Marshall vs McGrath vs Hadlee

[shortpitched713]

He does relative to the other ATGs of his time, at least a couple of points less.

He averaged a couple of points less than Hadlee, which when you consider the factors, is very easy to explain. Swap the sides, and I think you more or less end up swapping the averages, imo.

 

[subshakerz]

He averaged a couple of points less than Hadlee, which when you consider the factors, is very easy to explain. Swap the sides, and I think you more or less end up swapping the averages, imo.

Hadlee would likely average less I agree but not sure Marshall would average that much more. But again, this is hypothetical, you judge them based on their existing careers.

 

[shortpitched713]

I have watched Waqar, who had a similar MO to Steyn who I also watched, and it is exactly what happened. They couldn't build up pressure, they would give boundary bowls in their search for a wicket, and when conditions were slightly batting friendly, they could often be hit out of the attack.

We've described opposite ends of a spectrum, which ultimately comes down to a matter of subjective preference. Just like batting where I very slightly prefer the higher SR batsman, I'll prefer the lower SR strike bowler (being the ace strike bowler is important here, definitely don't want Aqib Javed bowling in a manner to minimize his SR).

How is this possibly being used as some sort of objective criteria to pick Marshall over Steyn?

 

[shortpitched713]

Hadlee would likely average less I agree but not sure Marshall would average that much more. But again, this is hypothetical, you judge them based on their existing careers.

Yup, and given that I've got Hadlee coming up trumps over Marshall, for pretty much the same reason I rate Murali as the 2nd greatest bowler of all time. The lone hand workload combined with such an excellent standard of performance is so, so special to achieve.

 

[subshakerz]

What you're describing here is skill. Marshall was the most skilled bowler of the 5, including McGrath. But no duh, of course he would be. He was the shortest of them, and so lacked that natural advantage. Curry is going to be more skilled than Lebron, who will in turn be more skilled than Kareem Abdul Jabbar. That isn't the thing that determines which of them was greater, however, especially in the case of these fast bowlers when there's not a real difference in results and performance.

Marshall was skill translated into wicket-taking effectiveness ahead of his peers.

This test is the best example. A complete spinning track with Allan Border taking eleven wickets yet Marshall through cutting his pace and using cutters delivered a masterful performance.

AUS vs WI Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Sydney, January 26 - 30, 1989

Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, AUS vs WI, West Indies tour of Australia 1988/89 at Sydney Cricket Ground dated January 26 - 30, 1989.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[kyear2]

I like balance between ER and SR tbh. And Marshall is more proven than Ambrose in Asia. I give Ambrose credit for his outstanding record against Australia. A stronger side than anyone Marshall faced. Steyn had harsher challenges than Marshall on the whole too. Marshall is my #1 but no doubt he probably had the most favourable circumstances of all the ATG quicks apart from maybe Trueman.

While Steyn played in an overall tougher era, that didn't (for the most part) include his home pitches, and he played comparatively way more games at home than away. He also had a few odd games vs minnows to help assist his numbers.
Also the pitches in India, Pakistan, and (some in) Australia during Marshall's era were not bowler friendly. Also not all of the WI pitches were not helpful to pace, Queens Park, Georgetown, St. Johns were not overly helpful with Bridgetown and Kingstown being quite a bit more so.

 

[subshakerz]

We've described opposite ends of a spectrum, which ultimately comes down to a matter of subjective preference. Just like batting where I very slightly prefer the higher SR batsman, I'll prefer the lower SR strike bowler (being the ace strike bowler is important here, definitely don't want Aqib Javed bowling in a manner to minimize his SR).

How is this possibly being used as some sort of objective criteria to pick Marshall over Steyn?

Because Marshall was objectively tighter than Steyn as a bowler, while still maintaining an exceptional SR like Steyn. He had the best of both worlds.

 

[BazBall21]

While Steyn played in an overall tougher era, that didn't (for the most part) include his home pitches, and he played comparatively way more games at home than away. He also had a few odd games vs minnows to help assist his numbers.
Also the pitches in India, Pakistan, and (some in) Australia during Marshall's era were not bowler friendly. Also not all of the WI pitches were not helpful to pace, Queens Park, Georgetown, St. Johns were not overly helpful with Bridgetown and Kingstown being quite a bit more so.

QPO does generally offer uneven bounce which is good for all bowlers. Georgetown and Antigua though were and are generally unhelpful yes.

 

[subshakerz]

Why is Marshall the greatest? Because he could knock the bat out of Gavaskar's hands on a Kanpur pitch, and the others can't.

