Sachin Tendulkar vs Malcolm Marshall

[Slifer]

Never disagreed. Marshall had mind boggling consistency against every team. As for the average thing, Idk; 24 also feels kinda high to be 50. I don't think we could directly compare the two, Warne averages over 25 but is still an ATG.

I think spinners deserve a little more leeway. Murali's average is insane for a spinner, never mind his wpm.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It depends on deeper context, rather than generalisation, I guess. Marshall was better at home than SRT was in Ind, Marshall was a better bowler in Eng than Sachin was a batter there. Marshall was better in Ind, than Sachin in WI. Sachin was better in Aus, and Marshall better in Pak(cause Sachin only proved himself on flat tracks there mostly). Sachin was better in NZ, but Marshall only played 3 matches there, and Tendulkar didn’t face much great bowling. Basically where there is an overlap, Marshall is generally better.

I don't like this kind of comparison from country to country when the two players are:
1) have different primary disciple
2) careers didn't overlapped practically

Marshall vs Tendulkar ticks both boxes. Marshall in England faced better batsmen than Tendulkar did bowlers and vice versa for Australia, etc.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think spinners deserve a little more leeway. Murali's average is insane for a spinner, never mind his wpm.

Kinda agree. But still I don't think bowling and batting averages are similar enough to be converted this way.

 

[Slifer]

I don't like this kind of comparison from country to country when the two players are:
1) have different primary disciple
2) careers didn't overlapped practically

Marshall vs Tendulkar ticks both boxes. Marshall in England faced better batsmen than Tendulkar did bowlers and vice versa for Australia, etc.

The above results reflect how close they are which is fair tbh.

 

[kyear2]

So when he didn’t have the greatest bowling support of all time he couldn’t do anything against Sunny?
These checklist wars are silly

This is sincerely the most idiotic statement I've ever read on this forum.

And yes, cherry picking what results suit you is hilarious.

 

[Sunil1z]

This is sincerely the most idiotic statement I've ever read on this forum.

And yes, cherry picking what results suit you is hilarious.

Please decide what is the most idiotic statement you have read on this forum. You make this statement after every 3 days.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I don't like this kind of comparison from country to country when the two players are:
1) have different primary disciple
2) careers didn't overlapped practically

Marshall vs Tendulkar ticks both boxes. Marshall in England faced better batsmen than Tendulkar did bowlers and vice versa for Australia, etc.

I know, that’s why I’ve compensated for that. That’s why despite Marshall averaging very good in Aus, SRT is clearly ahead. And in India, overall Marshall faced as strong batting as Tendulkar in WI(think he faced weaker bowling later on), Eng as you said(which favours Marshall again as he aaverages sub 19 with a crazy SR and WPM there) and so on. And at home, Marshall just slightly ahead.

 

[kyear2]

Please decide what is the most idiotic statement you have read on this forum. You make this statement after every 3 days.

Well you're free to read the statement and decide.

It's devoid of logic, and purposely so.

 

[kyear2]

I don't see the need to defend Sachin's record to be honest, he's a top 4 batsman of all time, possibly as high as no. 2.

At this point it's just a personal preference or which discipline one seems to be more important

 

[Prince EWS]

I found this one really tough.

I rate Tendulkar's batting and Marshall's bowling as basically equal. Even their secondary skills if we want to go there are quite similar - Marshall a gun #9 or a decent #8 and Tendulkar not quite a regular fifth bowler but a gun sixth option when conditions suit. Tendulkar's slip fielding was sub par for a batsman of his quality so he doesn't get kyear points either.

I've gone for Marshall just because I think great bowlers are a little bit more useful than great batsmen of the same quality.

 

[subshakerz]

Please decide what is the most idiotic statement you have read on this forum. You make this statement after every 3 days.

Still haven't gotten over lower scores = runs arent that important.

 

[subshakerz]

At this point it's just a personal preference or which discipline one seems to be more important

Dude its always a personal preference for you, who are you kidding.

 

[subshakerz]

I know, that’s why I’ve compensated for that. That’s why despite Marshall averaging very good in Aus, SRT is clearly ahead. And in India, overall Marshall faced as strong batting as Tendulkar in WI(think he faced weaker bowling later on), Eng as you said(which favours Marshall again as he aaverages sub 19 with a crazy SR and WPM there) and so on. And at home, Marshall just slightly ahead.

And what about SA? SL? Tendulkar was just better tested.

 

[_00_deathscar]

This is sincerely the most idiotic statement I've ever read on this forum.

And yes, cherry picking what results suit you is hilarious.

Since you’re too thick to realise, that’s an example of what cherry picking stats can lead to conclusion wise because it’s getting really silly.

 

[Slifer]

I don't see the need to defend Sachin's record to be honest, he's a top 4 batsman of all time, possibly as high as no. 2.

At this point it's just a personal preference or which discipline one seems to be more important

Yeah agreed. To suggest that Sachin stands out more from the other great batsmen than Marshall does with fast bowlers is absurd. Both are in the top 3 or so in their respective crafts.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It depends on deeper context, rather than generalisation, I guess. Marshall was better at home than SRT was in Ind, Marshall was a better bowler in Eng than Sachin was a batter there. Marshall was better in Ind, than Sachin in WI. Sachin was better in Aus, and Marshall better in Pak(cause Sachin only proved himself on flat tracks there mostly). Sachin was better in NZ, but Marshall only played 3 matches there, and Tendulkar didn’t face much great bowling. Basically where there is an overlap, Marshall is generally better.

What is this comparison smh

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

What is this comparison smh

Trying to prove that country by country Marshall’s record is more impressive than Sachin.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And what about SA? SL? Tendulkar was just better tested.

SL is a question, tho they were a minnow in Marshall’s time and on the bowler friendly wickets in SA, I have no doubt Marshall would’ve succeeded.

 

[Migara]

Malcolm was the best, or at least in top 2 in almost all.
Tendulkar not the best. And there are some who will not put him in top 4 batsmen. (There are twice more bats as bowlers in a side).

Malcolm it is.

 

[subshakerz]

Malcolm was the best, or at least in top 2 in almost all.
Tendulkar not the best. And there are some who will not put him in top 4 batsmen. (There are twice more bats as bowlers in a side).

Malcolm it is.

There are more bats than bowlers. One can still be in the top three bats and be comparable to Marshall.