McGrath vs Jack Hobbs

[Sliferxxxx]

Sachin is just better than Marshall even if he never bowled a ball.

Up to your old bs. Tendulkar is not better than Marshall. You can say in your opinion that's fine but lets not act like it's definitive. Just because MM was in a team with bowling star power, doesn't discredit his accomplishments ie excellence every where vs everyone including in Pakistan on pitches that made the likes of Lillee and co cry. Remove Marshall from 80s WI and they lose away to Pakistan in 1986, results in India in 83 changes (Garner was missing and Roberts on his last legs).

 

[subshakerz]

So Lloyd wasn't the impactful one, it was Lillee and Thompson?

Interesting perspective though.

They both impacted but Lillee introduced the modern aggro approach. Imran and Hadlee and others influenced by him.

 

[subshakerz]

Up to your old bs. Tendulkar is not better than Marshall. You can say in your opinion that's fine but lets not act like it's definitive. Just because MM was in a team with bowling star power, doesn't discredit his accomplishments ie excellence every where vs everyone including in Pakistan on pitches that made the likes of Lillee and co cry. Remove Marshall from 80s WI and they lose away to Pakistan in 1986, results in India in 83 changes (Garner was missing and Roberts on his last legs).

Marshalls impact was for a short period even by pacers standards and against pretty ordinary standards of opposition. We don't need to pretend he was infallible.

As mentioned, McGrath was worldclass twice as long as Marshall.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Marshalls impact was for a short period even by pacers standards and against pretty ordinary standards of opposition. We don't need to pretend he was infallible.

As mentioned, McGrath was worldclass twice as long as Marshall.

Ordinary opposition? A Pak team with Akram, Imran and Javed not to mention Qasim etc you call ordinary? That team was better than any team currently playing barring India and maybe Australia. Away to Pakistan and India in the 80s, was as big an ask for a pacer then, as it's ever been and Malcolm excelled. And again he never played any minnows. And 81 tests is plenty. Interesting that you bring up career length considering that you yourself rank O'Reilly over Ashwin and Ashwin has played many more tests than Bill....

 

[subshakerz]

Ordinary opposition? A Pak team with Akram, Imran and Javed not to mention Qasim etc you call ordinary? That team was better than any team currently playing barring India and maybe Australia. Away to Pakistan and India in the 80s, was as big an ask for a pacer then, as it's ever been and Malcolm excelled. And again he never played any minnows. And 81 tests is plenty. Interesting that you bring up career length considering that you yourself rank O'Reilly over Ashwin and Ashwin has played many more tests than Bill....

Yes Pak was a relatively ordinary batting lineup.

The only really quality lineup he was worldclass against in his peak was Ind, which was a fantastic series.

But Eng, NZ, Pak and Aus generally had ordinary batting sides in his time.

His peak was 6 years, McGrath was worldclass for twice than that while Tendulkar had twice as long a career.

O Reilly is a pre WW2 cricketer, completely different.

 

[kyear2]

They both impacted but Lillee introduced the modern aggro approach. Imran and Hadlee and others influenced by him.

Yeah, I call bullshit a little on that.

Lillee started in 1971, so did Imran and Hadlee was like two years after? Hadlee started off as a tear away, but Lillee wasn't even Lillee until the same '72 / '73. Find it hard to believe that they would have changed their entire style in weeks if not months.

Just as much hyperbole as Paddles asking himself WWLD... Really now.

 

[kyear2]

Ordinary opposition? A Pak team with Akram, Imran and Javed not to mention Qasim etc you call ordinary? That team was better than any team currently playing barring India and maybe Australia. Away to Pakistan and India in the 80s, was as big an ask for a pacer then, as it's ever been and Malcolm excelled. And again he never played any minnows. And 81 tests is plenty. Interesting that you bring up career length considering that you yourself rank O'Reilly over Ashwin and Ashwin has played many more tests than Bill....

I was going to answer, but realised he was just trolling as usual.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, I call bullshit a little on that.

Lillee started in 1971, so did Imran and Hadlee was like two years after? Hadlee started off as a tear away, but Lillee wasn't even Lillee until the same '72 / '73. Find it hard to believe that they would have changed their entire style in weeks if not months.

