McGrath. Marshall. Hadlee.

[Sliferxxxx]

No fair enough he didn't have absolutely trash lineups, mostly medium ones, just not many strong ones.

The weakest batting Marshall faced consistently was probably England. But first series he faced Boycott, Gooch, Gower and pre-garbage Botham. Not elite but not dire either. His best series in '88 was vs the same lot minus Boycott but with Gatting and Lamb. Again nothing special but not dire and compares favorably to 90s English teams.

 

[subshakerz]

The weakest batting Marshall faced consistently was probably England. But first series he faced Boycott, Gooch, Gower and pre-garbage Botham. Not elite but not dire either. His best series in '88 was vs the same lot minus Boycott but with Gatting and Lamb. Again nothing special but not dire and compares favorably to 90s English teams.

Sure I would call those medium lineups. Maybe early 80s reasonably good.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I agree about current bowlers and have argued that very same thing with Bumrah.

This is probably the best time to be a bowler tbh. I was even more convinced of that after seeing what NZ bowling did in India and what our amateur bowlers did in Pakistan. But Bumrah is special and distinguishes himself from contemporaries by being elite (almost) everywhere he plays.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Sure I would call those medium lineups. Maybe early 80s reasonably good.

Good talk. I'm off to bed. We'll continue this later.

 

[subshakerz]

Good talk. I'm off to bed. We'll continue this later.

Night.

 

[capt_Luffy]

By far. Players just aren't cut out for the limited stuff sometimes. Has no bearing whatsoever on their status in tests. Walsh, Ambrose, Steyn, Imran, Marshall etc were all much worse in ODIs than tests. Ditto batsmen like Smith, Lara, S Waugh, Border etc.

Ambrose wasn't

 

[kyear2]

Marshall has stat inflation based on the greatest support bowling group shielding his stats a bit and retiring 2-3 years earlier than normal. Also mostly faced ordinary lineups compared to the rest of the ATGs.

But I though that the argument was that the quartet hardly actually played together.

Not to add that some of marshalls's greatest performances came in the absence of some of not all of the others. And that when Marshall missed games, even with all of that support, they often lost.

Then there was the point that he never played against minnows. What was Imran's and Hadlee's numbers again vs SL? Hadlee 6 games @ 12, Imran 10 games @ 14?

And he faced ordinary teams? But Immy, Hadlee and Dev didn't? But wait, they didn't primarily because they had to face the WI right? But Dev and Imran had their lowest averages vs the WI and Hadlee averaged 22, among his lowest as well? Oh wow.

And speaking of stat inflation, Imran didn't have the greatest stat inflation in the game by have the ultimate home advantage of biased umpires and rampant ball tampering? With a split during his bowling career of 17 @ home and 25 @ away?
And what about Murali and his home conditions and record vs minnows, how about Tendulkar, his home conditions, strong batting support and again, record vs minnows? Does that count as inflation as well?

And speaking of facing off against tougher opposition, Hadlee's highest average was actually against Pakistan, Dev averaged over 30 against them as well, Botham's 2nd highest average was against Pakistan as well. Not to add that all of their highest averages in a country was against again..... Yes you guessed it, Pakistan.
And who was often next? New Zealand.

And Maco was protected by his team mates? Didn't McGrath also have Gillespie and Warne? I mean while McGrath often got things started, Warne was often the match winner on day 4 and 5. And if he was so protected, then I imagine his wpm and wpi would be inferior to McGrath's, yet..... Maco had a wpi of 4.6 compared to Pige's 4.5, wpi are also similarly slanted towards Maco. In fact, when we look at 5 wicket hauls Marshall has 22 from 81 tests at a percentage of about 27%, which McGrath had 29 from 124 tests at a percentage of 23%. Not to mention of course that Marshall had that ridiculous s/ r of 46? For the 101st time, Marshall was driving the bus, and the bus was one of the two greatest teams of all time. It could also be argued that he did so far more than McGrath. Was McGrath also protected? Was he the bus driver?
How about Steyn, he played with ridiculous supporting casts as well from Pollock and Ntini to Philander and Rabada. And be had unparalleled helpful pitches at home for a pacer.

Let's look the man of the match and man of the series awards. From 21 series Marshall had 6, from 42 McGrath 5, while Warne had 8? MOM, Marshall 10, McGrath 11 and Warne 17, we all know the difference in the no. of matches played.

And again, no minnows.