 

[shortpitched713]

Because Marshall was objectively tighter than Steyn as a bowler, while still maintaining an exceptional SR like Steyn. He had the best of both worlds.

Except that he didn't. Steyn had an overall SR of 42.38, and Marshall had one of 46.76 which is higher. I'll admit, this is compensated by the fact that Marshall was "tighter", and thus had a lower ER.

If what you're describing was true than Marshall would have a much, much better average than Steyn, which is not true. This is just the maths of it. I attribute the small difference that does exist in average to different conditions (think overall Steyn and McGrath are even better than equal to their older peers on the impressiveness of average, but access to minnows more or less equalizes).

 

[subshakerz]

Except that he didn't. Steyn had an overall SR of 42.38, and Marshall had one of 46.76 which is higher. I'll admit, this is compensated by the fact that Marshall was "tighter", and thus had a lower ER.

If what you're describing was true than Marshall would have a much, much better average than Steyn, which is not true. This is just the maths of it. I attribute the small difference that does exist in average to different conditions (think overall Steyn and McGrath are even better than equal to their older peers on the impressiveness of average, but access to minnows more or less equalizes).

Marshall does have a notably better average than Steyn who had much better home conditions to bowl on than Marshall did.

 

[BazBall21]

Why is Marshall the greatest? Because he could knock the bat out of Gavaskar's hands on a Kanpur pitch, and the others can't.

I think about that spell a lot.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall was skill translated into wicket-taking effectiveness ahead of his peers.

This test is the best example. A complete spinning track with Allan Border taking eleven wickets yet Marshall through cutting his pace and using cutters delivered a masterful performance.

AUS vs WI Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Sydney, January 26 - 30, 1989

Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, AUS vs WI, West Indies tour of Australia 1988/89 at Sydney Cricket Ground dated January 26 - 30, 1989.

www.espncricinfo.com

Examples in Sydney and Adelaide, that's what separates him from the rest. MCG sure, Kingston of course, it's the guys that excelled in less favorable conditions as well
India in '83, he was pitches be damned and still shocked with his pace.

 

[kyear2]

QPO does generally offer uneven bounce which is good for all bowlers. Georgetown and Antigua though were and are generally unhelpful yes.

I'll concede this, it wasn't quick though.

 

[shortpitched713]

Marshall does have a notably better average than Steyn who had much better home conditions to bowl on than Marshall did.

"Notably better average", "Much better home conditions", are a bit weaselly and doing a lot of work here. I'd say these factors are rather close. Away conditions for Steyn are much, much tougher (see I can do that too), so I don't think this reasoning ends up working out.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall does have a notably better average than Steyn who had much better home conditions to bowl on than Marshall did.

This.

 

[BazBall21]

I'll concede this, it wasn't quick though.

Yeah agree. QPO actually favours spin. Lloyd has a dodgy record there yet absolutely killed spin in India.

 

[subshakerz]

"Notably better average", "Much better home conditions", are a bit weaselly and doing a lot of work here. I'd say these factors are rather close. Away conditions for Steyn are much, much tougher (see I can do that too), so I don't think this reasoning ends up working out.

Yes but you agree Steyn played the majority of his career on more helpful home pitches?

Anyways as you say these factors are close so Marshall ends up statistically superior as a result.

 

[kyear2]

"Notably better average", "Much better home conditions", are a bit weaselly and doing a lot of work here. I'd say these factors are rather close. Away conditions for Steyn are much, much tougher (see I can do that too), so I don't think this reasoning ends up working out.

You asked a question, then ignoring all the answers and that's fine. But don't pretend that you're open to objective arguments.

I watched all of Ambrose's career, like I saw all of Lara's. And while Lara is the best batsman I've ever seen, I acknowledge I missed the very best of Viv. Ambrose as great as he is and a top 5 bowler ever imo, and both being from the WI btw, isn't nearly the bowler Maco was.
I love Steyn more than most, he's in my all time XI, he could be as destructive as anyone, but he could also go for runs and always didn't seem to have a plan B.

I'm not trying to tear down any of the 5, because I think they have clearly separated themselves from the rest, and we're all brilliant and we don't need to denigrate to promote others. There are differences however.

And to say that people rank Marshall higher because of small differences in average or strike rate, it's because of his skills, versatility and adaptability that those differences exists.

 

[shortpitched713]

You asked a question, then ignoring all the answers and that's fine. But don't pretend that you're open to objective arguments.

I think if you run the numbers all together (including the effect of much tougher away conditions for Steyn than Marshall), it will end up being a wash. Just can't be bothered doing it myself right now, but I'll concede if someone does and it shows something opposite my intuition.