View Poll Results: On the subject of Malcolm Marshall, do you consider ...

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • ... he was EITHER the best bowler of all-time OR the second-best after SF Barnes

    25 41.67%
  • ... someone other than SF Barnes was better than him

    33 55.00%
  • I have no real interest in cricket history so I don't have much of an opinion on him

    2 3.33%
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 196

Thread: Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

  1. #166
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by bagapath View Post
    mcgrath, warne, gillespie and lee's record. looks very impressive to me...

    Australia 2001-2005 16 10 2 0 4
    didn't say it wasn't a quality attack, but gillespie and lee even at their best don't compare to any of the west indian foursome...

  2. #167
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    As an Aussie I grew up with the “DK Lillee is the best ever” mentality and even at my ripe old age now I think he’s got an argument to be considered as such. But that being said, I personally believe that at his peak, for 5-6 years circa 1983-1989, Malcolm Marshall was the greatest fast bowler the game has ever seen. He had electric pace, lethal bounce, movement in the air and off the pitch and could bowl anything…and on top of it all, he had the mind of a wily old spinner – he was forever thinking and analysing and probing.

    When the greatest West Indian cricketers after Sobers are acknowledged, it invariably seems to be the batsmen who are positioned next in line, be it Richards, Headley, Lara or the Ws. In my opinion, Marshall has as strong a case as any of them to be considered Sir Garfield’s proxima accessit.

    Barnes by all accounts must have been a magnificent bowler, whether judged on his figures – which, even when factoring in his freakish performances against South Africa – were superb, or even moreso on his reputation among his contemporaries. I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard of someone who played with or against Barney, or even who observed him at close quarters, who doesn’t consider him the very best they ever saw.

    A coat of varnish between the two of them, but I’ve personally got Macko ever so slightly ahead. He ranks in my personal top 10 cricketers of all time, whereas Barney just misses out coming in at number 11.
    excellent post as always...

  3. #168
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    didn't say it wasn't a quality attack, but gillespie and lee even at their best don't compare to any of the west indian foursome...
    I'd disagree with you on Gillespie, but not Lee.

    Reckon Gillespie was as good as Croft was (if we're talking about the original foursome). Roberts would shade him IMO whilst Garner and Holding were IMO clearly better.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  4. #169
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson View Post
    In 1976 when the West Indies first decided on the four man pace attack they had a debate about it on TMS and Trevor Bailey reckoned that the most potentially lethal was Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Gilmour. In his defence, at the time Holding was still very young, Daniel still quite raw and Holder not really express pace and it wasn't known how long Jeff Thomson would keep up his form of the previous two years or how Gilmour was going to develope.
    IIRC it was that Australian combo which caused Lloyd et al to look to an all pace attack.

    Gilmour was a handy cricketer (as noted in the "Those who should have played more" thread).


  5. #170
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    I'd disagree with you on Gillespie, but not Lee.

    Reckon Gillespie was as good as Croft was (if we're talking about the original foursome). Roberts would shade him IMO whilst Garner and Holding were IMO clearly better.
    i consider croft a better bowler than gillespie and roberts was way better than gillespie ever was, he is an all-time great fast bowler, there is no comparison between the two...and lee is nowhere close to the levels of excellence that roberts, holding and garner attained, let alone marshall...and he is probably at his personal peak right now...

  6. #171
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    didn't say it wasn't a quality attack, but gillespie and lee even at their best don't compare to any of the west indian foursome...
    but are we not comparing the combos instead of doing man to man juxtaposition?

    i feel this aussie attack can win, and did win, on a variety of surfaces more frequently than marshall, holding, garner and roberts.

  7. #172
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by bagapath View Post
    but are we not comparing the combos instead of doing man to man juxtaposition?
    An attack is only the sum of its parts. You can work-out which is best by comparing individuals and nothing else. Lee was a constant pressure-valve release in that Australian foursome, the like of which there was nothing of the sort in more of the WI attacks than not between '76 and '86.
    i feel this aussie attack can win, and did win, on a variety of surfaces more frequently than marshall, holding, garner and roberts.
    The Australian attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne made far more notable conquests - in the space of a year - than McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne ever did.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  8. #173
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    I'd disagree with you on Gillespie, but not Lee.

    Reckon Gillespie was as good as Croft was (if we're talking about the original foursome). Roberts would shade him IMO whilst Garner and Holding were IMO clearly better.
    Croft's a funny one. I've never really thought he was that outstanding, as his average started stupidly low then begun to rise toward the end of his brief career. Then he was gone, with a career spanning in reality just 3 years (5-and-a-half minus 2-and-a-half lost to Packer).

    I've heard quite a few people suggest that Croft was very fortunate to get into the "original foursome" (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft) ahead of Wayne Daniel.