Nothing you say is statistically, anecdotally or otherwise backed up by anything but your opinion and what if's. Yes he played for a decade, but in as condensed a schedule as there's been and while bowling at express pace for the majority of that.

Not only was he the greatest pacer of all time, and very arguably the greatest bowler, he also has an argument to be among the most impactful players on the landscape of the game and greatest since Sobers.

But you keep looking for excuses.

 

[kyear2]

The notion that Marshall would end with a mid 20s average with Hadlee's load or whatever other bs is absurd. For one, without competition he'd also, have more of a crack at tail end wickets which was usually left to Garner and co.

Hadlee managed to be a lone warrior, why couldn't Marshall? His record without Holding and, or Garner I don't believe was any worse. Some of his best series, either one or both were absent.

 

[kyear2]

hard to say if Marshall would've declined, many people lose their pace and just reinvent themselves to be effective.

He delevoped cutters and also never lost his ability to swing the ball. He was as complete a bowler and had as well rounded a tool kit as anyone who's played the game.

But now we're down to "what if's"

 

[kyear2]

Old Steyn failed in spicy sa pitches.
View attachment 46791

Steyn was renowned for not having a plan B, even in his prime.

They were not the same type of bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

Whoo boy

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee managed to be a line warrior, why couldn't Marshall? His record without Holding and, or Garner I don't believe was any worse. Some of his best series, either one or both were absent.

Not based what we saw in the 92 WC and B&W. He seemed washed up as a bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

But I though that the argument was that the quartet hardly actually played together.

Not to add that some of marshalls's greatest performances came in the absence of some of not all of the others. And that when Marshall missed games, even with all of that support, they often lost.

Then there was the point that he never played against minnows. What was Imran's and Hadlee's numbers again vs SL? Hadlee 6 games @ 12, Imran 10 games @ 14?

And he faced ordinary teams? But Immy, Hadlee and Dev didn't? But wait, they didn't primarily because they had to face the WI right? But Dev and Imran had their lowest averages vs the WI and Hadlee averaged 22, among his lowest as well? Oh wow.

And speaking of stat inflation, Imran didn't have the greatest stat inflation in the game by have the ultimate home advantage of biased umpires and rampant ball tampering? With a split during his bowling career of 17 @ home and 25 @ away?
And what about Murali and his home conditions and record vs minnows, how about Tendulkar, his home conditions, strong batting support and again, record vs minnows? Does that count as inflation as well?

And speaking of facing off against tougher opposition, Hadlee's highest average was actually against Pakistan, Dev averaged over 30 against them as well, Botham's 2nd highest average was against Pakistan as well. Not to add that all of their highest averages in a country was against again..... Yes you guessed it, Pakistan.
And who was often next? New Zealand.

And Maco was protected by his team mates? Didn't McGrath also have Gillespie and Warne? I mean while McGrath often got things started, Warne was often the match winner on day 4 and 5. And if he was so protected, then I imagine his wpm and wpi would be inferior to McGrath's, yet..... Maco had a wpi of 4.6 compared to Pige's 4.5, wpi are also similarly slanted towards Maco. In fact, when we look at 5 wicket hauls Marshall has 22 from 81 tests at a percentage of about 27%, which McGrath had 29 from 124 tests at a percentage of 23%. Not to mention of course that Marshall had that ridiculous s/ r of 46? For the 101st time, Marshall was driving the bus, and the bus was one of the two greatest teams of all time. It could also be argued that he did so far more than McGrath. Was McGrath also protected? Was he the bus driver?
How about Steyn, he played with ridiculous supporting casts as well from Pollock and Ntini to Philander and Rabada. And be had unparalleled helpful pitches at home for a pacer.

Let's look the man of the match and man of the series awards. From 21 series Marshall had 6, from 42 McGrath 5, while Warne had 8? MOM, Marshall 10, McGrath 11 and Warne 17, we all know the difference in the no. of matches played.

And again, no minnows.

Nothing you say is statistically, anecdotally or otherwise backed up by anything but your opinion and what if's. Yes he played for a decade, but in as condensed a schedule as there's been and while bowling at express pace for the majority of that.

Not only was he the greatest pacer of all time, and very arguably the greatest bowler, he also has an argument to be among the most impactful players on the landscape of the game and greatest since Sobers.

But you keep looking for excuses.

Marshall had great games also with the others present.

Was talking about the quality of stronger teams Marshall faced and it was less than his peers or others.

