Sachin Tendulkar vs Malcolm Marshall

[HouHsiaoHsien]

That's just wrong. He is not as much an outlier from normal ATGs.

Not as much as Bradman, yes. That’s why I won’t rate him a 100. Marshall would be 96. Sobers and Imran 97.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Depends on the era. Certainly not as clear a case in the 80s and 90s.

Yes, that’s why it’s very close, and you could go either way.

 

[CricketFan90s]

In Richie Benaud’s Greatest XI he doesn’t even include Marshall as a contender for Fast Bowling don’t know why.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Stop spamming repeat threads

Please change your username to Insanity

 

[capt_Luffy]

Personally I think averaging 24 as a bowler is tougher than averaging 45 as a batter, but even then Marshall is perfect according to all bowling metrics: average, SR, WPM, economy etc

I won’t rate Marshall as the Bradman of bowling. More like a 96/100.

Depends on era to be honest. But Sachin is also close to perfect with his batting metrics: avg, SR, RPI, etc.

Nah, I think it's too high. Imo:

Bradman: 99
Grace: 98
Sobers: 92
Imran: 91
Hobbs: 89
Hadlee: 89
Sachin: 88
Marshall: 88
McGrath: 87

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Depends on era to be honest. But Sachin is also close to perfect with his batting metrics: avg, SR, RPI, etc.

Probably also boils down to also what you consider more impressive: Sachin’s peak of averaging 60 for nearly 150 tests across conditions, or Marshall’s peak.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Depends on era to be honest. But Sachin is also close to perfect with his batting metrics: avg, SR, RPI, etc.

Nah, I think it's too high. Imo:

Bradman: 99
Grace: 98
Sobers: 92
Imran: 91
Hobbs: 89
Hadlee: 89
Sachin: 88
Marshall: 88
McGrath: 87

Yeah this is better. Probably Sobers and Imran a little higher, and Hadlee at 90, But the rest agreed.

 

[Prince EWS]

@PlayerComparisons finds out who is the player CW is most obsessed on at a given time and spams comparison threads with that player. Few weeks back it was Ashwin now it's Marshall

Let's not forget all the Kallis threads.

 

[subshakerz]

In Richie Benaud’s Greatest XI he doesn’t even include Marshall as a contender for Fast Bowling don’t know why.

He didn't shortlist any WI pacer.

 

[subshakerz]

Depends on era to be honest. But Sachin is also close to perfect with his batting metrics: avg, SR, RPI, etc.

Nah, I think it's too high. Imo:

Bradman: 99
Grace: 98
Sobers: 92
Imran: 91
Hobbs: 89
Hadlee: 89
Sachin: 88
Marshall: 88
McGrath: 87

If Bradman is 99, the next best Sobers is around 70...

 

[capt_Luffy]

If Bradman is 99, the next best Sobers is around 70...

Nah, I think Bradman>>>all; but I don't think the gap should be that huge either....

 

[subshakerz]

Nah, I think Bradman>>>all; but I don't think the gap should be that huge either....

It is if Bradman is literally double a worldclass bat in output. Nobody is near that.

 

[kyear2]

Why are you comparing Apple and Oranges

To prove a point.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It is if Bradman is literally double a worldclass bat in output. Nobody is near that.

I don't think it's that simple honestly, but I can see the point.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall played only 3 matches in NZ and there also was mediocre, not bad like Hadlee in Pak

Marshall was injured in the first match and only kept playing because Holding retired and Garner had to return home, both mid series.

 

[kyear2]

In Richie Benaud’s Greatest XI he doesn’t even include Marshall as a contender for Fast Bowling don’t know why.

He was very clear it wasn't the best XI, it was his XI. He had issues with how they bowled, strange considering they followed Lillee's lead.

Also didn't include Murali or Knott,

 

[kyear2]

Depends on era to be honest. But Sachin is also close to perfect with his batting metrics: avg, SR, RPI, etc.

Nah, I think it's too high. Imo:

Bradman: 99
Grace: 98
Sobers: 92
Imran: 91
Hobbs: 89
Hadlee: 89
Sachin: 88
Marshall: 88
McGrath: 87

How are you doing these?
Because

1. It's impossible to compare all rounders to specialists because it would have to be cumulative and would exceed Bradman as well.

2. Can't compare batsmen to bowlers, different standards. Even when the ICC did it Murali was practically identical to Bradman and the next 20 bowlers had more points than the next highest batsman. You can't rate a RB on Brady's scale as a QB.

For kicks and giggles let's look at the best non minnow series Bradman and Sobers each had away from home. Their ultimate potential series.

Bradman averaged 139 in a 5 test series, 4 hundreds in 7 innings. Sobers averaged 103 with 3 hundreds and 2 fifties, while taking 20 wickets at 27 and accepting 10 catches. Not sure what Imran's was, but sure someone will chime in.

Yes Bradman is capable of maintaining that more often, but wer're just playing devil's advocate here. That's not comparable. Even averaging 60 runs, 15 wickets and 6 catches a series is arguably higher than averaging 100 and that's not even taking into account the bowlers faced.

And to grade bowlers, you grade against the standard, the best bowler, morning else makes sense.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall was injured in the first match and only kept playing because Holding retired and Garner had to return home, both mid series.

It doesn't matter. Let's say he had a poor series. The sample is small and failing against NZ doesn't mean much anyways.

 

[subshakerz]

For kicks and giggles let's look at the best non minnow series Bradman and Sobers each had away from home. Their ultimate potential series.

Bradman averaged 139 in a 5 test series, 4 hundreds in 7 innings. Sobers averaged 103 with 3 hundreds and 2 fifties, while taking 20 wickets at 27 and accepting 10 catches. Not sure what Imran's was, but sure someone will chime in.

Yes Bradman is capable of maintaining that more often, but wer're just playing devil's advocate here. That's not comparable. Even averaging 60 runs, 15 wickets and 6 catches a series is arguably higher than averaging 100 and that's not even taking into account the bowlers faced.

What exactly was the point of this?

 

[capt_Luffy]

How are you doing these?
Because

1. It's impossible to compare all rounders to specialists because it would have to be cumulative and would exceed Bradman as well.

2. Can't compare batsmen to bowlers, different standards. Even when the ICC did it Murali was practically identical to Bradman and the next 20 bowlers had more points than the next highest batsman. You can't rate a RB on Brady's scale as a QB.

For kicks and giggles let's look at the best non minnow series Bradman and Sobers each had away from home. Their ultimate potential series.

Bradman averaged 139 in a 5 test series, 4 hundreds in 7 innings. Sobers averaged 103 with 3 hundreds and 2 fifties, while taking 20 wickets at 27 and accepting 10 catches. Not sure what Imran's was, but sure someone will chime in.

Yes Bradman is capable of maintaining that more often, but wer're just playing devil's advocate here. That's not comparable. Even averaging 60 runs, 15 wickets and 6 catches a series is arguably higher than averaging 100 and that's not even taking into account the bowlers faced.

And to grade bowlers, you grade against the standard, the best bowler, morning else makes sense.

Those 15 wickets if they come under 30; it wasn't like Bradman was dropping catches like Chandra and really, the difference between Bradman's and Sobers output, if anything, I am kinder to Sobers, but you can disagree.