the other thread was that, in the same way that bowling all rounders gets such a push from their secondary skills in the ratings, why doesn't the Ponting's, Hammond's, Chappell's, Kallis's, even Simpson's of the world, as they all were literal game changers in the cordon. And if bowlers are more important, then so are the guys that helps them take most.of their wickets. Again it wasn't don't include the batting for the bowlers, but factor in these skills as well. It literally like, only these skills matter, these don't, and that's not how cricket has ever been played or won.

So yes, you need all three to make a balanced cricket team, just have to find the right balance where the primary skills is still prioritized.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok let's take apart this mess.

None of this was about Sobers. That's the difference.

We know, it's about Imran. It's always been about Imran.

Want to address each point carefully, because I've done it last night multiple times but it's easy to ignore posts you disagree with.

For 13 years I've said Imran"s home record is seriously inflated. No other great pacer in that era had a home and away skew that was that drastic. First the argument was that it was because of his early career, but in his peak it was exactly the same 6 runs home and away difference,. In an era, where all the best conditions were supposedly outside of Pakistan, it's an issue.
His way average of over 25, doesn't put him in the same category of the top couple of names here and if that was his actual average there would be no discussion of him in this tier or the next one.

Yup we get it, Imran did too well at home and therefore should be penalised. If he averaged 22 at home, maybe you would forgive him averaging 25 away, as if that is your real issue.

My point on the other thread again isn't about pulling down Imran, as it was immediately interpreted. It's always bowling all rounders are better, with absolutely no imperial or anecdotal evidence to support it btw, and I'm asking why is their secondary skill deemed so much more important, In comparison to the rest.

Because you set up a scenario in which there will be low scoring games therefore don't penalise us for prioritizing their runs.

Every great team in the last 35 plus years I've watched relied heavily on a great cordon to win, but it's given zero acknowledgment here, especially by the SC posters. Your argument is always, have you never seen the impact of....., have you? I just watched Pakistan lose a test series because of bad slip fielding. Australia, the West Indies, South Africa, New Zealand nor the great bowlers they've produced aren't nearly as successful without the contributions of the names I've mentioned so many times already, but its conveniently ignored here. They have simply had more impact on the success of great teams of, well quite frankly every modern era, than bowling all rounders have.

Nobody is arguing for a bad slip. You are arguing that having an elite slip is more necessary than actual runs on the board from your lower order, but in the scenario you have set, runs are a premium, so its a bad argument.

The other argument is that in an ATG team every run is important, so every run you can get with the lower order is critical. With a bowling line up of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee and Steyn, all bowlers who got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket, and all being accustomed to stellar support back there, what's more important than ensuring that they do.
I'm not saying lower order runs isn't important, I'm saying both are. But with both it's a balance, Kallis is a bit too far down the order, so is Hammond, but I can bring in Sunny over Hutton, it's not the perfect solution, but it's a balanced compromise. Similar to Hadlee over McGrath, as they are rated literally next to each other.

You aren't even disagreeing with our argument. In fact, you dont have a counterargument.

If every run matters, surely every wicket as well, even more so. But it doesn't seem like an issue till someone is dropped and goes on to score a ton. In an elevated level neither Imran's batting nor Sobers bowling is going to turn a match, there's going to be diminished returns. That's like expecting Carl Hooper to help turn the tide in such a game, he would literally be a non factor, the catching of your specialists in the slips however, wouldn't be.

What? This is nonsense. Wickets always matter but this is just wordplay to diminish the value of runs in low-scoring scenarios. You never address this.

The batting all-rounders one is less of an issue because Sobers and Kallis gets their due (except from the guy who thinks pulling down JK helps to make Imran look better) in teams etc, Kallis though, when you factor in his bowling and considerable skills in the cordon, could be rated higher tbh.

Tertiary skills like fielding can be tiebreakers between selecting cricketers but not merits to overhaul primary/seconday skills, no matter how much you want to keep Imran out.

The final point of the other thread was that, in the same way that bowling all rounders gets such a push from their secondary skills in the ratings, why doesn't the Ponting's, Hammond's, Chappell's, Kallis's, even Simpson's of the world, as they all were literal game changers in the cordon. And if bowlers are more important, then so are the guys that helps them take most.of their wickets. Again it wasn't don't include the batting for the bowlers, but factor in these skills as well. It literally like, only these skills matter, these don't, and that's not how cricket has ever been played or won.

No. We all understand a hierarchy of primary, secondary and tertiary skills. The same way we won't bring Taylor's captaincy to suggest he was a better cricketer than say Mark Waugh.

You've got your priorities wrong, you make slip fielding a major factor of selection and lower order runs a tiebreaker. You need us to correct you.

 

[smash84]

None of this was about Sobers. That's the difference.

Want to address each point carefully, because I've done it last night multiple times but it's easy to ignore posts you disagree with.

