Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
And no, it's not a battle of their batting - Danny takes that hands down, which'll be the first time in his history that you could say that about Morrison's batting. During the test today, they flashed up NZ's top wicket-takers and I was struck by how similar Morrison and Martin's records were.
Morrison:
Martin:
From my perspective, Morrison had a mildly varying career in terms of support - he came into the side with the advantage of Hadlee and Chatfield providing part of an excellent bowling trio (with the likes of Snedden filling the fourth spot), but once Hadlee went, Morrison was thrust into the role of the bowling attack's spearhead. So often in the early-to-mid 1990s, he was given next to nothing to bowl alongside - Cairns was nowhere near his best potential, Grubby De Groen was an extremely poor man's Ewen Chatfield, Murphy Su'a, Michael Owens, Kerry Walmsley and Robert Kennedy were all fly-by-nighters, and Simon Doull only really hit his straps in the late 1990s. When Morrison had everything together, he was very dangerous, but his lack of height and slight slinging action was easy to get after and lift over the infield if he wasn't getting things right.
Martin has eked every last ounce of effort out of - let's be honest - a pretty average and one-dimensional action. He was brought in as a last-gasp option on his debut in South Africa and toiled manfully - a portent of things to come over the next 9 years. He's worked on his frame and put weight on in order to stave off injury and even stuck it to the selectors in this test with a couple of wickets. That said, I feel his one-dimensional action has certainly come at a runs-per-wicket (albeit lower than Morrison's) and he did have the benefit of Cairns and Bond in particular as strike bowlers - although some would argue that gave him fewer opportunities.
Anyway, I'm undecided. Vote to help me make my mind up.
Morrison:
Martin:
From my perspective, Morrison had a mildly varying career in terms of support - he came into the side with the advantage of Hadlee and Chatfield providing part of an excellent bowling trio (with the likes of Snedden filling the fourth spot), but once Hadlee went, Morrison was thrust into the role of the bowling attack's spearhead. So often in the early-to-mid 1990s, he was given next to nothing to bowl alongside - Cairns was nowhere near his best potential, Grubby De Groen was an extremely poor man's Ewen Chatfield, Murphy Su'a, Michael Owens, Kerry Walmsley and Robert Kennedy were all fly-by-nighters, and Simon Doull only really hit his straps in the late 1990s. When Morrison had everything together, he was very dangerous, but his lack of height and slight slinging action was easy to get after and lift over the infield if he wasn't getting things right.
Martin has eked every last ounce of effort out of - let's be honest - a pretty average and one-dimensional action. He was brought in as a last-gasp option on his debut in South Africa and toiled manfully - a portent of things to come over the next 9 years. He's worked on his frame and put weight on in order to stave off injury and even stuck it to the selectors in this test with a couple of wickets. That said, I feel his one-dimensional action has certainly come at a runs-per-wicket (albeit lower than Morrison's) and he did have the benefit of Cairns and Bond in particular as strike bowlers - although some would argue that gave him fewer opportunities.
Anyway, I'm undecided. Vote to help me make my mind up.