    Jason Gillespie is a bowler I always (until his last six months) had a huge amount of time for. He was desperately unlucky with injuries for the first 4 years of his career, performed with excellence whenever he was available, and when he finally got fit had spells of sustained excellence. But these were punctuated by spells of mediocrity (he went about 10 or 11 Tests in 2001 and 2002 averaging over 40 IIRR).

    With Croft, the truth is we just don't know how good he might've been if he'd had a long career. My guess is less-than-outstanding, but it's just that - a guess. Gillespie we know how good he was - very good for the most part. As to who had the best career - Gillespie, no question. As to who'd have been the best all things equal, well... there's no real way of knowing.

    I'd have Roberts over Gillespie without much doubt though.

  9. #174
    International 12th Man Rant0r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Country West Australia
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    An attack is only the sum of its parts. You can work-out which is best by comparing individuals and nothing else. Lee was a constant pressure-valve release in that Australian foursome, the like of which there was nothing of the sort in more of the WI attacks than not between '76 and '86.

    The Australian attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne made far more notable conquests - in the space of a year - than McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne ever did.
    those four were unbelievable that year, kasper kind of gets forgotten, but he was no less than any of the other 3, and all the media wanted to talk about was how many consecutive matches brett lee was 12th man (andy bichel anyone?).

    i remember a few quotes going around from australian net sessions in the 90's about how scary dizzy was

    any WI attack between '76 and '92 qualifies really, bishop could have been anything

  10. #175
    gwo
    gwo is offline
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    308
    Probably top 5 of all time

    Along with Barnes, McGrath, Hadlee, Murali (Warne 6th)

    Where to place him exactly is harder.

    Marshall the best striker of all time it seems according to this...

    http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/..._bowl.php#more

  11. #176
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by bagapath View Post
    but are we not comparing the combos instead of doing man to man juxtaposition?

    i feel this aussie attack can win, and did win, on a variety of surfaces more frequently than marshall, holding, garner and roberts.
    imagine the relentless pressure applied by any two of marshall, roberts, holding or garner...except for a couple of overs of spin here and there by larry gomes or viv richards, the opposition just gets no respite whatsoever...even when you take into account combos, mcgrath and warne are the only twosome that can compare to them...gillespie was a fine bowler then and lee is pretty good now but neither of them has/had the arsenal to intimidate, subdue, outwit the batsmen the way mcgrath and warne did...in fact any two decent test bowlers plus mcgrath and warne would be a very good attack and australia is feeling their loss intensely now...

  12. #177
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    imagine the relentless pressure applied by any two of marshall, roberts, holding or garner...except for a couple of overs of spin here and there by larry gomes or viv richards, the opposition just gets no respite whatsoever...even when you take into account combos, mcgrath and warne are the only twosome that can compare to them...gillespie was a fine bowler then and lee is pretty good now but neither of them has/had the arsenal to intimidate, subdue, outwit the batsmen the way mcgrath and warne did...in fact any two decent test bowlers plus mcgrath and warne would be a very good attack and australia is feeling their loss intensely now...
    not gonna disagree with your argument. pretty much my thoughts. but dont you think the numbers are very good for this quartet? cant really imagine how they could have done better to be more qualified and placed on par with the west indian bowlers.

  13. #178
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,675
    Quote Originally Posted by gwo View Post
    Probably top 5 of all time

    Along with Barnes, McGrath, Hadlee, Murali (Warne 6th)

    Where to place him exactly is harder.

    Marshall the best striker of all time it seems according to this...

    http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/..._bowl.php#more
    Pretty crappy analysis if you ask me.
    ★★★★★

  14. #179
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Just under your skin
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Pretty crappy analysis if you ask me.
    Like to see your version f it. But please, no subjective crap.
    Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)

  15. #180
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Migara View Post
    Like to see your version f it. But please, no subjective crap.
    My version or my opinion? For me, spinners striking wickets is totally different to pacers doing so. These strikers face unset batsmen and have naturally more wickets to aim for (10). They rarely if ever have a containing role like a spinner who will try to slow the run rate down without even trying to take a wicket. Also the conditions for different bowlers. The WI and Australia to a large extent have been heavily pace friendly wheres places in the sub-continent have been largely dead. Or for example someone like Murali has played so much of his career in pretty much a dust-bowl at home and that helps his striking heavily, whereas in Australia Warne really only has one pitch where that situation is replicated. Also this analysis takes first innings as a big measure, whereas for a spinner it is less suited for them to take wickets in such occasions.

    These are all at the top of my head. A good try at it but failed pretty badly IMO to make such distinctions.
    Last edited by Ikki; 21-12-2008 at 01:03 AM.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. HJ Marshall
    By abu in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-11-2006, 08:48 PM
  2. Is it time for Malcolm Speed to go ?
    By JASON in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 26-08-2006, 11:45 PM
  3. the better bowler Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee
    By aussie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 214
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 04:09 AM
  4. Malcolm Nash
    By cricket player in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-06-2005, 08:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •