Marshall vs Imran (as bowlers)

[PlayerComparisons]

Most agree that Marshall is better but are they in the same tier or different tiers?

 

[subshakerz]

Define tier.

 

[Slifer]

Both atg afaic.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Both in same tier, but different sub tier. The top tier of bowlers: Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Imran, Ambrose. In this: Top 3 in their own sub tier, Steyn by himself(slightly more complete than Immy and Ambrose for me), then Imran and Ambrose(and maybe Donald).

 

[ankitj]

Both in same tier, but different sub tier.

Plot thickens.

 

[CricketFan90s]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/con...000s-vs-2010s-who-will-win-a-tournament.5907/
Join the Conversation if anyone is interested ?

 

[Swamp Witch Hattie]

Plot thickens.

If you can talk about a tier and a sub tier, can you talk about a super tier and what exactly is it? What about a sub sub tier and a sub sub sub tier? If a sub sub tier contains just one bowler then what does a sub sub sub tier contain? Just the bowling arm?

from dictionary.com:



So we now know that a wedding cake has six tiers and a firm's management has three tiers but the number of bowling tiers remains a mystery.

I found this from Google:



Both Marshall and Imran had Advanced bowling ability so I think that they would be in the same tier.

 

[kyear2]

Most agree that Marshall is better but are they in the same tier or different tiers?

I see you love turmoil

 

[kyear2]

Marshall is the GOAT. No other bowler has the combination of resume, skill set, home and away record and consistent excellence spanning all opponents and conditions.

In that top tier with him I include McGrath for his accuracy and continued excellent into the slower pitch era, with his ability to target the oppositions best batsmen and capitalize on key moments. It was uncanny

And Hadlee for his ability to carry an attack on his own and make NZ relevant. Yes he had perfect home conditions, but was mostly equally excellent away.

Controversial, but Marshall and McGrath gets bonus points for being the reason their teams were the best two ever. No one else has to agree, but Brady is seen as the goat for a reason..

After that there comes the second tier imo.

Steyn, Muralitharan, Warne, Ambrose. Imran, Donald and Lillee (in that order) can fall onto this category, but it varies. For the sake of this argument, will just include Imran, but think the 3 of them are close for different reasons, Lillee lacks the raw numbers and the resume across different conditions though.

Great players with great holes or questions though.

Steyn gets credit for the flat era, but did most of his work at home, and his England record is baffling. His economy rate is above what's deemed as great and more likely than any of the other ATG pacers be taken apart. But as likely as he was to be taken apart, he was more likely to wreck havoc as well. His record in India, and against that lineup was special.

Murali and Warne were excellent, but, and this seems to apply to spinners in general, were dominated by the best batsmen of their generation. From memory and even watching extended clips, I've never seen a great bowler bowl so many bad balls and get wickets with as many ordinary or bad balls as Shane Warne, it was crazy at times. The gaping holes vs India, Lara, and for Murali, Australia doesn't allow them into the top tier.

The first half of Ambrose's career he was top tier, after the surgery he was merely great. His career strike rate and tendency to drag back the length when things weren't going well and his overall inability to destroy teams the same in his second half of his career also drops him down slightly. Contrary to what is sometimes given as facts, he was tested in flat conditions and his overseas record is excellent. His exploits vs Australia and England were epic.

Imran for the duration of his career didn't excel away from home in the same way as his contemporaries. His averages in India and Australia were not flattering and in general outside of Pakistan wasn't even in the same tier of the others being re referenced. A 6 run difference between home and away average in a bowling era paled in comparison to his contemporaries. Even during his peak that difference was maintained. His career s/r was also comparable to that of Ambrose and a bit higher than most of the others. He did pioneer reverse swing and was at his best vs the Windies.

There were two possible reasons for this disparity, and for the sake of this discussion I'll go with the 2nd. From reading through the Steyn vs Imran thread, Subz reiterated that Imran wasn't much of an out swing bowler, but that he didn't need to be.. While that is perfectly suited for the low bouncing wickets in Pakistan, it's less ideal for higher bounce wickets in Australia and NZ, but doesn't explain his performances in India. Would have also shown the inability to adapt to different, even if more helpful conditions.

After that it's possibly Donald, Lillee, Wasim and possibly Garner, O'Reilly and Trueman.

The thing is that everyone's, or most people's opinions here are entrenched, so morning anyone else says matter.

But again interesting that Subz (who loves Lara btw) has stated that while Lara was just behind Sachin in their own era, just isn't in the same tier as Sachin and the others, but he is next though....

I've been consistent, there's Bradman then the 3 with the best argument to be the best after Bradman, then there's the 4 right after them.
With bowlers it's the same. The 3 candidates for the best, then the next 5 after them.

Bradman // Tendulkar / Sobers / Hobbs

Richards / Smith / Lara / Hutton

&

Marshall // McGrath / Hadlee

Steyn / Warne / Muralitharan / Ambrose /
Imran


And I wouldn't bother to quote Subs when he has said in the past that Marshall was the only bowler who separated himself from the rest and that for him, Hadlee and McGrath not so much.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall is the GOAT. No other bowler has the combination of resume, skill set, home and away record and consistent excellence spanning all opponents and conditions.

In that top tier with him I include McGrath for his accuracy and continued excellent into the slower pitch era, with his ability to target the oppositions best batsmen and capitalize on key moments. It was uncanny

And Hadlee for his ability to carry an attack on his own and make NZ relevant. Yes he had perfect home conditions, but was mostly equally excellent away.

I think you just feel Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee have the best records in that order. Which is fine, so do I. You don't need to add the other points as arbitrary criteria because then you have put people in an ill-defined tier based on different reasons.

Controversial, but Marshall and McGrath gets bonus points for being the reason their teams were the best two ever. No one else has to agree, but Brady is seen as the goat for a reason..

Controversial because it is wrong. Marshall himself took the reigns when WI were already the best team in history. In fact, they became weaker by the time Marshall was done.

The first half of Ambrose's career he was top tier, after the surgery he was merely great. His career strike rate and tendency to drag back the length when things weren't going well and his overall inability to destroy teams the same in his second half of his career also drops him down slightly. Contrary to what is sometimes given as facts, he was tested in flat conditions and his overseas record is excellent. His exploits vs Australia and England were epic.

Glad you begrudgingly concede on this.

Steyn gets credit for the flat era, but did most of his work at home, and his England record is baffling. His economy rate is above what's deemed as great and more likely than any of the other ATG pacers be taken apart. But as likely as he was to be taken apart, he was more likely to wreck havoc as well. His record in India, and against that lineup was special.

Imran for the duration of his career didn't excel away from home in the same way as his contemporaries. His averages in India and Australia were not flattering and in general outside of Pakistan wasn't even in the same tier of the others being re referenced. A 6 run difference between home and away average in a bowling era paled in comparison to his contemporaries. Even during his peak that difference was maintained. His career s/r was also comparable to that of Ambrose and a bit higher than most of the others. He did pioneer reverse swing and was at his best vs the Windies.

There were two possible reasons for this disparity, and for the sake of this discussion I'll go with the 2nd. From reading through the Steyn vs Imran thread, Subz reiterated that Imran wasn't much of an out swing bowler, but that he didn't need to be.. While that is perfectly suited for the low bouncing wickets in Pakistan, it's less ideal for higher bounce wickets in Australia and NZ, but doesn't explain his performances in India. Would have also shown the inability to adapt to different, even if more helpful conditions.

Just want to note the inconsistencies in how you approach Steyn and Imran who have the closest home/away career records. Except for England, no mention of Steyn's high averages in Aus, SL, UAE or comparable high away average overall to Imran (the clear dodge here is to say, Imran's high home/away split because you know this makes Imran look worse since he did better at home than Steyn). No mention of Imran's late career batting extension affecting his bowling. You give Steyn credit for a flat era and none for Imran for his home record on flat beds, as is your tendency with SC pacers. You mention Imran's outswing limitation and not Steyn's inswing limitation. You mention Steyn in India and ignore Imran in WI.

Utterly wreaking of bias here.

But again interesting that Subz (who loves Lara btw) has stated that while Lara was just behind Sachin in their own era, just isn't in the same tier as Sachin and the others, but he is next though....

I've been consistent, there's Bradman then the 3 with the best argument to be the best after Bradman, then there's the 4 right after them.
With bowlers it's the same. The 3 candidates for the best, then the next 5 after them.

Bradman // Tendulkar / Sobers / Hobbs

Richards / Smith / Lara / Hutton

&

Marshall // McGrath / Hadlee

Steyn / Warne / Muralitharan / Ambrose / Imran
And I wouldn't bother to quote Subs when he has said in the past that Marshall was the only bowler who separated himself from the rest and that for him, Hadlee and McGrath not so much.

