Tendulkar/Hobbs vs Marshall/McGrath

[kyear2]

On every single qualitative facet there's a higher difference between Root and Sobers era than between Sobers and Hobbs era, as I said, concede Root>Sobers or drop the evolution nonsense.

Just simply and quantitatively not true, not by any metric.

No one's saying that Hobbs isn't great, prbalt even the 2nd best as far as batsmen are concerned, but this argument is getting silly and going wayyy too far.

And dude, with all due respect, you don't make the rules.

 

[kyear2]

I'm not obliged to respect idiotic views, for example, many people are flat earthers, do I respect their views? No, I call it what it is, Stupid.

Dude...

Really.

 

[kyear2]

You are being emotional again, Johan. Please calm down.

Precisely this.

 

[sayon basak]

I don't think people who don't rate a player in the poll should click on the thread itself, nor do I think someone should start a poll involving a player he doesn't rate.

 

[kyear2]

Grok x prefers McGrath/ Marshall over tendulkar/ Hobbs

To determine the "higher-rated pair" between Sachin Tendulkar/Jack Hobbs (batsmen) and Malcolm Marshall/Glenn McGrath (bowlers) as a neutral cricket fan, we need to evaluate their collective impact, records, and dominance in their respective domains. After analyzing their careers and influence on the game, I’ll pick one pair and provide reasoning for why they edge out the other.

Tendulkar and Hobbs (Batting Pair)

Sachin Tendulkar: 15,921 Test runs, 53.78 average, 51 centuries across 200 matches (1989–2013). His versatility across formats (18,426 ODI runs too) and conditions—be it bouncy Australian tracks or turning Indian pitches—is unmatched. He faced and conquered some of the best bowlers of his time, like Wasim Akram, Shane Warne, and McGrath himself.

Jack Hobbs: 5,410 Test runs, 56.94 average, 15 centuries in 61 matches (1908–1930), plus a first-class haul of 61,760 runs and 199 centuries. Hobbs dominated an era of uncovered pitches, rudimentary equipment, and early pace attacks, earning the nickname "The Master" for his technical brilliance and consistency.

Combined Strength: Together, they represent batting mastery across a century of cricket—Hobbs in the pre-modern era, Tendulkar in the modern. Their adaptability, longevity, and ability to handle diverse bowling attacks (pace, swing, spin) make them a formidable duo. They amassed 21,331 Test runs and 66 centuries combined, showcasing unparalleled run-scoring prowess.

Marshall and McGrath (Bowling Pair)

Malcolm Marshall: 376 Test wickets, 20.94 average, strike rate 46.7 in 81 matches (1978–1991). A West Indian pace icon, Marshall’s lethal combination of speed, swing, and bounce made him the most complete fast bowler of his generation. His average is the lowest among bowlers with over 300 Test wickets.

Glenn McGrath: 563 Test wickets, 21.64 average, strike rate 51.9 in 124 matches (1993–2007). The Australian legend’s relentless accuracy and subtle seam movement dismantled batting lineups, contributing heavily to Australia’s dominance in the late ’90s and early 2000s. He holds the record for most wickets by a fast bowler in Tests.

Combined Strength: This pair took 939 Test wickets at a combined average of 21.29, blending Marshall’s fiery aggression with McGrath’s surgical precision. They thrived in different eras but consistently terrorized batsmen, with Marshall leading the fearsome Windies attack and McGrath anchoring Australia’s golden age.

Choosing the Higher-Rated Pair: Marshall and McGrath

As a neutral cricket fan, I’d rate Malcolm Marshall and Glenn McGrath as the stronger pair over Tendulkar and Hobbs. Here’s why:

Dominance in Their Craft:

Bowlers have a tougher job—they must take 20 wickets to win a Test, often under pressure and fatigue. Marshall and McGrath didn’t just succeed; they dominated. Marshall’s 20.94 average and McGrath’s 563 wickets reflect their ability to consistently outwit top batsmen, including those of Tendulkar and Hobbs’ caliber.
Batsmen like Tendulkar and Hobbs, while exceptional, rely on bowlers faltering or conditions favoring them at times. Their brilliance is reactive to bowling quality, whereas Marshall and McGrath dictated terms proactively.