They all tampered. Will you cut points off this for Marshall compared to McGrath?

Murali and Tendulkar aren't pacers.

McGrath didn't have Marshall level support quality.

MOM is a bogus measure.

You don't acknowledge him retiring early which is an obvious help to his stats.

 

[kyear2]

Maco retired at 33.

The best record among fast bowlers after that age is McGrath, Hadlee, Anderson, Walsh & Ambrose.

Donald’s average slipped to 25 after turning 33.
Steyn barely played and his average dipped to 28.

I am of the opinion that Marshall was more similar in style and speed to the latter group of bowlers than the former group of bowlers who didn’t rely much on pace.

I know you never watched him, so that's excusable, but Subz knows better.

Look at his '88 England series, look at how he adapted and bowled in Adelaide.

He already showed signs of a decline slightly once his peak finished which is why he was removed as new ball bowler.

Last 15 tests, 50 wickets@23.5. Still quite good but evidence that with less support and more years it likely would have ballooned.

He gave up the new ball because w head two of the best and brightest young prospects at the time , who among all of these bowlers were beating out Bishop and Ambrose?

Oh wow, 23.5 from his last 15 tests, that's horrible???

Likely to have ballooned.....

So instead of critiquing his actual career, we're into "likely to have"

What if Imran didn't have his " home advantages" ? What if Sachin didn't play the minnows as often, played his home matches in SA during the '90's instead of India.... Do we see where this goes?

So the question becomes, did he play enough or didn't he? Was the 376 wickets at 20.94 with a s/r of 46 enough? Was being the best in the world for 7 years enough? Was spearheading one of the two greatest teams of all time enough?

 

[kyear2]

he has 40+ wickets in his last ten tests with a 21 avg tho

Conveniently ignored.

 

[kyear2]

Ambrose did not rely much on speed even early on and that’s why he could play for longer period without his average getting affected.

Again, not true.

Ambrose was never as quick as Marshall, but he was quick. Before the surgery he was very fast, plus the bounce, plus the accuracy.

Marshall had all of those attributes as well. The only thing Marshall didn't produce on the field was reverse swing. He had accuracy, pace, that skiddy bounce, in and out swing, cutters. The narrative that Subz is again trying to create with his "may have's and " likely to have" or just " likely" is a joke.

Ambrose was never as skilled as Marshall was. Sir Curtly dragged back his length and placed it on a dime, Malcolm was just as capable of that.

It's crazy that when @subshakerz is arguing against Ambrose, it's that he didn't have the skill set of Marshall to adapt to the SC, particularly India, and as such his argument is that he would have likely failed there.

Notice the inconsistencies? And that his arguments against these guys are always hypotheticals?

 

[kyear2]

Lol lol yeah keep telling yourself that. Never heard about any of them taking the literal ball back to the dressing room....

It's desperation and creating a level of false equivalency or "what aboutism"

It's a necessity for him to maintain his guys legitimacy.

 

[kyear2]

They were all cheats by your standard. Holding himself all but admitted to being a tamperer. Marshall likely picked the seam in every spell. Just get off this track

This word again.

Pathetic

How about the home umpires?

 

[kyear2]

Yeah Australia away is about it, imo. And had he toured away to India in 1995, that may have proved bad as well. But then again, there was a much weaker NZ team that we faced right after. So these things even out.

And again, which minnows did he face during his career that boosted the averages of others during that era?

Imagine him having 10 shots at SL like some did, what's his average then?

This entire argument is incredibly disingenuous.

 

[subshakerz]

I know you never watched him, so that's excusable, but Subz knows better.

Look at his '88 England series, look at how he adapted and bowled in Adelaide.



He gave up the new ball because w head two of the best and brightest young prospects at the time , who among all of these bowlers were beating out Bishop and Ambrose?

Oh wow, 23.5 from his last 15 tests, that's horrible???

Likely to have ballooned.....

So instead of critiquing his actual career, we're into "likely to have"

What if Imran didn't have his " home advantages" ? What if Sachin didn't play the minnows as often, played his home matches in SA during the '90's instead of India.... Do we see where this goes?

So the question becomes, did he play enough or didn't he? Was the 376 wickets at 20.94 with a s/r of 46 enough? Was being the best in the world for 7 years enough? Was spearheading one of the two greatest teams of all time enough?

It ballooned in ODIs after the retired from tests. It began to dip in tests anyways.