Which cricketer has the most complete record?

[Dissector]

McGrath bowled on flatter pitches but arguably in an era when defensive technique was also weaker. And India is an exception; pitches were definitely flatter in the 80's. Marshall's success in India suggests he would have no problem coping with flat pitches in the last decade. McGrath does deserve credit for longevity but ultimately there is very little to choose between the two. I would probably pick Marshall because he was a bit more useful as a batsman and perhaps a touch more menacing at his peak.

 

[Sanz]

I am not sure you are right about that but anyway I was talking about pitches in general

I am pretty sure that I am right about the pitches in India during the 80s.

.It is incredibly funny that the Richards,Gavaskars,Miandads and Chappells are worshipped for playing in a bowling friendly era; but the same logic is not used when comparing a bowler like Mcgrath to someback who bowled in the 70s and 80s.

From what I remember not many worship those guys for playing in Bowler friendly era, but for being outstanding batsmen just like guys like Ponting, Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid Lara etc are worshipped in the current era.

 

[Dissector]

Incidentally I would rate Hadlee above either Marshall or McGrath because I think it's harder to carry an attack without much support from the other end. His all-round record is also excellent except for an early series in Pakistan on what were probably super-flat wickets of the type Lillee struggled so much on in his tour a few years later. Obviously if you take batting into account, Hadlee is an easy choice.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I am pretty sure that I am right about the pitches in India during the 80s. .

You might be right about pitches in India, I do not claim to be the most knowledgeable person around here.I am sure you would likely agree that the average pitch Mcgrath had to bowl on was flatter than what Marshall had to bowl in.

From what I remember not many worship those guys for playing in Bowler friendly era, but for being outstanding batsmen just like guys like Ponting, Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid Lara etc are worshipped in the current era.

I am not arguing that they are not outstanding batsmen but in a Richards vs Lara argument you will inevitably get the same old 'he batted on tougher pitches without helmet' argument.

 

[GotSpin]

Not if the person who did not play as many countries had a significantly better record.No one holds it against Bradman that he only played against two countries because his record is just so much better than others.

I'm not against comparing players of different eras, but its unfair to judge Marshal lower than McGrath simply because Marshall didn't have the opportunities to bowl against as many nations as McGrath. That's all i have to say really. No problem with comparisons based upon averages against the same nations.

 

[Sanz]

You might be right about pitches in India, I do not claim to be the most knowledgeable person around here.I am sure you would likely agree that the average pitch Mcgrath had to bowl on was flatter than what Marshall had to bowl in.

I do not agree with that as a sweeping statment, take it country by country, ground by ground, analyze it and only then you have a valid argument. Also such things are nullified by Mcgrath playing in an era where test cricket has become a lot more attacking than it was during 80s. What is the no. of Draws now compared to the 80s ? Let's also look at the strength of the sides both played against. You can not just put one criteria (of playing against many oppositions) and accept that as the only criteria for picking who has more complete record.

I had the luxury of watching both and Marshall easily has the more complete record than Mcgrath.

I am not arguing that they are not outstanding batsmen but in a Richards vs Lara argument you will inevitably get the same old 'he batted on tougher pitches without helmet' argument.

I will not. I will say that Richards was the better batsman of the two based on what I saw. Richards was the better batsman than everyone who came after him by quite a distance in every format he played. It really doesn't matter what type of pitches he played in and who he played against.

 

[Sanz]

Also you still have not explained why NZ were the weaker sides at home in the 80s than the most. From what I remember, NZ had its best team in 80 and almost always competed well against all teams especially at home.

 

[Ikki]

Mcgrath edges out Marshall because Mcgrath played more countries.Does anyone else - batsman or bowler- have a record as complete as Mcgrath?

At the top of my head: Ponting. The only section in his record, home or away, that he averages sub-44 is in India. He averages 47 or above against every test team. Whereas McGrath's record at home to S.Africa and New Zealand would take away from it's "completeness".

 

[Pothas]

At the top of my head: Ponting. The only section in his record, home or away, that he averages sub-44 is in India. He averages 47 or above against every test team. Whereas McGrath's record at home to S.Africa and New Zealand would take away from it's "completeness".

why would you do that, just why?

 

[Ikki]

why would you do that, just why?

. Well, it's true. It's amazingly consistent. Moreso than McGrath. Yet McGrath is kept as some kind of standard and Ponting always downplayed.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I do not agree with that as a sweeping statment, take it country by country, ground by ground, analyze it and only then you have a valid argument. Also such things are nullified by Mcgrath playing in an era where test cricket has become a lot more attacking than it was during 80s. What is the no. of Draws now compared to the 80s ? Let's also look at the strength of the sides both played against. You can not just put one criteria (of playing against many oppositions) and accept that as the only criteria for picking who has more complete record.

I had the luxury of watching both and Marshall easily has the more complete record than Mcgrath.



I will not. I will say that Richards was the better batsman of the two based on what I saw. Richards was the better batsman than everyone who came after him by quite a distance in every format he played. It really doesn't matter what type of pitches he played in and who he played against.

Why then does Mcgrath have a better economy still?

After checking Marshall's record again I would probably agree that he has a more complete record - averages sub 25 against everyone home and away. I still think Mcgrath is the better bowler though but that is another debate.

The flat pitch argument will inevitably come up when say someone compares Sehwag to Richards on SR.My point is either it should be used uniformly or not used at all.

 

[bagapath]

At the top of my head: Ponting. The only section in his record, home or away, that he averages sub-44 is in India. .

sub 44 doesnt mean ponting averages 43.99 in india. he averages a horrendous 20. it is as bad as murali conceding 75 runs per wkt vs australia. i know of a batter who averages 40+ in every country bar one where he averages 39; much better candidate for the "complete" record.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

At the top of my head: Ponting. The only section in his record, home or away, that he averages sub-44 is in India. He averages 47 or above against every test team. Whereas McGrath's record at home to S.Africa and New Zealand would take away from it's "completeness".

That is not just sub 44 but sub 21!!! A bowling equivalent for Mcgrath would be 70 or something in a particular place after playing a considerable amount of tests.

 

[vcs]

Well, that's the whole point of the thread, isn't it? If you call Ponting's record "complete", then what about Tendulkar? A "complete" record for me is an average worthy of an all-time great in every country that a player plays in.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

sub 44 doesnt mean ponting averages 43.99 in india. he averages a horrendous 20. it is as bad as murali conceding 75 runs per wkt vs australia. i know of a batter who averages 40+ in every country bar one where he averages 39; much better candidate for the "complete" record.

you cannot resist can you

I agree with you on this though

 

[Sanz]

Why then does Mcgrath have a better economy still?

There could be many factors, two that immediately come to mind are :-

a.It was harder to score against Mcgrath because he bowled a much tighter line than most
b. he played for a better fielding side

 

[Ikki]

sub 44 doesnt mean ponting averages 43.99 in india. he averages a horrendous 20. it is as bad as murali conceding 75 runs per wkt vs australia. i know of a batter who averages 40+ in every country bar one where he averages 39; much better candidate for the "complete" record.

No, the point of sub-44 is an average that is at least "good" in a certain place. Ponting is at least "good" in 1 place (England), poor in another place (India) and all-time great in every other instance. That is amazingly consistent. Not only that, he scores fluently across innings showing he is just as capable of starting a Test dominantly as he is in winning it towards the end.

For example, look at Sobers' record: it's pretty awesome. Yet even Sobers averages 15 (IIRC, which is even more horrendous) against NZ in NZ and in the 20s against them overall. That's 2 bad places instead of 1. And Ponting has also played in many more places/more opponents - which is what the OP was looking at when comparing Marshall v McGrath.

P.S. that batsman you refer to would still have a poor record home and away against that country had the bowlers that had the stick on him not retired - you could count Pakistan in on that too.

P.P.S. sub-44 was meant to illustrate that he averages above 44 in every other place apart from India. And even that is misleading as only in England does he average in the 40s, everywhere else is actually 50+. 1 20, 1 44, the rest 50+. Again, amazing consistency.

 

[Ikki]

That is not just sub 44 but sub 21!!! A bowling equivalent for Mcgrath would be 70 or something in a particular place after playing a considerable amount of tests.

But McGrath has 2 records at home averaging in the 30s and striking in the 70s-80s. That is very poor. Almost as poor. 2 v 1.

 

[vcs]

...
P.S. that batsman you refer to would still have a poor record home and away against that country had the bowlers that had the stick on him not retired - you could count Pakistan in on that too.
...

If my Aunt had etc. etc.

BTW, that batsman has also made 3 fantastic centuries in the place where he has the "poor" 39+ average, much more than anything Ponting has ever done in India. And he had to face the bowlers who had the stick on him to do it. His average is not great, but there are no question marks about his intrinsic ability to play in S. Africa or against S. African bowlers, atleast in my mind.

 

[Sanz]

But McGrath has 2 records at home averaging in the 30s and striking in the 70s-80s. That is very poor. Almost as poor. 2 v 1.

Ponting also averages 34 against BD at home, away avg. of 31 Vs. Zimbabwe and 21 Vs. India.

How is his record more complete than Mcgrath's ?