Impact on Matches:

Marshall was the spearhead of a West Indies side that went unbeaten in Test series for 15 years (1980–1995). McGrath was instrumental in Australia’s record 16 consecutive Test wins (1999–2001). Their wicket-taking ability directly translated to team success.
Tendulkar and Hobbs, despite their runs, couldn’t always turn matches single-handedly. India (Tendulkar) and England (Hobbs) had mixed team results during their careers, with Tendulkar’s Test win percentage at 39% and Hobbs’ era less dominant than the bowlers’ teams.

Head-to-Head Context:

Tendulkar vs. McGrath: Tendulkar averaged 29.05 against McGrath in Tests, showing McGrath often had the upper hand. Hobbs never faced either, but his era’s pace bowlers (e.g., Ted McDonald) were less lethal than Marshall’s swing or McGrath’s precision, suggesting the bowlers might’ve challenged him too.
The bowlers’ ability to neutralize top batsmen gives them an edge in a hypothetical matchup.

Rarity and Skill Ceiling:

Great bowlers like Marshall and McGrath are rarer than great batsmen. Their physical and mental endurance—delivering spell after spell—adds a layer of difficulty that tips the scales. Marshall’s all-round pace skillset and McGrath’s metronomic consistency are harder to replicate than even the batting genius of Tendulkar and Hobbs.

Conclusion

While Tendulkar and Hobbs are titans of batting, Marshall and McGrath stand out as the higher-rated pair due to their match-defining impact, statistical excellence, and the sheer difficulty of their craft. They didn’t just play the game—they controlled it, making them the ultimate cricketing force as a duo.

Brilliant.

 

[kyear2]

Barnes bowl in his 50s against Windies, they deemee him better than Larwood, Bowes, Voce and Constantine.

Snow, Lillee, Procter, Bradman, and (possibly) Hutton, ranks Barry ahead of Pollock and Gakaskar. Do you agree as well? Bradman goes a little further and calls him the equal if not better of Hobbs and Hutton.

And btw none of those guys, with the possibly exception of Larwood, are exactly at the pinnacle or approaching the greats of the game.

 

[sayon basak]

Snow, Lillee, Procter, Bradman, and (possibly) Hutton, ranks Barry ahead of Pollock and Gakaskar. Do you agree as well? Bradman goes a little further and calls him the equal if not better of Hobbs and Hutton.

And btw none of those guys, with the possibly exception of Larwood, are exactly at the pinnacle or approaching the greats of the game.

Barry didn't have a test career, that's why he is downgraded. Otherwise, I have no problem if someone says that Barry was skillfully better than Gavaskar, just like I do not have any problem with someone saying that Akhtar, Bond or Asif were skillfully better than half of the ATG bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

now for the final round...Viv Richards

Dennis Lillee [WSC included]
12 matches, 2,032 runs @ 53.47 with 5 hundreds in 40 innings.

Imran Khan
14 matches, 1,074 runs @ 46.69 with 2 hundreds and 7 fifties in 24 innings.

80s Imran Khan
9 matches, 817 runs @ 58.35 with 2 hundreds and 5 fifties in 15 innings.

Richard Hadlee
7 matches, 387 runs @ 43.00, with 1 hundred and 2 fifties in 10 innings

Prime Ian Botham
9 matches, 719 runs @ 71.90, with 3 hundreds and 2 fifties in 11 innings.

Bob Willis
9 matches, 969 runs @ 88.09 with 3 hundreds and 4 fifties in 12 innings, all games in England where Willis averaged 21.28 when not bowling to Viv.