For 13 years I've said Imran"s home record is seriously inflated. No other great pacer in that era had a home and away skew that was that drastic. First the argument was that it was because of his early career, but in his peak it was exactly the same 6 runs home and away difference,. In an era, where all the best conditions were supposedly outside of Pakistan, it's an issue.
His way average of over 25, doesn't put him in the same category of the top couple of names here and if that was his actual average there would be no discussion of him in this tier or the next one.

My point on the other thread again isn't about pulling down Imran, as it was immediately interpreted. It's always bowling all rounders are better, with absolutely no imperial or anecdotal evidence to support it btw, and I'm asking why is their secondary skill deemed so much more important, In comparison to the rest.

Every great team in the last 35 plus years I've watched relied heavily on a great cordon to win, but it's given zero acknowledgment here, especially by the SC posters. Your argument is always, have you never seen the impact of....., have you? I just watched Pakistan lose a test series because of bad slip fielding. Australia, the West Indies, South Africa, New Zealand nor the great bowlers they've produced aren't nearly as successful without the contributions of the names I've mentioned so many times already, but its conveniently ignored here. They have simply had more impact on the success of great teams of, well quite frankly every modern era, than bowling all rounders have.

The other argument is that in an ATG team every run is important, so every run you can get with the lower order is critical. With a bowling line up of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee and Steyn, all bowlers who got most of their dismissals caught behind the wicket, and all being accustomed to stellar support back there, what's more important than ensuring that they do.
I'm not saying lower order runs isn't important, I'm saying both are. But with both it's a balance, Kallis is a bit too far down the order, so is Hammond, but I can bring in Sunny over Hutton, it's not the perfect solution, but it's a balanced compromise. Similar to Hadlee over McGrath, as they are rated literally next to each other.

If every run matters, surely every wicket as well, even more so. But it doesn't seem like an issue till someone is dropped and goes on to score a ton. In an elevated level neither Imran's batting nor Sobers bowling is going to turn a match, there's going to be diminished returns. That's like expecting Carl Hooper to help turn the tide in such a game, he would literally be a non factor, the catching of your specialists in the slips however, wouldn't be.

The batting all-rounders one is less of an issue because Sobers and Kallis gets their due (except from the guy who thinks pulling down JK helps to make Imran look better) in teams etc, Kallis though, when you factor in his bowling and considerable skills in the cordon, could be rated higher tbh.

The final point of the other thread was that, in the same way that bowling all rounders gets such a push from their secondary skills in the ratings, why doesn't the Ponting's, Hammond's, Chappell's, Kallis's, even Simpson's of the world, as they all were literal game changers in the cordon. And if bowlers are more important, then so are the guys that helps them take most.of their wickets. Again it wasn't don't include the batting for the bowlers, but factor in these skills as well. It literally like, only these skills matter, these don't, and that's not how cricket has ever been played or won.

So yes, you need all three to make a balanced cricket team, just have to find the right balance where the primary skills is still prioritized.

I was going to respond to this, but thankfully subz did it. Come back in 2037 and keep repeating the same stuff. At least you're consistent in repeating the same nonsense for well over a decade

Also it is so silly to keep bringing up home/away averages for Imran. Addressed so many times and yet repeated.

 

[kyear2]

Ok let's take apart this mess.


We know, it's about Imran. It's always been about Imran.


Yup we get it, Imran did too well at home and therefore should be penalised. If he averaged 22 at home, maybe you would forgive him averaging 25 away, as if that is your real issue.


Because you set up a scenario in which there will be low scoring games therefore don't penalise us for prioritizing their runs.


Nobody is arguing for a bad slip. You are arguing that having an elite slip is more necessary than actual runs on the board from your lower order, but in the scenario you have set, runs are a premium, so its a bad argument.


You aren't even disagreeing with our argument. In fact, you dont have a counterargument.


What? This is nonsense. Wickets always matter but this is just wordplay to diminish the value of runs in low-scoring scenarios. You never address this.


Tertiary skills like fielding can be tiebreakers between selecting cricketers but not merits to overhaul primary/seconday skills, no matter how much you want to keep Imran out.


No. We all understand a hierarchy of primary, secondary and tertiary skills. The same way we won't bring Taylor's captaincy to suggest he was a better cricketer than say Mark Waugh.

You've got your priorities wrong, you make slip fielding a major factor of selection and lower order runs a tiebreaker. You need us to correct you.

Ok I'll say this so even tou can understand.

Averaging 25 away is the issue, so unless he's playing every game in 1980's Pakistan, yes it's important. In an era where the conditions everywhere were supposed better than the home ones, to average 25 away is not ideal.

Let's make this clear, no secondary skills is worth sacrificing the primary skills for. Same way I'm not going to include Hammond or Kallis, I'm not including Imran either. Don't care if you agree.

