Glen mgrath, the least talented, all time great

[silentstriker]

Let's compare Marshall and McGrath then.

Wicket-Taking Ability (SR): Marshall 47, McGrath 51 (slight advantage: Marshall)
Run-Stopping Ability (ER): Marshall 2.7, McGrath 2.5 (slight advantage: McGrath)
Overall (Average): Marshall 20.9, McGrath 21.5 (slight advantage: Marshall)

Performance by Opposition (average)
Marshall ~ Australia (23), India/New Zealand (22), Pakistan (21), England (19)
McGrath ~ South Africa (27), New Zealand (25), Pakistan/Sri Lanka (22), England (20), India/West Indies (19)
(advantage: Marshall)

Marshall averages 32 in New Zealand and <25 everywhere else.
McGrath averages 31 in Pakistan, 29 in Sri Lanka and <25 everywhere else.
(slight advantage: Marshall)

Top 7 Wicket Percentage: Marshall 74%, McGrath 75%

Really, if you don't take the flat wickets into account, Marshall takes it fairly comfortably.
If you do, Marshall barely takes it IMO.

You're underestimating the flat pitch angle, the bowling support angle and the batting angle. How many people are averaging 50+ these days?

Also, if you look at top 7, they come out around the same. But if you look at openers (i.e top 3) then Marshall has taken 33% of his wickets 1-3 while McGrath has taken 40%.

And in addition to all that, McGrath has done it for longer than Marshall as well. The points you mentioned make the two bowlers virtually the same, and the points I added put him over the edge IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

The is only one person in the entire universe who does

Nah, look at the Ranking the bowlers thread. A lot of people put him in the top two or three all time. And I know a few people that put him above Marshall too, and I can understand why the others wouldn't, though I completely disagree with it.

 

[silentstriker]

it's beginning to sound more like a teenage crush than a rational cricket discussion.

I've given the rationale, you just don't want to agree with it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nah, look at the Ranking the bowlers thread. A lot of people put him in the top two or three all time. And I know a few people that put him above Marshall too, and I can understand why, though I completely disagree with it.

Actually he didn't get a single vote for Number 1, only Marshall, Warne and Hadlee got votes.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually he didn't get a single vote for Number 1, only Marshall, Warne and Hadlee got votes.

Thats because I didn't vote, and if you notice, not that many people even voted in the first couple rounds.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nah, look at the Ranking the bowlers thread. A lot of people put him in the top two or three all time. And I know a few people that put him above Marshall too, and I can understand why, though I completely disagree with it.

That makes it sound like you completely disagree with people who put McGrath above Marshall.

 

[silentstriker]

That makes it sound like you completely disagree with people who put McGrath above Marshall.

Oops, changed .

 

[C_C]

You're underestimating the flat pitch angle, the bowling support angle and the batting angle.

Err India in the late 80s was horribly flat and Marshall dominated there.

Also, if you look at top 7, they come out around the same. But if you look at openers (i.e top 3) then Marshall has taken 33% of his wickets 1-3 while McGrath has taken 40%.

Umm. McGrath has had to share his opening spell with whom ? Gillespie, Lee and Fleming. Ie, one worldclass bowler and two 'very good to avreage' bowlers. Marshall had to share his opening spell with whom ? Garner, Ambrose, Bishop, Holding, Croft and Roberts.
All four (including Bishop pre injury) were alltime greats and good enough to walk into any team of any era.
In short, Marshall had far more competition for his wickets than McGrath.

And in addition to all that, McGrath has done it for longer than Marshall as well

A factor of modern fitness regimes than anything else.
McGrath doing well into his mid-late 30s is good but not jaw-dropping. Now Ambrose doing well into his late 30s or Walsh doing the same - thats jaw dropping.
Dont forget to take into consideration the facilities and resource at the bowler's disposals.

 

[silentstriker]

Dont forget to take into consideration the facilities and resource at the bowler's disposals.

The same facilities and resources are at the batsman's disposals too, it evens out.

/Not supposed to post for next two days.

 

[C_C]

The same facilities and resources are at the batsman's disposals too, it evens out.

/Not supposed to post for next two days.

How again does it even out ?????
Do you realise that batting into your late 30s is far easier (Without the aid of resources) than pace bowling into your late 30s ?

 

[shankar]

Also, if you look at top 7, they come out around the same. But if you look at openers (i.e top 3) then Marshall has taken 33% of his wickets 1-3 while McGrath has taken 40%.

Why are 1-3 wickets considered more of an achievement, as a rule, than 4-7?

Anyway it doesn't matter cause wicket % is irrelevant and what matters is average. For example consider the case where bowler A picks up, on average 1.8 top order wickets per match @ 20 and 1.5 middle order wickets per match @ 15 while Bowler B does the opposite i.e. 1.5 top order wickets @ 15 and 1.8 middle order wickets @ 20. So you have a situation where A has more wickets per match vs the top order, but B is clearly the better bowler vs the top order (and vice versa). In fact, I mentioned this when there was a discussion a while back comparing McGrath to Akram vis a vis top order wickets came up as well.

 

[adharcric]

You're underestimating the flat pitch angle, the bowling support angle and the batting angle. How many people are averaging 50+ these days?

Also, if you look at top 7, they come out around the same. But if you look at openers (i.e top 3) then Marshall has taken 33% of his wickets 1-3 while McGrath has taken 40%.

And in addition to all that, McGrath has done it for longer than Marshall as well. The points you mentioned make the two bowlers virtually the same, and the points I added put him over the edge IMO.

I'll give you the flat pitch angle. As for bowling support, both Marshall and McGrath were part of very good bowling attacks. That's not really a factor considering these guys were both a part of the best attack of their time. The WI attack might be a little better, but it's still not a big factor.

As someone else just asked, why top 3 and not top 7? I knew you would come up with this to suit your pro-McGrath argument; that's why I posted the top 7 stats. In fact, the WI opening attack was clearly better than the Aussie opening attack so Marshall's percentage is hampered by that.

As for McGrath having done it for longer, it's because he bowls with less pace and the fitness levels and facilities are better today. As long as you've played a substantial number of tests (say 75), it doesn't really matter if you play 100 or 125 when it comes to statistical comparisons IMO.

I can see why you would put McGrath over Marshall, but you should DEFINITELY be able to see why most other people would go vice versa.