McGrath. Marshall. Hadlee.

[subshakerz]

Just so we're clear, you essentially agree with me (where have I heard that b4) but for whatever choose chaos...I'm joking. But seriously, as long as you acknowledge that if Marshall has flaws according to you, then accept that Sachin and others that you rate highly also have their sets of flaws.

Yes I have been clear on Sachins blemishes. Lack of ATG and mega series.

Imran, relatively shorter worldclass bowling period due to injury, batting a bit inflated due to end boost, poor fielder.

Who else?

 

[sayon basak]

Just so we're clear, you essentially agree with me (where have I heard that b4) but for whatever choose chaos...I'm joking. But seriously, as long as you acknowledge that if Marshall has flaws according to you, then accept that Sachin and others that you rate highly also have their sets of flaws.

He probably does.

 

[Johan]

Everyone's favourite Cricketers are flawed, except mine, they're perfect.

 

[subshakerz]

Everyone's favourite Cricketers are flawed, except mine, they're perfect.

Viv used to be one of your favorites.

 

[vidiq]

Donald. Steyn.

Both looked way below their best once age/injuries caught up with them and Maco had similar style.

 

[kyear2]

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.

It's actually amazing how everything you've said there is conjecture and bullshit.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall tampered. Get over it.

So full of nonsense

Throwing around accusations with nothing more to support it than, you want it to be so.

That's desperation.

 

[kyear2]

Thanks for confirming your overrating of Marshall.

That's not explaining.

Why can Sachin and Hobbs be considered but Marshall can't?

We're ranking how many batsmen above the best and more impactful bowler?

 

[kyear2]

Marshall. Hadlee. McGrath.
All top notch fast bowlers.

Yes they are.

There's a couple things about Hadlee though that just has him a touch lower for me. As I said, still same tier though.

I've touched on them in the last, so no need to revisit. But the other two has a better case to me.

 

[Johan]

Macko's case for the GOAT bowler is the most solid, but McGrath is a great shout.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Yes they are.

There's a couple things about Hadlee though that just has him a touch lower for me. As I said, still same tier though.

I've touched on them in the last, so no need to revisit. But the other two has a better case to me.

In terms of elite class batting wise we probably have:

Sachin
Hobbs
Sobers
Viv

Bowling

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Warne
Murali

The spinners aren't necessarily better than certain fast bowlers but they're the elite of the elite.

I say all this too say that, Marshall and the other two pacers imo, are in the same class as Sachin and Hobbs etc.

Ps I kinda feel like Smith will join the elite class by the time all is said and done.

 

[kyear2]

I may be wrong but maybe that’s what @kyear2 is trying to say.

Marshall may not have the longevity of McGrath or carrying an attack with zero support like Hadlee but in terms of quality Maco was the absolute best

We can debate how he may have dipped if he performed for few more years or he may not have done so well without support but that’s just speculation

Quality, adaptability to all types or surfaces and in most conditions, tool kit and could play any role from containment, to slowing down and rolling cutters, to enforcer to swinging it both ways. He was the best.

McGrath has a higher average than Ambrose, he's still rated higher, Hadlee averaged lower than Lillee yet most from that era still rates Lillee higher.

Viv's average fell at the end, everyone who watched him still rated one of the very best ever.

The argument is purely speculation and conjecture, but how does it impact what he did?

 

[kyear2]

Yeah that's mostly true, the difference always seems to come down to extra weak lineups, good batting lineups often have similar output given the era is similar enough (IE not 1950s or 2000s). Generally feel like it's kind of overstated how say Ponting's, or Marshall's numbers would be affected if they played against their own lineups, Windies of late 80s and early 90s was a vulnerable batting unit.

Yes they were.

 

[kyear2]

If he takes say 30 wickets in 5 Tests and his career stats read as 235 wickets @ 19.2, what happens?

Approaching the top 10

 

[subshakerz]

That's not explaining.

Why can Sachin and Hobbs be considered but Marshall can't?