Yes lower order batting is important, not important enough for me to sacrifice the bowling.

Yes, I'm saying the history of the game has shown us that a great slip fielder is just as important or more so than lower order batting, you are free to show me the examples of great teams that lacked a great cordon and relied heavily on a bowling all rounder to be dominant. In weaker teams, both are equally important because you still need to take every chance as well as score very run. Think that would be obvious.

Again, to repeat because you've raised the question again, no secondary skill is worth overhauling your primary unit for.

Again you're wrong and purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying. You've mastered the art of trolling to frustrate people. I've said both are tie breakers, and honestly it's way past the point of misrepresenting and outright lying.

And no you're not correcting anyone, you're being you, what you need to do is widen your narrow viewpoint of the game beyond one player.

 

[kyear2]

I was going to respond to this, but thankfully subz did it. Come back in 2037 and keep repeating the same stuff. At least you're consistent in repeating the same nonsense for well over a decade

Also it is so silly to keep bringing up home/away averages for Imran. Addressed so many times and yet repeated.

Addressed how? None of the other greats from the era had such a poor away record in neutral conditions. It's never been addressed it's been ignored because there is no answer.

And subs repeated the same **** he does when he has no response.

To say one secondary skill is worth ignoring primary skills for is crazy, especially when you have Hadlee than can already address it without sacrificing bowling skills.

CW just did a poll, Imran was the 8th rated bowler, if I pushed Hammond into the team as the 10th rated batsman to stand in first slip, that's insane. But to force the 8th best bowler because he may score runs in a series is fine. It's a double standard and the drop off isn't worth it. Period.

You say I underrate the value of lower order batting, show me the instances that lower order batting has elevated a team to greatness. I can show you examples where slip fielding has, one isn't below the other. And I'm still not trying to shoehorn people in.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I still don’t see the issue with Imran averaging 25 away. He didn’t have any problems bowling in any conditions.

I can understanding marking a player down for their away record if it shows some type of flaw in their game (Sehwag in SA and Eng, Ponting in India) but CW has taken this obsession with away records way too far.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok I'll say this so even tou can understand.

Averaging 25 away is the issue, so unless he's playing every game in 1980's Pakistan, yes it's important. In an era where the conditions everywhere were supposed better than the home ones, to average 25 away is not ideal.

Lol you literally just said For 13 years I've said Imran"s home record is seriously inflated.
Now you contradict yourself again. And we have established that you are willing to overlook Steyn away in a way you won't for Imran.

Let's make this clear, no secondary skills is worth sacrificing the primary skills for. Same way I'm not going to include Hammond or Kallis, I'm not including Imran either. Don't care if you agree.

Yes lower order batting is important, not important enough for me to sacrifice the bowling.

You aren't addressing the argument. Low-scoring ATGs contests make bowling AR runs more important.
Instead you are just mindlessly repeating your 'specialists or nothing' dogma. I guess you feel cornered.

Yes, I'm saying the history of the game has shown us that a great slip fielder is just as important or more so than lower order batting, you are free to show me the examples of great teams that lacked a great cordon and relied heavily on a bowling all rounder to be dominant. In weaker teams, both are equally important because you still need to take every chance as well as score very run. Think that would be obvious.

Again you're wrong and purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying. You've mastered the art of trolling to frustrate people. I've said both are tie breakers, and honestly it's way past the point of misrepresenting and outright lying.

And no you're not correcting anyone, you're being you, what you need to do is widen your narrow viewpoint of the game beyond one player.

Which great slip fielder is being sacrificed by having a bowling AR? Why are you mixing these two issues? Stop this obfuscation.

 

[subshakerz]

I still don’t see the issue with Imran averaging 25 away. He didn’t have any problems bowling in any conditions.

I can understanding marking a player down for their away record if it shows some type of flaw in their game (Sehwag in SA and Eng, Ponting in India) but CW has taken this obsession with away records way too far.

The only reason he brings it up is neutralise Imran's awesome home record. He does the same with Imran in WI, where taking 6 wickets a game doesn't meet ATG standards according to him, whereas he would have Ambrose taking 13 wickets in SA in four tests as meeting that standard since it is a lower average.

 

[honestbharani]

so saltshakerz Vs kyear is now the new Richard Vs tec huh?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Sometimes players just end up performing better at home. It happens. In an alternate timeline, it’s possible the scheduling was a bit different and the same exact bowler had a 21/23 split.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

so saltshakerz Vs kyear is now the new Richard Vs tec huh?

I’m enjoying it tbh

 

[ataraxia]

This is my point when persons back a player and then consistently have to move the goal posts to accommodate their argument.

No, my argument is now and will always be

S I X T E E N P O I N T E I G H T O H
I
X
T
E
E
N
P
O
I
N
T
E
I
G
H
T
O
H

I just find all the excuses I can to point that out.