Wasim Akram
4 matches, 355 runs @ 50.71, with 1 hundred and 1 fifty in seven innings

Indian Spin Quaret combination (Bedi + Chandra)
7 matches, 710 runs @ 64.54, with 3 hundreds and 2 fifties in 12 innings.

Chandra+Bedi+Prasanna
4 matches, 296 runs @ 49.33, with 1 hundred and 1 fifty in 7 innings.

And there are some who still think Vivian is over rated or lacks productions vs Sachin,.or even Lara.

I don't see where there is to dispute that he was every bit the batsman Sachin was, with the latter getting the edge due purely to longevity.

 

[kyear2]

Not just him but they're generally ranked above Hadlee and Imran as well. There's clearly a bias towards batsmen and maybe they're considering limited overs as well.

I don't get it and never will.

Batsmen just get rates higher, just the way it is.

 

[kyear2]

See this doesn't make sense whatsoever. Viv "struggled " vs Hadlee yet averaged in the 40s vs him. Sachin averaged in the 30s vs Ws, Donald, Bond, McGrath etc but cue the myriad of excuses not afforded to others: he was young, injured, everyone else struggled etc. But yet, they want to big him up in the same breath for scoring 100s as a teen. Smh !!

There's narratives that just exists for what ever reason, but some people's ever error is highlighted daily, while others are projected as literally perfect, when that's never been the case.

As I said in my previous post, I rate Viv on par with Sachin, but have no issue giving the little master the edge for playing longer.

The excuses aren't needed, either his teens are part of his legacy or it isn't.

 

[kyear2]

We are talking about your statement on McGrath. Address that and tell us how it's not downplaying it.

If you can't read, I can't help you.

I said it's not as big an issue in that comparison and context because Sachin has equal weaknesses vs the best pacers of his time.

Try to read without bias and it'll come to you.

 

[kyear2]

Why though? If you're talking about secondary skills for Viv and Sachin, then Marshall wasn't exactly a mug with the bat, and more than fine in the outfield as well.

And Viv was an all timer at slip and one of the exceptional fielders of all time.

 

[kyear2]

Incredible record against the very best, as befits his reputation.

So which trunders did he keep flopping against to end up so perilously close to averaging sub-50?!

Eye surgery and decline at the end.

 

[kyear2]

WOW!!! This whole post is bullshiting. Gotta love how the game wasn't same between 1912 and 62, but is between 62 and now

You can believe what ever you wish.

But the belief that Grace, a player you've never even seen pictures of batting, far less video is somehow comparable to modern players is idiotic.

Period.

As I said above, there's always going to be a cut off, where that is will differ for everyone.

And there's morning wrong with having that cutoff around the first world war, there's no visual evidence of the players and the very nature of the game was different. You can refuse to acknowledge that all you wish, but that's what it is. That's not just my opinion, I can show instances when Coronis and Red argued the same.

Not I know you're a petulant child quite accustomed to getting his way, but becuse you wish it so doesn't make it so.

My post was logical, respectful and representative of a decent constituency of the forum, you dismissing it because you like to prove you understand the history of the game every time you say the name Grace or Ranji, is where the bullshit comes in.

 

[Migara]

How

The longevity argument for Sachin is legitimate and if one includes ODis (which i suspect many do) then Sachin wins , ditto Viv. But by pure skill level in tests, Marshall over both any day of the week.

if longevity and ODIs added, Murali, Wasim and McGrath also easily woukd be in Sachin / Viv strata, if not above.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

How
if longevity and ODIs added, Murali, Wasim and McGrath also easily woukd be in Sachin / Viv strata, if not above.

Yes agreed.

 

[Coronis]

I'm just gonna make a final statement, If one has Garfield Sobers over Jack Hobbs on the basis of era or game developements, while you also refuse Joe Root>Garfield Sobers on the basis of era development and evolution of the game...then simply put, you're a hypocrite, you're intellectually inconsistent and you cannot follow logic, and you're not capable of basic conversation and discussions and that is a huge negative if you intend to use an online forum community.