We're ranking how many batsmen above the best and more impactful bowler?

He doesn't belong with Sobers and Bradman.

It's actually amazing how everything you've said there is conjecture and bullshit.

Not an argument.

So full of nonsense

Throwing around accusations with nothing more to support it than, you want it to be so.

That's desperation.

You actually think Marshall was clean? How quaint. His own mate Holding was an admitted tamperer.

Life will.be better for you once you accept Marshall wasn't perfect.

 

[kyear2]

I suspect he will say he doesn't. But then at times he has suggested Marshall belongs in a trinity with Bradman and Sobers.


Yes not many very strong lineups but plenty of middle of the road ones. Again it doesn't stop him from being no.1. All players having blemishes.

In terms of legacy, Bradman and Sobers stand alone in the Pantheon, and in a tier of their own.

In terms of rating though it's just a top tier of
Bradman * Sobers * Marshall * Hobbs * McGrath * Hadlee * Warne * Richards * Tendulkar.

With regards to an AT XI, it's definitely separate tiers.

Bradman | Sobers (no discussion, you write down the names)

Marshall | Tendulkar | Hobbs ( there can be discussion and even a little dissent, but any credible XI will have them)

Warne | Gilchrist (one has a close direct competitor and the other a philosophical opposite, but Warne always wins out and Gilchrist is often the balanced choice for most)

What I have said in the past is that if I'm actually building a team to win a test series, or an one off WTC final, that they are not only my first three picks, I'm not sold that the order is set in stone.

He lacks the legacy that they have, and even the gap they have over the 2nd place guys, but the most critical member of any test team is the guy who gets the first crack at the cherry, and for me that's him. He's the likely match winner, the leader of the attack.

He's not comparable to them on legacy.

 

[kyear2]

@Sliferxxxx you see I tried to make peace and what do I get lol

In fairness that was before any said offer.

But also, stop with the phantom arguments and false aspersions.

 

[kyear2]

Nah a part of me feels bad for Kyear ngl.

And the very next post with the bullshit.

What is wrong with you?

 

[subshakerz]

And the very next post with the bullshit.

What is wrong with you?

I'm fine. You're not though. Hence I pity you.

In fairness that was before any said offer.

But also, stop with the phantom arguments and false aspersions.

I've asked you several times that we should chill.

In terms of legacy, Bradman and Sobers stand alone in the Pantheon, and in a tier of their own.

In terms of rating though it's just a top tier of
Bradman * Sobers * Marshall * Hobbs * McGrath * Hadlee * Warne * Richards * Tendulkar.

With regards to an AT XI, it's definitely separate tiers.

Bradman | Sobers (no discussion, you write down the names)

Marshall | Tendulkar | Hobbs ( there can be discussion and even a little dissent, but any credible XI will have them)

Warne | Gilchrist (one has a close direct competitor and the other a philosophical opposite, but Warne always wins out and Gilchrist is often the balanced choice for most)

What I have said in the past is that if I'm actually building a team to win a test series, or an one off WTC final, that they are not only my first three picks, I'm not sold that the order is set in stone.

He lacks the legacy that they have, and even the gap they have over the 2nd place guys, but the most critical member of any test team is the guy who gets the first crack at the cherry, and for me that's him. He's the likely match winner, the leader of the attack.

He's not comparable to them on legacy.

You kinda confirming what I said.

 

[kyear2]

Yes I have been clear on Sachins blemishes. Lack of ATG and mega series.

Imran, relatively shorter worldclass bowling period due to injury, batting a bit inflated due to end boost, poor fielder.

Who else?

14 man of the match awards and 5 player of the series awards for 200 matches and 74 series is at best underwhelming. It wasn't just that he have mega series, for all of the hundreds a d runs, he didn't take over matches and series like he should have.

Stark and unprecedented gap between home and away bowling record, despite Pakistan being landed as the toughest place to bowl. His record is more impacted by "home advantages" than any other ATG bowler.

Fixed it for you.