You have no criteria to define your tiers. It is just the favorites whom you select in one versus the other. I am far more consistent. Best bats of their era for batsmen and for bowlers, Marshall with the perfect record following by bowlers with well-rounded records but gaps.

At least mine doesn't get me to ignore player's gaps.

 

[ankitj]

Missed opportunity to OK that wall of text.

 

[smash84]

Marshall is the GOAT. No other bowler has the combination of resume, skill set, home and away record and consistent excellence spanning all opponents and conditions.

In that top tier with him I include McGrath for his accuracy and continued excellent into the slower pitch era, with his ability to target the oppositions best batsmen and capitalize on key moments. It was uncanny

And Hadlee for his ability to carry an attack on his own and make NZ relevant. Yes he had perfect home conditions, but was mostly equally excellent away.

Controversial, but Marshall and McGrath gets bonus points for being the reason their teams were the best two ever. No one else has to agree, but Brady is seen as the goat for a reason..

After that there comes the second tier imo.

Steyn, Muralitharan, Warne, Ambrose. Imran, Donald and Lillee (in that order) can fall onto this category, but it varies. For the sake of this argument, will just include Imran, but think the 3 of them are close for different reasons, Lillee lacks the raw numbers and the resume across different conditions though.

Great players with great holes or questions though.

Steyn gets credit for the flat era, but did most of his work at home, and his England record is baffling. His economy rate is above what's deemed as great and more likely than any of the other ATG pacers be taken apart. But as likely as he was to be taken apart, he was more likely to wreck havoc as well. His record in India, and against that lineup was special.

Murali and Warne were excellent, but, and this seems to apply to spinners in general, were dominated by the best batsmen of their generation. From memory and even watching extended clips, I've never seen a great bowler bowl so many bad balls and get wickets with as many ordinary or bad balls as Shane Warne, it was crazy at times. The gaping holes vs India, Lara, and for Murali, Australia doesn't allow them into the top tier.

The first half of Ambrose's career he was top tier, after the surgery he was merely great. His career strike rate and tendency to drag back the length when things weren't going well and his overall inability to destroy teams the same in his second half of his career also drops him down slightly. Contrary to what is sometimes given as facts, he was tested in flat conditions and his overseas record is excellent. His exploits vs Australia and England were epic.

Imran for the duration of his career didn't excel away from home in the same way as his contemporaries. His averages in India and Australia were not flattering and in general outside of Pakistan wasn't even in the same tier of the others being re referenced. A 6 run difference between home and away average in a bowling era paled in comparison to his contemporaries. Even during his peak that difference was maintained. His career s/r was also comparable to that of Ambrose and a bit higher than most of the others. He did pioneer reverse swing and was at his best vs the Windies.

There were two possible reasons for this disparity, and for the sake of this discussion I'll go with the 2nd. From reading through the Steyn vs Imran thread, Subz reiterated that Imran wasn't much of an out swing bowler, but that he didn't need to be.. While that is perfectly suited for the low bouncing wickets in Pakistan, it's less ideal for higher bounce wickets in Australia and NZ, but doesn't explain his performances in India. Would have also shown the inability to adapt to different, even if more helpful conditions.

After that it's possibly Donald, Lillee, Wasim and possibly Garner, O'Reilly and Trueman.

The thing is that everyone's, or most people's opinions here are entrenched, so morning anyone else says matter.

But again interesting that Subz (who loves Lara btw) has stated that while Lara was just behind Sachin in their own era, just isn't in the same tier as Sachin and the others, but he is next though....

I've been consistent, there's Bradman then the 3 with the best argument to be the best after Bradman, then there's the 4 right after them.
With bowlers it's the same. The 3 candidates for the best, then the next 5 after them.

Bradman // Tendulkar / Sobers / Hobbs

Richards / Smith / Lara / Hutton

&

Marshall // McGrath / Hadlee

Steyn / Warne / Muralitharan / Ambrose / Imran
And I wouldn't bother to quote Subs when he has said in the past that Marshall was the only bowler who separated himself from the rest and that for him, Hadlee and McGrath not so much.

Ok

 

[smash84]

Missed opportunity to OK that wall of text.

I stole your idea and did it regardless

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Marshall is the GOAT. No other bowler has the combination of resume, skill set, home and away record and consistent excellence spanning all opponents and conditions.

In that top tier with him I include McGrath for his accuracy and continued excellent into the slower pitch era, with his ability to target the oppositions best batsmen and capitalize on key moments. It was uncanny

And Hadlee for his ability to carry an attack on his own and make NZ relevant. Yes he had perfect home conditions, but was mostly equally excellent away.