Just as much hyperbole as Paddles asking himself WWLD... Really now.

I can give you the interview (it's in Urdu tho) where Imran says when he first saw Lillee bowl in England he said he wanted to become like him and not a medium pacer despite his English coaches telling him otherwise.

Lillee had a massive impact on Hadlee I believe when Hadlee was impressed by how he came back from injury and then became a craftier bowler once his pace dropped. He would ask himself what would Lillee do while bowling according to his own admission.

And of course Lillees aggro approach (with Thommo) was one big reason WI took the same approach and decided to go all pacers after 75/76. Lloyd said so himself.

 

[subshakerz]

I was going to answer, but realised he was just trolling as usual.

I'm not. I genuinely believe Tendulkar is better than Marshall and have give these same answers in their specific thread. Marshall is being overrated by you.

Malcolm Marshall vs. Sachin Tendulkar

Who is the greater cricketer?

www.cricketweb.net

 

[kyear2]

Yes Pak was a relatively ordinary batting lineup.

The only really quality lineup he was worldclass against in his peak was Ind, which was a fantastic series.

But Eng, NZ, Pak and Aus generally had ordinary batting sides in his time.

His peak was 6 years, McGrath was worldclass for twice than that while Tendulkar had twice as long a career.

O Reilly is a pre WW2 cricketer, completely different.

Pakistan didn't average more per innings than the same West Indies? Miandad at the centre of that lineup?

England. Gooch, Gower, Lamb, Smith.

Australia had Border and got stronger as the decade, including a Waugh twin.

 

[subshakerz]

Pakistan didn't average more per innings than the same West Indies? Miandad at the centre of that lineup?

The 80s team was generally medium on batting. 70s they had a better batting unit.

England. Gooch, Gower, Lamb, Smith.

Lol c'mon man. What a reach.

Australia had Border and got stronger as the decade, including a Waugh twin.

The batting lineup during his peak was pretty ordinary. Probably in 1990 was a reasonably decent side but certainly not the ones he faced in Aus.

 

[DrWolverine]

And of course Lillees aggro approach (with Thommo) was one big reason WI took the same approach and decided to go all pacers after 75/76. Lloyd said so himself.

True

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Pakistan didn't average more per innings than the same West Indies? Miandad at the centre of that lineup?

England. Gooch, Gower, Lamb, Smith.

Australia had Border and got stronger as the decade, including a Waugh twin.

What that poster fails to appreciate whether out of ignorance or pure hard headedness is that he makes it seem that :
A Sachin faced a bunch of atg all the time
B He was outstanding vs them all the time

He wasn't. Sachin himself faced minnowesque level vs Zim, Ban and WI attacks (post 2000s), poor NZ attacks outside of one series in 2002 featuring Bond hardly faced the WWs or McWarne but he was tested vs South Africa generally. My point? Sachin faced greatness and afaic he did ok but he also faced horrendous barely test level attacks quite often. Marshall faced nothing of the sorts. The worst batting Marshall faced on a regular were Australia and England. His best series in '88 vs England featured Gooch, Lamb, Gatting, Gower etc. That lineup is better than current WI, RSA, and Ban.

 

[subshakerz]

What that poster fails to appreciate whether out of ignorance or pure hard headedness is that he makes it seem that :
A Sachin faced a bunch of atg all the time
B He was outstanding vs them all the time

Never said that.

But Sachin was tested by worldclass bowlers and attacks relatively more than Marshall with strong batting lineups in his career.

Combine that with his longevity and Sachin has a more compelling case IMO.

The worst batting Marshall faced on a regular were Australia and England. His best series in '88 vs England featured Gooch, Lamb, Gatting, Gower etc. That lineup is better than current WI, RSA, and Ban.

Lol you really want to pretend that Eng lineup was a strong batting lineup? Come on man.

The only truly strong batting lineups I can recall Marshall faced were in India in 83 and Aus in 90. Aside from that, they were relatively medium to weak lineup. McGrath and Akram faced stronger ones more consistently. In fact, in his own era, Hadlee and Imran faced stronger lineups too.