I mean, I’d much rather use Smith in this comparison than Root lol.

 

[Coronis]

@Coronis @Johan

The evidence of our eyes through the footage shows that qualitatively the game underwent big, big changes from early 20th century period, but then plateaus as the game got "figured out" in the more professional decades.

I respect the Don's record, and could accept him being comparable and above modern players, just because of how insane it is above contemporaries, and everyone who ever played, plus the footage shows a foundation for modern batting that also highlights his unique advantages.

I don't, and won't "respect" the translatability of any other of the fossils' records, not Grace's, not Barnes', not Hobbs' or any of them. Because theirs are pretty much moren in line with standard, expected outliers that you see in any game/sport during more "pioneering/formative" years. Nothing standard about Bradman's record.

And what would you consider Smith and say, Bumrah? Not outliers?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I've never dismissed the possibility that Root could just be better as a player than Viv. Only stated that, given my own view of how cricket looks like it's changed, he'd have a much greater probability of adapting and highlighting whatever inherent skills he might have, than say a player from arbitrarily far back like a Grace or whomever.

If you don't think Morphy is a good comparison, then we could go Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, whomever, point is Fischer is much more likely to adapt than any of them given a short catch up period to just download memorize the chess opening development in the years since he left. Because that sort of thing was already much more a part of the game that Fischer played, than for any of those earlier periods players.

Anyway, I think we're both talking in circles, and unlikely to convince each other, so I'll try not to engage further in this convo. I do respect your hypothesis and what you're trying to do. We should always challenge our assumptions of the game, and not fossilize opinions without reflection. I'm just not seeing your bimodal either everything after 1890 is equal or flat ramp of growth as fitting the reality. I think there's more nuance there.

Morphy= Grace
Lasker= Hobbs
Bradman= Bradman ( Chess had no one anywhere as dominant)
Capablanca= Hammond
Botvinnik= Sobers
Peak Fischer >> Peak Viv

Fishcer wouldn’t be a top 25 in today’s world. You would probably think someone like Jos Buttler forget Root is better than Viv.

And talking about the evolution from Morphy to Fischer which is similar to Grace to Viv. Fischer himself said Morphy would have crushed anyone in the world of his time if he was transported in his time.

More than that Fabiano Caruana who at his peak is the 2nd best chess player of all time after Carlsen himself says Morphy would have no problem reaching 2700 in modern day inside a year. And that is after seeing and studying games of Morphy.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

sure, that was always my point, Morphy (Hobbs) can be fodder to Fischer (Sobers) and Fischer (Sobers) can be fodder to Fabiano (Root), the logic is the same all ways, but I doubt anyone is ready to go for Root > Viv when logically by their own argument...they really should..

also, Morphy is genuinely from hundreds of years ago bro, that'd be like mentioning Fuller Pilch, Take Hobbs as Capabalanca and Sobers as Fischer and my analogy works even better, that's been my point the whole time, if one thinks Sobers is better than Hobbs on basis of Cricket evolution and change, that's fine, I disagree but that's fine.

but there should be consistently, you can't use era arguments while simultaneously pretending Sobers can be better than guys from 50 years after him, that's inherently contradictory, if someone says all older players are inferior to current crop who put somewhat similar performances, that's fine for me, I'm just not a fan of picking out eras and choosing where Cricket, frankly, stops developing.

Sobers the batsman is more Botvinnik than Fischer. Peak Smith was putting well above the numbers of Sobers by far. Peak Viv arguably the closest and even he isn’t anywhere as dominant as Fischer. Peak Smith probably put better numbers than Viv in a much much modern era.

More like Sobers= Botvinnik
Peak Fischer >> Peak Viv

Fischer wouldn’t be a top 25 in the world right now. It’s not Root vs Viv. It’s more like Jos Buttler vs Viv. Both play same way and one could argue Buttler is a better batsman than Viv. Which may well be true going by this era comparison.