Controversial, but Marshall and McGrath gets bonus points for being the reason their teams were the best two ever. No one else has to agree, but Brady is seen as the goat for a reason..

After that there comes the second tier imo.

Steyn, Muralitharan, Warne, Ambrose. Imran, Donald and Lillee (in that order) can fall onto this category, but it varies. For the sake of this argument, will just include Imran, but think the 3 of them are close for different reasons, Lillee lacks the raw numbers and the resume across different conditions though.

Great players with great holes or questions though.

Steyn gets credit for the flat era, but did most of his work at home, and his England record is baffling. His economy rate is above what's deemed as great and more likely than any of the other ATG pacers be taken apart. But as likely as he was to be taken apart, he was more likely to wreck havoc as well. His record in India, and against that lineup was special.

Murali and Warne were excellent, but, and this seems to apply to spinners in general, were dominated by the best batsmen of their generation. From memory and even watching extended clips, I've never seen a great bowler bowl so many bad balls and get wickets with as many ordinary or bad balls as Shane Warne, it was crazy at times. The gaping holes vs India, Lara, and for Murali, Australia doesn't allow them into the top tier.

The first half of Ambrose's career he was top tier, after the surgery he was merely great. His career strike rate and tendency to drag back the length when things weren't going well and his overall inability to destroy teams the same in his second half of his career also drops him down slightly. Contrary to what is sometimes given as facts, he was tested in flat conditions and his overseas record is excellent. His exploits vs Australia and England were epic.

Imran for the duration of his career didn't excel away from home in the same way as his contemporaries. His averages in India and Australia were not flattering and in general outside of Pakistan wasn't even in the same tier of the others being re referenced. A 6 run difference between home and away average in a bowling era paled in comparison to his contemporaries. Even during his peak that difference was maintained. His career s/r was also comparable to that of Ambrose and a bit higher than most of the others. He did pioneer reverse swing and was at his best vs the Windies.

There were two possible reasons for this disparity, and for the sake of this discussion I'll go with the 2nd. From reading through the Steyn vs Imran thread, Subz reiterated that Imran wasn't much of an out swing bowler, but that he didn't need to be.. While that is perfectly suited for the low bouncing wickets in Pakistan, it's less ideal for higher bounce wickets in Australia and NZ, but doesn't explain his performances in India. Would have also shown the inability to adapt to different, even if more helpful conditions.

After that it's possibly Donald, Lillee, Wasim and possibly Garner, O'Reilly and Trueman.

The thing is that everyone's, or most people's opinions here are entrenched, so morning anyone else says matter.

But again interesting that Subz (who loves Lara btw) has stated that while Lara was just behind Sachin in their own era, just isn't in the same tier as Sachin and the others, but he is next though....

I've been consistent, there's Bradman then the 3 with the best argument to be the best after Bradman, then there's the 4 right after them.
With bowlers it's the same. The 3 candidates for the best, then the next 5 after them.

Bradman // Tendulkar / Sobers / Hobbs

Richards / Smith / Lara / Hutton

&

Marshall // McGrath / Hadlee

Steyn / Warne / Muralitharan / Ambrose / Imran
And I wouldn't bother to quote Subs when he has said in the past that Marshall was the only bowler who separated himself from the rest and that for him, Hadlee and McGrath not so much.

Ok

 

[kyear2]

I think you just feel Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee have the best records in that order. Which is fine, so do I. You don't need to add the other points as arbitrary criteria because then you have put people in an ill-defined tier based on different reasons.


Controversial because it is wrong. Marshall himself took the reigns when WI were already the best team in history. In fact, they became weaker by the time Marshall was done.


Glad you begrudgingly concede on this.


Just want to note the inconsistencies in how you approach Steyn and Imran who have the closest home/away career records. Except for England, no mention of Steyn's high averages in Aus, SL, UAE or comparable high away average overall to Imran (the clear dodge here is to say, Imran's high home/away split because you know this makes Imran look worse since he did better at home than Steyn). No mention of Imran's late career batting extension affecting his bowling. You give Steyn credit for a flat era and none for Imran for his home record on flat beds, as is your tendency with SC pacers. You mention Imran's outswing limitation and not Steyn's inswing limitation. You mention Steyn in India and ignore Imran in WI.

Utterly wreaking of bias here.


You have no criteria to define your tiers. It is just the favorites whom you select in one versus the other. I am far more consistent. Best bats of their era for batsmen and for bowlers, Marshall with the perfect record following by bowlers with well-rounded records but gaps.