All of this doesn't take away Marshall being the best pacer ever but these are legit blemishes that even out the equation with Tendulkar.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Never said that.

But Sachin was tested by worldclass bowlers and attacks relatively more than Marshall with strong batting lineups in his career.

Combine that with his longevity and Sachin has a more compelling case IMO.


Lol you really want to pretend that Eng lineup was a strong batting lineup? Come on man.

The only truly strong batting lineups I can recall Marshall faced were in India in 83 and Aus in 90. Aside from that, they were relatively medium to weak lineup. McGrath and Akram faced stronger ones more consistently. In fact, in his own era, Hadlee and Imran faced stronger lineups too.

All of this doesn't take away Marshall being the best pacer ever but these are legit blemishes that even out the equation with Tendulkar.

England weren't strong, I never said that but their batting was better than the bowling equivalent from Ban, Zimbabwe, NZ (barring the 2002 series) and WI post 2000 that SRT faced.

And Imran and Hadlee faced WI who were stronger that's it. They also faced minnowesque SL: 10 times and 6 times respectively. A team Marshall never faced. And playing in Pakistan as a non Pakistani had it's own 'unique' challenges and Marshall thrived there.

 

[subshakerz]

England weren't strong, I never said that but their batting was better than the bowling equivalent from Ban, Zimbabwe, NZ (barring the 2002 series) and WI post 2000 that SRT faced.

Great we agree England wasn't strong.

And Imran and Hadlee faced WI who were stronger that's it. They also faced minnowesque SL: 10 times and 6 times respectively. A team Marshall never faced. And playing in Pakistan as a non Pakistani had it's own 'unique' challenges and Marshall thrived there.

Moot point since Imran and Hadlee played WI 18 and 10 times respectively. And that's not even counting the strong Aussie side they faced in the 70s and early 80s.

There is no doubt Imran and Hadlee were better tested against stronger lineups the same way Sachin was.

You can admit a weakness in Marshalls record while still championing him.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Great we agree England wasn't strong.


Moot point since Imran and Hadlee played WI 18 and 10 times respectively. And that's not even counting the strong Aussie side they faced in the 70s and early 80s.

There is no doubt Imran and Hadlee were better tested against stronger lineups the same way Sachin was.

You can admit a weakness in Marshalls record while still championing him.

It's not a weakness because Hadlee and Imran played against those same batting lineups. And they weren't better tested either, a foreign fast bowler in the 80s away to Pakistan was enough of a test as anyting else. Ditto India.

And you need to admit, Sachin wasn't completely flawless himself: he lacks a monster series vs greatness, lacks monster series in general relative to other atgs. Also, he generally came off 2nd best imo vs the great attacks he faced: Donald/Pollock, Wws and Mc Warne. He did fine vs Walsh and Ambrose in one series but you yourself have championed the fact that post surgery, Ambrose wasn't near the same level he was pre-op. Not completely out of the realms of possibility to rate Sachin better but imo, he wasn't.

Anyway, I'm moving on from this. The thread is about two different cricketers.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not a weakness because Hadlee and Imran played against those same batting lineups. And they weren't better tested either, a foreign fast bowler in the 80s away to Pakistan was enough of a test as anyting else. Ditto India.

I never made the argument that Marshall wasn't tested in different conditions. But it's entirely different to being tested against quality lineups. You can't say ignore SL for Hadlee and Imran if we don't care how strong their lineups are.

And you need to admit, Sachin wasn't completely flawless himself: he lacks a monster series vs greatness, lacks monster series in general relative to other atgs.

I've always admitted at least this as a weakness for Tendulkar. Not the rest.

Anyways back to Hobbs vs McGrath...

 

[DrWolverine]

Sachin played a 5 Test series just thrice in his career. Anyway Sachin was more about consistency and longevity than peak.

 

[Coronis]

Yes Pak was a relatively ordinary batting lineup.

The only really quality lineup he was worldclass against in his peak was Ind, which was a fantastic series.

But Eng, NZ, Pak and Aus generally had ordinary batting sides in his time.

His peak was 6 years, McGrath was worldclass for twice than that while Tendulkar had twice as long a career.

O Reilly is a pre WW2 cricketer, completely different.

Jeez mate just shut the **** up