At least mine doesn't get me to ignore player's gaps.

They weren't the best team in history, don't think that occured till the mid '80's and by then Lloyd, Roberts etc had retired, Viv and Greenidge was on the decline, Holding was oft injured and heading for retirement. The only.reasin they maintained that level was because of him. You can choose to believe it or not. Matters no to me.

The second part of it is, why is Jordan considered the GOAT, Brady? To be able to elevate your team to the east counts for something, far less the best ever. Doesn't take away if you didn't, surely adds if you did.

Re Ambrose, he had a wrecked shoulder and he wasn't less effective, but yes, less destructive, doesn't take away from what he did or effect his standing... Unlike you I can accept that players had deficits.

Re Steyn and Imran, you totally ignore context.

Imran played in an era where Hadlee, and Marshall and before then Lillee was successful away from home, and Lillee for example is criticized for only playing on helpful surfaces. Australia were always a challenge, but everyone else had decent records there, India too wasn't a walk over in the 70's or early 80's but Marshall managed to do well as well. England was a bowlers paradise and the Caribbean had a mixed bag but it's share of helpful surfaces.

Steyn played in an era of flat ass pitches where mostly everyone struggled on them.

Imran, helpful era when his contemporaries out outperformed him in most of not all locales, Steyn, least helpful era since the '30's and '40's and outperformed his contemporaries.

Yes there's a reason why one performed better at home than away, what's the reason for the other?

How are these things not glaring obvious.

 

[kyear2]

Ok

Honestly getting to be sad.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Surprising result tbh. I’m not sure there’s enough difference between them to put them in separate tiers.

 

[kyear2]

I think you just feel Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee have the best records in that order. Which is fine, so do I. You don't need to add the other points as arbitrary criteria because then you have put people in an ill-defined tier based on different reasons.


Controversial because it is wrong. Marshall himself took the reigns when WI were already the best team in history. In fact, they became weaker by the time Marshall was done.


Glad you begrudgingly concede on this.


Just want to note the inconsistencies in how you approach Steyn and Imran who have the closest home/away career records. Except for England, no mention of Steyn's high averages in Aus, SL, UAE or comparable high away average overall to Imran (the clear dodge here is to say, Imran's high home/away split because you know this makes Imran look worse since he did better at home than Steyn). No mention of Imran's late career batting extension affecting his bowling. You give Steyn credit for a flat era and none for Imran for his home record on flat beds, as is your tendency with SC pacers. You mention Imran's outswing limitation and not Steyn's inswing limitation. You mention Steyn in India and ignore Imran in WI.

Utterly wreaking of bias here.


You have no criteria to define your tiers. It is just the favorites whom you select in one versus the other. I am far more consistent. Best bats of their era for batsmen and for bowlers, Marshall with the perfect record following by bowlers with well-rounded records but gaps.

At least mine doesn't get me to ignore player's gaps.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't make it biased.

You lack any all all objectivity when it comes to Imran, and about 3 others in the opposite direction, so thankfully your words have zero effect.

And yes there are about 5 others that actively dislike me because of my position, but there's no agenda, no bias, don't follow or aware of Pakistan politics, it's just these things are really obvious.

Re the all round aspect, that's just perspective, I don't rate lower order batting any higher than the other skills

Oh, and btw you literally admitted to Marshall being in another tier in your post, just thought I would point that out.

 

[kyear2]

Surprising result tbh. I’m not sure there’s enough difference between them to put them in separate tiers.

It's not, and you have this tendency when ever Subs and I have a disagreement to conduct a poll that you think will prove your collective points, did it several times with the Imran v Ambrose discussion.

The persons who have and will vote for the same tier option are not only predictable, I know who exactly will add to that vote, no matter the question the opposition will be the same, and they are the ones guaranteed to vote. Subz doesn't even believe they are in the same tier, but can't admit that here.

You should do a is Lara and Sachin in the same tier to see how he switches his tune.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

It's not, and you have this tendency when ever Subs and I have a disagreement to conduct a poll that you think will prove your collective points, did it several times with the Imran v Ambrose discussion.

The persons who have and will vote for the same tier option are not only predictable, I know who exactly will add to that vote, no matter the question the opposition will be the same, and they are the ones guaranteed to vote. Subz doesn't even believe they are in the same tier, but can't admit that here.

You should do a is Lara and Sachin in the same tier to see how he switches his tune.

Bro calm down don’t take these threads so seriously